Separation of Church and State

The Misunderstood “Radical” Right – Separation of Church and State

5th in the Series

By Cindy Peak

The phrase “separation of church and state” was first used in relation to the United States by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association (found here:  http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html).  In that letter, Jefferson thanked the group for their prayers for him and assured the men and their group of his “high respect & esteem.”

The sentence which captures attention so often is this one:  "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, & 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 & State.”

It is important to note that although Jefferson quoted the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is found the phrase “separation of church and state.” 

Some today have taken this statement to an extreme (and I might add in my view, unsupportable) position of driving any mention of God out of our public square, but this was never the intention, as evident by the many references to God by our Founders in the formation of our nation.  The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution restricts the Federal Government by stating it can “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”; it in no way puts restrictions upon its citizens from practicing their religion wherever they choose – even the public square.  Neither does it say that the Federal Government is to never acknowledge the existence of God nor give any reference to Him.  There is a difference between God and religion.  The 1st
Amendment addresses the latter.  Let us look at this within the context of history.

The Colonies, British Rule and Religion

Religious persecution was the reason that many started and came to the colonies in America.  (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html) People fled persecution and desired to worship as they believed, not being dictated to by the King of England, the Catholic Church, or anyone else for that matter.  Whether Catholic, Anglican, Quaker, or Puritan, each group sought a land where they could be free to worship as they chose.  This freedom of religion theme greatly influenced the Founding Fathers as they began to design the new government which was to become the United States of America.

Founding Fathers and God in their Government

Contrary to what the rewriters of history want us to believe today, religion was important to the Founding Fathers.  To a man, the signers of the Declaration of Independence affiliated themselves with a church:  32 Episcopalian/Anglican, 13 Congregationalists, 12 Presbyterian, 2 Quaker, 2 Unitarian/Universalists, and 1 Catholic for a total of 57 men.  (http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html#Declaration)

God is mentioned four times in the Declaration of Independence and is called by four different names:  Nature’s God, Creator, the Supreme Judge of the World,  and Divine Providence.  http://diamondrn.hubpages.com/hub/God-is-mentioned-four-times-in-the-Declaration-of-Independence 

God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but the framers of the Constitution insured the free practice of worship through the Bill of Rights in the 1st Amendment, which states:

Amendment I

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.  (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)

There are two parts to the clause dealing with religion:  part one says that the Government shall not establish a State religion (e.g., decide that everyone is going to be a Baptist); part two says that the Government shall not interfere in any person’s exercise of his religion.

The Right, Religion and Government Today

Although I cannot say that everyone on the Right believes in God or practices religion, I think it would be safe to say that many do.  I would even be willing to say that most all the folks of the Right believe in the 1st Amendment and would respect the rights of anyone to worship God; that is, unless of course, their worship of their god called upon them to kill the rest of us.  (We have a bit of a problem with that.  We even have a problem with them killing their own in what is known as “honor killings,” but I digress.) 

[NOTE:  this is just to document the above statement:  “On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:  ‘The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.  This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.’"  -- from World Islamic Front  Statement, 23 February 1998, http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm]

A war on religions by atheists has been waged in the United States since the 1960’s led originally by Madeline Murray O’Hair.  “Murray was known for her role in the landmark 1963 Supreme Court decision in Murray v. Curlett, which, combined with Abington v. Schempp, ended school prayer in public schools across the U.S. and turned her into the self-described ‘most hated woman in America.’"  The current-day version of O’Hair is Michael Newdow, who continues her efforts to remove God from anything and everything he can, most recently the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America.
(http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Who-Was-Madalyn-Murray-Ohair.aspx)

Others have sued to remove grave markers, memorials, crosses, the Ten Commandments, “In God We Trust” from currency, and other things associated with Christianity (and Judaism, in the case of the Ten Commandments and the trusting in God) from public buildings and grounds as if those symbols were somehow in violation of the establishment clause.  Some have won.  Some have not.

In bringing forward these suits, the petitioner somehow equates allowing symbols to exist in the public square as being the same thing as the Federal Government constituting a single religion for the United States of America and forcing everyone to practice only that religion, as was done by the King of England in the 1600’s, or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Taliban in Afghanistan in more recent times.  (http://www.historytoday.com/tim-harris/charles-ii-reality-behind-merry-monarchy, http://www.examiner.com/article/media-silent-on-killing-and-persecution-of-christians-egypt, http://www.voanews.com/content/taliban-claims-responsibility-for-killing-christian-missionaries-100179814/123409.html)  The atheists are offended to be exposed to religious symbols, as if exposure equated to the imposition of religious will upon a person.  I contend that the existence of these symbols of a Christian heritage are vastly different than establishing a religion for a country and executing people for not worshipping the State’s god, as these three examples have done in the past and in some cases continue to do.  There is nothing in the US Constitution that protects one from being offended.

The Federal Government has joined in the attacks on religion through the  Affordable Care Act (ACA) better known as ObamaCare.  The Catholic Church has been front and center on opposing the ACA, although they are not the only ones.  For Catholics, “[t]he question is not whether contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs will remain legal and available — it is whether religious organizations can be forced to provide free access to them.”  Both abortions and the using of contraceptives are considered to be sins in the Catholic doctrine.  So forcing Catholic Churches, schools, and organizations to provide for these things within their healthcare contracts for employees is forcing them to do something that would deny them a relationship with their God.  As they say in the article cited:  “No one is forced to work for a Catholic institution. And those who do are perfectly free to get these drugs on their own, for free from the government, or from the many sources that willingly distribute them.”  (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/301680/church-pushes-back-mark-l-rienzi)  Yet our Government is forcing private organizations to violate their beliefs in order to comply with the law.  This is just wrong. 

The Right believes that the onus of “separation of church and state” is upon the state -- that the state should not become or impose a religion; and that it should not interfere with its citizens in their right to freely worship however they choose and to live their lives in accordance with their beliefs.  We believe that if a town wants to have a nativity scene displayed or a menorah or a cross or a public call to prayer, that it should be able to do so.  That does not constitute an endorsement of a particular religion.  It does recognize that many of the people of that community share in some religious traditions and they enjoy the ability to join together with others, who share those beliefs but may be from other churches/temples/mosques, to publically express those traditions from season to season.  We believe that if a community has a copy of the Ten Commandments displayed that it is not forcing Judaism down anyone’s throat, but is recognizing the role that document has had throughout history --  and several religions -- and its influence in the forming of our judicial system. 

We believe free people should be able to celebrate the worship of their god or God in the public square if they choose instead of hiding their beliefs away.

And we believe that the Government which accommodates conscientious objectors so that they do not have to go to war, the Amish so that they do not have to not pay Social Security and Medicare, and  Indian Tribes to maintain tribal sovereignty, ought to be able to accommodate people of faith as well.