The Separation Of Church and State For Dummies
December 15, 2009 · carl · Print This Article
Once again, it’s that time of year when liberals raise a ruckus over any type of Christmas display in or around a taxpayer-funded building, such as a courthouse or a public school, claiming such a display violates the Constitutional provision regarding the separation of church and state.
It’s ironic how liberals only cite the Constitution when they feel that they can use it to promote their anti-Christian agenda.
And in the spirit of the season of Good Will Towards Men, we feel it is our duty to clear things up for them so that they stop making fools of themselves.
Let’s start at the beginning. The First Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now to most rational people that seems pretty straightforward.
No law respecting any establishment of religion is a reference to the fact that many of the earliest settlers of this continent came here to escape the religious persecution that was commonplace in most of Europe.
This oppression was the result of the Church of England, the Anglican Church, becoming the official government church, and non-conformists were not looked upon kindly.
…or prohibiting the free exercise therof…
How blinded by ideology does someone have to be to try and twist the fact that the First Amendment clearly states that the government will make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religious beliefs?
Or to totally ignore the fact that the phrase “separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the Constitution?
The correct wording, wall of separation between church and state, is taken from a letter President Thomas Jefferson wrote in reply to a message form the Danbury Baptist Association, which at the time was a religious minority in Connecticut.
The leaders of the congregation sent the following to Jefferson:
“Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.”
However, they ended the letter with the fact that they were apprehensive about the principles behind the First Amendment guarantee for “the free exercise of religion.”
“Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.”
Their concern was that, according to the way that they read the wording of the Constitution, the right of religious expression was government given, rather than God given, and that a time might come when the government might someday attempt to limit religious expression.
Sound familar?
Seeking to address those concerns, here was Jefferson’s reply:
“Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . 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 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. 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 to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.”
Jefferson’s use of the words “natural rights” affirmed his belief that religious rights were inalienable rights.
To sum up, the Constitution clearly states that Congress will not establish a religion, or hinder someone’s religious beliefs.
Why is this so hard for liberals to understand?
A manger scene in the town square is no more a violation of the Constitution, or of the government establishing a religion, than is a Menorah on a courthouse lawn, or a Kinara placed in the halls of Congress.
And if that were the case, didn’t White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel violate the Constitution and step over the wall of separation between church and state when he lit the National Menorah on Sunday?
Did you like this? If so, please bookmark it,
I love it. I am always astounded at how enlightened the founders where. You’d think, today, with unlimited amounts of information available to us, we would be wiser, but we are just not.
“Separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause of the Constitution. While some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decisions as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, that letter has played but a small part in the Court’s decisions. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that old habits die hard and that tendencies of citizens and politicians could and sometimes did lead them to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
When discussing separation of church and state, it is critical to avoid the common mistake of conflating the “public square” with “government.” The principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion.
As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to transform our secular government into some form of religion-government partnership should be resisted by every patriot.
I am concerned that “hate crime” laws will infringe on my freedom of religion. I spoke to a Canadian who told me that to give Christian advise to a repentant gay person is a hate crime there. Someone in Minnesota, USA has also been prosecuted for the same thing.
I absolutely agree on resisting those who want a religion-government partnership. There are certain church groups in the US who are intent on that. It will only hurt the reestablishment of our republic for those groups to pursue that aim. They are inviting the worst hatred and scorn from even the “centrists” here.