The Motives Behind the Phrase
Two main motives exist for why most people use the phrase "separation of church and state" today. The first is done for arguably selfish reasons, and the second is done simply because the person using it has believed a lie.
Reason #1: Wanting Rid of God
A number of people and organizations have embraced the phrase "separation of church and state" because it appears to support their position and beliefs. Their main desire is to get rid of God. They want Him out of our schools, out of our government, out of our public places, out of our entertainment, and quite simply out of our lives. Such people use the phrase, of course, because it makes it sound as if it is unConstitutional or illegal to have God or religion associated with our government at all. And, since our government is so closely intertwined in our lives, expunging God from the government effectually expunges Him from most people's lives. If God had no place in our government (as they argue), then He could easily be "removed" from nearly every aspect of our lives.
Reason #2: Desiring to Comply with the Laws
That "reason" might come across the wrong way, so it bears further explanation.
Some people use the phrase and promote its MIS-use because they have truly believed the lie that those who are
"Wanting Rid of God" (see above) have perpetuated. In reaction, since they feel it's unlawful to have God or religion associated with any aspect of our government, they speak out against those things. In a sense, they are only desiring to
comply with the laws--as this reason's title indicates--but in reality no such law exists. In fact, laws that are exactly CONTRARY to the spirit and idea of "separation of church and state" (as it is misused) exist, not the other way around.
Our Constitution and the "Establishment Clause"
The idea of "separation of church and state" actually does come from the Constitution, in a way... that is, in a sense. However, there are two problems that those who use the phrase today really have. The first is that the phrase doesn't occur anywhere in our Constitution. The second is that, although the phrase is related to the "establishment clause" found in the First Amendment to our Constitution, the spirit in which the phrase is used now is exactly contrary to what the "establishment clause" really says.
When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, one of their biggest concerns was to not force a State-sanctioned, sponored, or required religion upon anyone. Many in the New World had came to America in order to escape that exact problem. The logic behind this decision is worthy of many articles in and of itself, but we will not get into that here.
Even though our founding fathers did not want to impose a State-sponsored "Church" or religion on anyone, the vast majority of our founding fathers and statesmen believed in God and recognized Him as Creator of the world and mankind, and they respected His authority and power, even as the ultimate judge of the world. Undoubtedly, many of them knew what the Scriptures said (and of course still say) regarding God's undeniable relationship to countries, nations, and empowered government officials. Click here for more on that subject (forthcoming).
In writing our Constitution, our founding fathers found it absolutely necessary to protect the rights of the individual from government oppression. Thus, the "Bill of Rights" was added, along with the ability to amend the Constitution in the future if necessary. It is very interesting that these men--many of which who were involved with the Declaration of Independence in which the proper nouns "God" and "Creator" are specifically used--listed religion very first in its list of freedoms that should be protected for mankind. Click here to access the text of that document (forthcoming)
The First Amendment ("Establishment Clause")
Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution begins with what is commonly referred to as the "establishment clause."
The first part of Amendment I reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The establishment clause means what it says, and it says what it means.
But note that the establishment clause does NOT have the phrase "separation of church and state" anywhere in it.
What the Establishment Clause Says
The establishment clause says, first, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." That means that Congress, the highest lawmaking body of our nation, cannot make a law that would "establish" a particular religion as the official (or legal) religion of the land. In other words, Congress couldn't make a law requiring that everyone attend a Methodist church, Baptist church, Lutheran church, a mosque, or even any church that is a Protestant denomination for that matter--and Congress can't require you to profess belief in any religious book, doctrine, creed, ideas, or other such item. It also means that Congress can't make a law requiring you to believe in God or any other gods. And it also means that Congress can't make a law requiring that you participate in any religious activities--activities such as praying; taking communion; attending worship services; singing religious psalms, hymns, or spiritual songs; etc. And, furthermore, even if you choose on your own to do those sorts of activities, Congress can't even make a law telling you when or even HOW you are to do them. Obviously, there's a lot involved in the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." and that's a good thing!
What the First Amendment goes on to say is equally important. After saying, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," it says, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." So, not only is Congress not to make any law that would establish a State-religion, but Congress is ALSO not to make any laws that would prohibit the free exercise of religion.
