Ever wonder where the phrase "Separation of Church and State" came from? Don't look in the Declaration of Independence. It's not there. Don't look in the Constitution. It's not there. Don't look in the Bill of Rights. It's not there. Here's an excerpt from a talk by David Barton explaining it's origination. Enjoy the history lesson and please, read the rest of this short essay, "America's Godly Heritage" available here.
The First Amendment never intended to separate Christian principles from government. Yet today, we so often hear the First Amendment coupled with the phrase "separation of church and state." The First Amendment simply states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
While most recognized the phrase "separation of church and state," few know its source; but it is important to understand the origins of that phrase. What is the history of the First Amendment?
The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent of the Founders abundantly clear; for before they approved the final wording, the First Amendment went through nearly a dozen different iterations and extensive discussions.
Those discussions - recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789 - make it clear their intent for the First Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don't want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God's principles, but we don't want one denomination running the nation."
This intent was well understood, as evidenced by court rulings after the First Amendment. For example, a 1799 court declared:
"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing.[1]"
Again, note the emphasis: "We do want Christian principles - we do want God's principles - but we don't want one denomination to run the nation."
Thomas Jefferson, to whom the now popular phrase "Separation of Church and State," is attributed, also believed, as did the other Founders, that the First Amendment simply prevented the Federal establishment of a single denomination - a fact he had made clear in a letter to Benjamin Rush. In that letter, Jefferson committed himself as President to not allowing the Episcopalians, the Congregationalists, or any other denomination, to achieve what Jefferson called the "establishment of a particular form of Christianity." So what is the source of Jefferson's now infamous phrase?
On November 7, 1801, the Baptists of Danbury Conneticut wrote Jefferson, concerned that the guarantee of the "free exercise of religion" appeared in the First Amendment. To them, this suggested that the right to religious exercise was a government-granted rather than a God-granted right, thus implying that someday the governement might try to regulate religious expression. They believed that freedom of religion was a God-granted, unalienable right, and that the government should be powerless to restrict religious activities unless, as the Baptists explained, those activities caused someone to "work ill to his neighbor."[20]
Jefferson understood their concern. In his response he assured them that the free exercise of religion was indeed an unalienable right and would not be meddled with by the government. Jefferson pointed out to them that there was a "wall of separation between church and state" to insure that the government would never interfere with religious activities. [21]
Today all we hear of Jefferson's letter is the phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state" without either the context, or the explanation given in the letter, or its application by earlier courts. Up until 1947, the clear understanding of the First Amendment for a century-and-a-half was that it prohibited the establishment of a single national denomination. National policies and rulings in that century-and-a-half always reflected that interpretation.
For example, in 1853, a group petitioned Congress to separate Christian principles from government. They desired a so-called "separation of church and state" with chaplains being turned out of the congress, the military, etc. Their petition was referred to the House and the Senate Judiciary Committees, which investigated for almost a year to see if it would be possible to separate Christian principles from government.
Both the house and the Senate Judiciary Committees returned with their reports. The following are excerpts from the House report delivered on March 27, 1854 (the Senate report was very similar):
"Had the people [the Founding Fathers], during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one sect [denomination]...In this age, there is no substitute for Christianity...That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants."[22]
Two months later, the Judiciary Committee made this strong declaration:
"The great, vital, and conservative element in our system [the thing that holds our system together] is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."[23]
The Committees explained that they would not separate these principles and activities which had made us so successful - they had been our foundation, our basis.
During the 1870s, 1880s, 1890s, yet another group which challenged specific Christian principles in government arrived before the Supreme Court. Jefferson's letter had remained unused for years, for as time had progressed after its use in 1802 - and after no national denomination had been established - his letter had fallen into obscurity. But now - seventy-five years later - in the case Reynolds v. United States [24], the plaintiffs resurrected Jefferson's letter, hoping to use it to their advantage.
In that case, the Court printed a lengthy segment of Jefferson's letter and then used his letter on "separation of church and state" to again prove that it was permissible to maintain Christian values, principles, and practices in official policy. For the next 15 years during that legal controversy, the Supreme Court utilized Jefferson's letter to ensure that Christian principles remained a part of government.
Following this controversy, Jefferson's letter again fell into disuse. It then remained silent for the next 70 years until 1947, when, in Everson v. Board of Education [25], the Court, for the first time, did not cite Jefferson's entire letter, but selected only eight words from it. The Court now announced:
"The First Amendment has erected "A wall of separation between church and state." That wall must be kept high and impregnable." [26]
This was the new philosophy for the Court. Why would the Court take Jefferson's letter completely out of context and cite only eight of its words? Dr. William James, the Father of Modern Psychology - and a strong opponent of religious principles in government and education - perhaps explained the Court's new strategy when he stated:
"There is nothing so absurd but if you repeat it often enough people will believe it"
This statement precisely describes the tact utilized by the Court in the years following its 1947 announcement. The Court began regularly to speak of a "separation of church and state," broadly explaining that, "This is what the Founders wanted - separation of church and state. This is the great intent." The Court failed to quote the Founders; it just generically asserted that this is what the Founders wanted.
