|
The Truth About
”Separation of Church and State”
Almost all Americans have heard the phrase
“separation of church and state.” It has been used as something of a club to
‘beat down’ and eliminate Christianity from public places, including symbols
(like crosses), Bible reading and prayer in public schools, and the teaching
of creation in science classes.
Now, where does the phrase “separation of
church and state” come from? It is not a part of the original U.S.
Constitution of 1787, as most people falsely believe, or in any of its
amendments. In reality, the idea of a “wall of separation” between church and
state came from a private letter from President Thomas Jefferson, and it has
sadly been misused to slowly, but surely, eliminate Christianity from the
public sector—and replace it with an anti-God religion.
The Establishment Clause in the First
Amendment was intended to protect the church from the (federal) government, not the
government from the church. Therefore, no “national” church or religion is allowed to be
established by the federal government.
The actual text of the U.S. Constitution’s First
Amendment:
“Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of
religion, or
prohibiting
the free exercise thereof.”
You can see that the “separation of church and state” phrase
is nowhere in the Amendment (or the rest of the Constitution). The 1802
letter from Jefferson was sent to the Danbury Baptist Association in
Connecticut in response to the group’s letter to him. Jefferson was
trying to assure the Baptists that the federal government would never be
permitted to interfere with the church.
In fact, in his
letter, Jefferson states:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith
or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only,
and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the
whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
Far from
banishing religious expression from the public sphere, the authors of the U.S
Constitution intended the First Amendment to ensure that religious believers and
institutions could freely engage in politics, policy-making, and helping form
the public’s moral consensus. In fact, the American Founders considered
religious engagement in shaping the public morality essential to ordered
liberty and the success of their experiment in self-government.
From Why
Does Religious Freedom Matter?:
Freedom of
religion is a cornerstone of the American experiment. That is because
religious faith is not merely a matter of “toleration” but is understood to
be the exercise of “inherent natural rights.” As George Washington once observed:
“[T]he Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction,
to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its
protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all
occasions their effectual support.” And “what is here a right towards men, is
a duty towards the Creator,” James Madison wrote in his 1786 Memorial and
Remonstrance. “This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of
obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.”
The model of
religious liberty brilliantly designed by Madison and the other American
Founders is central to the success of the American experiment. It is
essential to America’s continued pursuit of the ideals stated in the
Declaration of Independence, the ordered liberty embodied in the
Constitution, and peace and stability around the world.
A Fun Fact to Know and Tell
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a footnote to the 1961
decision of Torcaso v. Watkins, stated that different ideological
systems – including secular humanism could be defined as religion. Yet secular
humanism claims to be “pure" of religion and morality.
Duped
Sadly,
most Americans (Christians included) have been duped into believing that the
so-called “separation of church and state” requires eliminating the Christian
God and creating a neutral situation. But there is no such position as
neutrality. Indeed, one is either for Christ or against Him (Matthew 12:30)!
The
religion of naturalism (atheism) has been imposed on the public education
system, and on the culture as a whole. For instance, science textbooks in the
public schools now typically define science as naturalism (atheism):
“Science requires repeatable observations and testable
hypotheses. These standards restrict science to a search for natural causes
for natural phenomena. …Supernatural explanation of natural events are simply
outside the bounds of science.”
-Neil A. Campbell, Brad Williamson, and Robin J. Heyden,
Biology: Exploring Life, Florida Teacher’s Edition (Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006), p. 38.
In
keeping with this pronouncement, these books teach molecules-to-man
evolution, based only on unproven natural processes, as fact. In
other words, they have eliminated the supernatural and replaced it with
naturalism. In reality, they have eliminated the Christian worldview and
replaced it with a secular, atheistic one.
Furthermore,
by their own definition of ‘science,’ “Science
requires repeatable observations and testable hypotheses,” molecules-to-man
evolution fails to be science. Molecules-to-man evolution has never been
successfully repeated or tested. In fact, molecules-to-man evolution
contradicts the proven repeatable observations and testable universal law of
science known as decreasing complexity,
or entropy.