And what does THAT mean? Simply, Congress can't make any laws that would prohibit or prevent anyone in this country from freely exercising whatever religion he or she chooses to follow. There are restrictions on this "right" or "freedom," however, as there are with any other such "right" or "freedom." For instance, my freedom of speech ends where yours begins, meaning I can't use my freedom of speech to hurt or in any way hinder yours. Just because I/you have a freedom of speech doesn't mean I/you can slander someone in my/your speech; actually, quite the contrary is true. The same goes with the freedom of religion. Therefore, if someone were practicing a religion that would require that person to steal, murder,
maim, threaten, or otherwise harm other people, the person practicing that religion is actually breaking other laws
AND imposing on other people's rights to have and practice their own varying and different religious beliefs.
Unfortunately, this second part of the establishment clause has been ignored, abused, neglected, or otherwise distorted
by various persons and groups in our society. Even our own lawmakers at various levels have chosen to make laws that "prohibit the free exercise" of different religious practices that in no way harm others or impose on their own "rights."
Click here for more information on that topic. (forthcoming)
What the Establishment Clause Doesn't Say
In trying to understand and apply the establishment clause, knowing what it does say is absolutely critical, of course.
But it is also extremely important that we recognize and understand what things the establishment clause DOESN'T say.
In relation to this discussion regarding the "separation of church and state," we must recognize that the establishment clause obviously DOES NOT say that our government should have absolutely no dealings with or interaction with religion.
And, again, it is absolutely critical that we know and understand that the phrase "separation of church and state"
does not occur anywhere in the Constitution, not even within the establishment clause.
If it's not there, it's NOT a part of our Constitution, plain and simple.
Other than those restrictions we discussed above, the establishment clause doesn't even say that our government--including our government officials and the agencies of the government--should be extremely careful how or to what extent it has dealings with religion. The ONLY restriction that the Constitution puts between religion and government is that Congress can't make any law establishing a religion (such as a state-sponsored or approved religion) or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Where "Separation of Church and State" Originated
The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter. We've already noted that it's not contained in the Constitution as such. But the phrase "separation of church and state" didn't even come from a law,
nor did it come from any religious text or group. It simply came from a letter.
The problem people have had, though, is that this phrase didn't derive from just any letter. It is derived from a phrase
that President Thomas Jefferson used in his January 1, 1803 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
In it, one of the things Jefferson wrote was (with bolds added by me for emphasis):
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 & State.
As significant as Thomas Jefferson is and was to our nation--and as significant a role he played in drafting the Constitution--these words are merely Jefferson's own personal attempt at interpreting the fact that Congress can "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association is not a binding legal document, and it's certainly not a part of the Constitution!
But some argue that Jefferson's letter explains the "spirit" of those words in our Constitution,
so we must them apply Jefferson's "interpretation" of those words to our own understanding of the First Amendment.
At least two distinct problems undermine that reasoning, however.
Problem #1: Interpreting Jefferson's Interpretation
Jefferson's phrase "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" actually is not 100% clear
if one truly looks at it in context. Many people, I would contend, have distorted Jefferson's true meaning and intent
in using this phrase if we truly look at it in context. And there are several specific, reasonable contexts in which
the phrase can be examined, the most notable perhaps being these three:
Context #1: The Letter Itself
The first context we can examine this letter in is simply the text (or content) of the letter itself. A transcript of the entire text of the letter can be found by clicking here. In the letter, Jefferson clearly acknowledges and affirms his belief in the existence and the dominion of God. In that regard, Jefferson comments 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..." When considering that statement along with the actual wording of the First Amendment, Jefferson is obviously arguing that our government can't force a particular religious creed, belief, or doctrine on any of our people. As Jefferson said, that is a "matter which lies solely between Man & his God." And Jefferson goes on to allude to the fact that Man will ultimately give "account" to God for his actions and beliefs. In closing his letter, Jefferson also states that he himself reciprocates the Danbury Baptists' "prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man," again acknowledging his belief in the presence of God and His importance to our nation.
Context #2: The Motives Behind the Letter
Apparently, by the end of 1802, President Thomas Jefferson had developed a reputation as an atheist, a label that wasn't necessarily accurate but nonetheless extensively used against him. Jefferson did not believe it was his role as President
(the Executive) to proclaim special days of thanksgiving and prayer, even though his predecessors in the office had done so.