The courts continued on this track so steadily that, in 198, in a case called Baer v. Kolmorgen [27] one of the judges was tired of hearing the phrase and wrote a dissent warning that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of church and state," people were going to thinking it was part of the Constitution. [28] That warning was in 1958!
Nevertheless, the Court continued to talk about separation until June 25th, 1962, when, in the case Engel v. Vitale, [29] the Court delivered its first ever ruling which completely separated Christian principles from eduction; the case struck down school prayer. Even the World Book Encyclopedia's 1963 Yearbook noted that this case was the first time there had been a separation of church and state in eduction. [30]
In that 1962 case, the Court redefined the meaning and application of a single word: the word "church." For 170 years prior to that case, the word, "church" - as used in the phrase "separation of church and state" - was defined to mean "a federally established denomination." However, in 1962, the Court explained that the word "church would now mean "a religious activity in public." This was the turning point in the interpretation of the First Amendment.
Understand what the Court had just announced: no longer would the First Amendment simply prohibit the establishment of a federal denomination, it now would prohibit religious activities in public settings. This current doctrine of separation is a brand new doctrine; it is not something from the Founding Fathers, and it is not in any founding document. Even outside observers recognize that this policy is a recent one. yet, notice how much has been relinquished in recent years under this new doctrine.
School prayer was the first casualty of the redefinition of the First Amendment in the 1962 Engel case. School prayer had never before been challenged; for, clearly, school prayer had never established a national denomination and therefore had always been acceptable. But under the new definition, school prayer definitely was a religious activity in public and was therefore now deemed to be unconstitutional.
That 1962 case which first redefined the First Amendment and then removed school prayer was notible in a number of aspects. Recall that the 1892 Supreme Court case offered 87 percidents to maintain the includsion of Christian principles in our laws and institutions. This 1962 case which removed school prayer was just the opposite; it quoted "zero" previous legal cases. Without any historical or legal base, the Court simply made an announcement: "We'll not have prayer in schools anymore; that violates the Constitution." A brand new direction was taken.
Within a 12-month period of time, in two more cases in 1963, [31] the Court had not only removed prayer but also Bible reading, religious classes, and religious instruction; this was a radical reversal.
...
Posts
3 comments:
In English "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Christianity, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" or "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Islam, or prohibiting the free exercise ... Read morethereof" or even "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of the Shiny Unicorn, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
It means that RELIGION, and that includes CHRISTIANITY would neither be prevented or placed on high by the law. This should make you feel grateful that the Great AntiChrist or the Giant Hatted Oompa Loopa will not be allowed to condemn Christianity, wipe it from the United States of America and force you to follow Sharia, or The Shiny Unicorn Kooky law.
So that means, no religion is state sponsored because you should leave God to the Holy Men (or Women whatever you wish), and leave Law to the Lawmakers. It prevents co-mingling and prevents from anyone on the "Other Team" from using their religion to bludgeon you to death.
A wise Man once said "Render onto God what is God's and render on to Cesar's what is Cesar's." Of course he also said "It is easier for a camel to go through the head of a needle than for a rich man to get to Heaven." I don't know if you use the Cliff Notes for that Book or not.
P.S. Have you actually READ the Jefferson Bible? The man was a Deist. Franklin was a Quaker.
Mockie, did you even read the post? There's no argument of what the First Amendment says. At the time, it was put in place to prevent a state sponsored denomination, however it holds for all religions and faiths as well. No argument there.
What I'd like to hear you speak on, when you have time, is how Jesus' response to the paying of taxes applies to the separation of church and state. I'd argue that the passage is a good lesson on the duty of Christians to respect authority. It's a good lead in to the Godly (not religious) heritage of our nation.
Since we're cross-posting here, let me reiterate that Barton does not give mention or precedence to any religion. His points were 1. that the vast majority of the Founders (52 of 59) were Christians. 2. The values of Christianity - specifically the New Testament - run through the original documents. 3. Since the 1962 Supreme Court decision to federally remove prayer from schools, all major indicators of ethics and morals for a nation have dramatically increased for the worse.
The phrase “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. The absence of the phrase in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression the words appeared there and later learned of their mistake. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
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 played but a small part in the Court's decisions. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, Madison influenced the Court's view. Madison confirmed that he understood the Constitution 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 politicians sometimes led 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."
Apart from Madison's commentary, the legislative history of the First Amendment belies the narrow scope you would give it. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (actually several) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. As reflected in his Detached Memoranda, Madison certainly did not read the Amendment as you suggest. In keeping with the Amendment's terms, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude Congress from enacting a statute formally establishing a national church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by Congress and/or the Executive doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion--stopping just short of formally establishing a church.
The 1854 resolution of Congress is but political rhetoric--rhetoric, indeed, contrary to the principles of the Constitution. It poses a false dichotomy and then shamelessly panders to Christian constituents. Contrary to the resolution's supposition, the principle of separation of church and state does not call for spreading atheism.
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.
Post a Comment