Sadly,
because many Christians have falsely believed that there can be a neutral
position, and have also been duped regarding the so-called “separation of
church and state,” they are not prepared to boldly and unashamedly stand on
the Word of God as they confront issues like abortion, racism, so-called “gay” marriage, etc. By
shrinking back, believers have allowed the secularists to impose their
anti-God atheistic religion on the public schools—and the culture as a whole.
Origin
The phrase “separation of church and
state” comes especially from the 1500s, and was a product of the Reformation
in Europe.
In the fourth century A.D., the
government took control of the church and began to establish specific
doctrinal tenets by law, making the church an official organ of government
and using coercion and brutal penalties against those who did not submit to
government-established theology. That abhorrent practice predominated until
some religious leaders began to oppose it in the 1300s. Eventually, over a
span of two-and-a-half centuries, numerous individuals in different nations
across Europe raised their voice against the government union of church and
state. After all, God Himself had separated the two institutions, placing
Moses over civil affairs and Aaron over spiritual ones; and when King Uzziah
tried to combine the two functions in 2
Chronicles 26, God Himself struck him down, thus reaffirming the institutional
separation He had established. (Those European leaders and their followers
who objected to many of the unBiblical operations of both the state and the
state-established and state-run church became known as “Dissenters”.)
The first recorded usage of the
separation phrase occurred during the reign of King Henry VIII
of England. Henry had sought a divorce, but when the church rightly denied
it, Henry established his own government-run church and awarded himself the
divorce. The Parliament also passed laws decreeing who could and could not
participate in the Lord’s Supper and other sacraments, even deciding who
could and could not preach the Gospel. The Rev. Richard Hooker
objected, and is credited with being the first to use the separation phrase,
demanding that the government stay out of what was rightly the church’s
jurisdiction.
Since those who came to America
afterwards were largely Dissenters and generally held the same view as their
Dissenting leaders in Europe, the separation phrase was widely used in
America for the next century-and-a-half, especially in objecting to British
attempts to establish official theology or British-run churches in America.
The most frequently referenced
American source for the contemporary usage of the separation phrase today is
an 1802 letter
written by President Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists of Danbury,
Connecticut, in which he assured them that because of “the wall of separation
between church and state” the government would not interfere with or inhibit
their religious practices or expressions, whether occurring in private or
public. But in 1947,
the Supreme Court reversed the traditional use of this phrase, for the first
time allowing the government to interfere with and even prohibit religious
practices and expressions, especially when occurring in public – a complete
reversal of the historic meaning of the phrase and its usage both by
Jefferson and those in previous centuries. Consequently, the modern
application of this phase bears nearly no resemblance to either its
historical or Biblical origins.
For information and sources for this
issue, see the following resources:
An excerpt from “The Truth About Thomas Jefferson & the
First Amendment”
by David
Barton www.wallbuilders.com
“Separation of church and state" ‑ most are surprised to
discover that neither the U.S. Constitution nor the First Amendment contain
these words. The First Amendment simply states:
"Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof."
The fact that the phrase "separation of church and state"
appears in no founding document does
not prevent many judicial and social activists from invoking that phrase as
the basis for many public policy decisions. Today, Thomas Jefferson (author
of that phrase) is portrayed as the authority
on the First Amendment:
"This Court has
previously recognized that the provisions of the First Amendment, in the
drafting and adoption of which ... Jefferson
played such [a] leading role... " (Everson v. Board of Education, 1947) "Thomas Jefferson ... a moving force behind the creation of
the Bill of Rights . . . " (Legal brief submitted by "Americans
United for the Separation of Church and State," 1992)
This heavy reliance on Jefferson is a new and recent phenomenon;
Jefferson was rarely cited by previous Courts ‑ for reasons given by
Jefferson himself. In 1802, Dr. Joseph Priestley sent Jefferson
a copy of an article he had written crediting Jefferson with much of the
thought and work of the Constitution. Jefferson knew this was erroneous; on
June 19, 1802, he wrote Dr. Priestley, instructing
him to correct that error:
"One passage in the
paper you enclosed me must be corrected. It is the following, 'And all say it
was yourself more than any other individual, that planned and established
it,' i. e., the Constitution. I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned,
and never saw it till after it was established."
Jefferson was an ambassador in France when the Constitution was
framed. He was not part of the Constitutional
Convention; and due to the slow communication, the transmission of even a
single suggestion from him to the American convention would have required
weeks. Jefferson rightly disqualified himself.