For a more detailed description of Jefferson's reputation and political struggles when it came to the topic of religion,
I encourage you to click here to read a fine article about that on the Library of Congress' website.
In writing his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Jefferson--some would argue--had an agenda. The issue was personal for Jefferson, in a way, and the original drafts of his letter to the Danbury Baptists gives great insight into his intentions behind the letter and its phraseology--even with regard to his saying there was a "wall of separation between Church & State."
Context #3: Jefferson's Other Statements Relating Relgion to Government
Contrary to popular belief at the time, Jefferson was clearly not an atheist. We've already pointed out his own personal acknowledgement of God in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, and the above cited article indicates that he attended
worship services regularly following his writing of the letter to the Danbury Baptists. But it goes even deeper than that. Consider, for instance, the words of Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, made on March 4, 1801.
In it, he indicated that the people of this nation had been:
enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced
in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance,
gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling
Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the
happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter.
Jefferson goes on to call these things--along with other things he had mentioned earlier--as "blessings" which would
serve to "make us a happy and prosperous people." Are these things not religious? They clearly are, and Jefferson
directly relates them to this nation and its governing, even by the individual.
Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address contains further insights into how Jefferson himself chose to deal with religion, including how Jefferson viewed and understood the relationship between government and religion. At one point in his address, he said:
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed
by the constitution independent of the powers of the general government.
I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises
suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them,
under the direction and discipline of state or church authorities
acknowledged by the several religious societies.
Some today would argue that Jefferson is there saying that government should have nothing to do with religion. Such people need to carefully re-read his statement, because that is obviously NOT what he is saying. Please allow me to explain: In the first sentence of that statement, Jefferson basically reiterates that the free exercise of religion is something that the government cannot restrict--just as the establishment clause itself clearly says. In the second sentence, Jefferson starts out by saying that he has not found it his place to prescribe religious activities to the people of this nation.
Interestingly enough, Jefferson goes on to say at the end of that section (in the second sentence) that the states (that is, state governments) and churches have the authority to prescribe relgious exercises. That is certainly not what people who say there should be absolutely no relationship between the government and religion would want you to hear.
There are more evidences clarifying Jefferson's views on the relationship between the government and religion. For instance, Jefferson closes his Second Inaugural Address (delivered on March 4, 1805) by making an obvious allusion to his and the nation's (including the nation's government's) need for divine guidance. He concludes (with bolds added by me for emphasis):
I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are,
who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land,
and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life;
who has covered our infancy with his providence, and our riper years with his wisdom
and power; and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications, that
he will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils,
and prosper their measures, that whatsoever they do, shall result in your good,
and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.
I find it very interesting that Jefferson particularly mentions Israel, which clarifies for us exactly who the "Being" he refers to really is--the God of heaven, the God of Christianity. It is also interesting to note that Jefferson--while addressing his constituents, the American public--specifically wants God to "enlighten the minds of your servants" (in other words, the government officials, the legislators) and Jefferson also wants God to guide those government officials and legislators in their "councils," obviously referring to their decisions which would affect the public and the nation, undoubtedly including the laws that they pass.
Problem #2: The Bottom Line of the Situation
Remember, our question now is whether or not Jefferson's saying there is a "wall of separation between church and state" is binding. We have seen in the section above that the popular interpretation of those words--being that there should be absolutely no relationship between church and state--is not at all what Jefferson meant by the phrase. That's a significant argument, indeed; otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered to research it so much and let you know about it here. But, again, there is a second problem with people saying that we should use Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists to interpret what the Constitution says in the First Amendment.
The bottom line of the situation is that Jefferson's letter in reality does not hold any clout when it comes to dealing with the establishment clause. It was his own personal interpretation of it as of January 1, 1803--but, again, as we indicated above, we're not 100% sure exactly what he meant by the phrase he used that started this whole mess! In short, the Constitution nowhere uses the phrase "separation of church and state" so we therefore cannot apply that interpretation--whether misrepresented, misunderstood, flawed, or otherwise--to the First Amendment.
Complicating Matters...
NOTE: I hope to be adding more to this section in the near future, Lord willing!
So please check back soon! Thanks!!!