Further, Jefferson is not an exclusive authority on the First
Amendment. As a strong Anti‑Federalist, he did want the Bill of Rights
(the first ten Amendments to the Constitution); but, as he explained, he gave
only vague directions concerning it:
"On receiving it [the
Constitution while in France] I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the
want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by
jury, habeas corpus, the substitution of militia for a standing army, and an
express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to
the Union. ...This is all the hand I had in what related to the
Constitution."
A single letter from overseas broadly calling for a Bill of Rights
was "all the hand [he] had in what related to the Constitution."
Jefferson not only disqualified himself as a Constitutional authority, he
rightly disqualified himself as an authority on the drafted and ratified Bill
of Rights.
Jefferson, an attorney, understood a legal truth: since he was not
present when the Constitution or First Amendment was formed, what he offered
after the fact was only "hearsay," which courts do not allow when
seeking truth:
·
"Hearsay." A term applied to ... testimony given by a
witness who relates, not what he knows personally, but what others have told
him, or what he has heard said by others.... The very nature of [this]
evidence shows its weakness, and, as such, hearsay evidence is generally
inadmissible. -Black's Law Dictionary
·
"Hearsay.". . . is inadmissible because the statements thus
made are not subjected to the ordinary tests required by law. -Ballentine's
Law Dictionary
·
"Hearsay." Hearsay reports of a transaction, whether oral
or written, are not admissible as evidence.
-Bouvier's Law Dictionary
By legal definition, Jefferson's view is "not admissible as
evidence." When establishing intent, it is important to produce
admissible evidence ‑ evidence from those who actually were there.
The now popular Jefferson metaphor "separation of church and
state" first appeared in a letter written by him on January 1, 1802.
Jefferson's letter was not a public policy paper; it was both personal and
private. If private letters are now to form the basis of national policy,
then it is important to publish all of the letter and thus provide its
context.
When earlier Supreme Courts did publish most of Jefferson's letter
rather than only eight words from it ("a wall of separation between
church and state"), they arrived at conclusions very different from
those reached by current Courts. Notice this usage of Jefferson's letter by
an earlier U. S. Supreme Court:
"[A]t the first
session of the first Congress, [the First] amendment ... met the views of the
advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in
reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association
(8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a
matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to
none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the
government reach actions only, and not opinions, ‑ I contemplate with
sovereign reference that act of the whole American people which declared that
their legislature should "make no law respecting
an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"
thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this
expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of
conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those
sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he
has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does
from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be
accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of
the amendment thus secured. Congress
was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was
left free to reach [only those religious] actions which were in violation of
social duties or subversive of good order." (Reynolds v. United States, 1878)
That Court then summarized Jefferson's meaning of "separation of
church and state":
"[T]he rightful
purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere [only] when
[religious] principles break out into overt acts against peace and good
order. In th[is] ... is found the true distinction between what properly
belongs to the church and what to the State."
According to Jefferson and the Court, the government could interfere
with religion only when its actions were "subversive of good order"
or "broke out into overt acts against peace and good order."
That Court (and others, for example Commonwealth v. Nesbit, 1859) identified
those actions into which ‑ if perpetrated in the name of religion ‑
the government had legitimate reason to intrude: human sacrifice, polygamy,
bigamy, concubinage, incest, injury to children, advocation and promotion of
immorality, etc. In ortbodox religious practices ‑ whether
public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, etc. ‑ the government was not
to interfere. If Jefferson's letter is to be used, let its content be clearly
given ‑ as in previous years.
Furthermore, while neither the context of Jefferson's letter nor his
public practices show him to be against religious practices in public, it is
still important to note that Jefferson's views on religion were not
representative of the majority of the Founding Fathers ‑ a fact made
clear when he drafted the Declaration of Independence.
In his original draft, Jefferson acknowledged God only once: "the laws of nature and of nature's God." However, the committee to which the
Declaration was assigned added an additional reference to God: "they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." The full Congress then
added yet two more references to God: "appealing to the Supreme Judge
of the World, for the rectitude of our intentions" and "with a firm
reliance on the protection of divine Providence."
Although the final version of the Declaration of Independence
differed little from Jefferson's original draft, three of the changes
centered on God. Jefferson had acknowledged God only once; the other Founders
wanted more and therefore added three additional references to God.
Even though Jefferson's religious views did not represent the views
of the majority of the other Founders, and even though his phrase
"separation of church and state" was written eleven years after the First Amendment was
ratified, and even though Jefferson was not one of the fifty‑five
participants at the Constitutional Convention or one of the ninety
Congressmen who framed the First Amendment, today he has been made the sole
spokesman and prime authority for the First Amendment's intent.
While Jefferson cannot be considered "best evidence" on the
Constitution or Bill of Rights, there are many Founders who do meet the legal
requirements and who are legitimate spokesmen for those
documents.
For example, if George Washington should talk of "a separation
of church and state," we should listen; for he was the president of the
convention which framed the Constitution and the President of the United
States who called for and oversaw the formation of the Bill of Rights. Yet
Washington never uses that phrase; on the contrary, in his Farewell Address
he advocates the inclusion of religious principles throughout national and
governmental policies:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to
political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In
vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to
subvert these great pillars.... The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and cherish them.... Let it simply be asked, ‘Where is the
security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious
obligation desert?’ . . . And let us with caution indulge the supposition
that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to
the influence of refined education on minds ... reason and experience both
forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of
religious principle."
Although this policy statement came from a man who helped frame both
the Constitution and the First Amendment, today his position is ignored.
If Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania should say anything of "a
separation of church and state," we should listen; for not only was he
the most active member of the Constitutional Convention (speaking 173 times
on the floor of the Convention), he is the man who physically wrote the
Constitution. As its penman, Gouverneur Morris took all the diverse ideas
from the Convention floor and formed them into the language now appearing in
that document; certainly he would know its intent. Yet Morris never uses that
phrase. On the contrary, in his writings he states that religious principles
are the basis of morality (and thus the foundation of the nation) and must be
included in education:
"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals;
therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of
man towards God."
Despite his prominent role and significant contributions at the
Constitutional Convention, his views are now rejected in preference to
Jefferson's statement—rejecting the statements of one who was there in
preference for one who was not.
If Fisher Ames of Massachusetts should say anything of "a
separation of church and state," we should listen; for it was he who -
on September 20, 1789 - provided the wording for the First Amendment passed
by the House of Representatives. Since Fisher Ames gave the First Amendment
its wording, he certainly would know its intent. Yet Ames never uses that
phrase. On the contrary, he called for the Bible always to remain the primary
textbook in America's classrooms:
"Why ... should not the Bible regain the place it once
held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and
noble. The reverence for the sacred book that is thus early impressed lasts
long, and, probably, if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of
the mind."
It cannot be realistically argued that there is anyone who knows the
intent of the First Amendment better than Fisher Ames. Yet today, not even he
is a sufficient authority to override a statement made by someone who was not
there. Those who pursue the current application of "separation of church
and state" rarely quote those directly involved in the framing of the
Constitution or the First Amendment to support their arguments. The Congressional
Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, contain the complete
discussions of the Founding Fathers surrounding their formation of the First
Amendment. Not only do both the Constitution and the First Amendment lack the
phrase "separation of church and state," even the official
discussions surrounding their creation lack its use.
We believe it is time to recognize the historical truths concerning
Jefferson's role with the Constitution and the First Amendment. While
Jefferson is a great Founding Father and a true patriot and American, he is not a primary authority on the First Amendment. Reestablish truth:
quote the Founding Fathers who were part of the Constitutional process ‑
the overwhelming majority of whom advocated the joining of religious
principles to public affairs.
We strongly encourage you to obtain the complete
(pocketsize) copy of this document (The Truth About Thomas Jefferson &
the First Amendment) by David Barton. Visit www.wallbuilders.com or call
toll-free 1-800-873-2845.
See U.S. historical
documents that have their base in Christianity
Understand Our Need for Govern-ment and its Real Nature
See Are We Causing Global Warming?
Pray For President Obama
Understand Islam
Enjoy a simple explanation of the
different systems of government throughout the world and the different
economic principles underlying each type of government — illuminating the
unique virtues of the U.S.A.
See Israel
Link
to God's Plan for Mankind
|