Skip to main content

The Separation of Church and State



Many people are shocked to learn that the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the Constitution or Bill or Rights.
I’m sure you have heard that phrase invoked more times than you can count:
“You can’t have the 10 Commandments in the courtroom because of the separation of church and state.”
“City Hall can’t have a manger scene on the lawn; that violates the separation of church and state.”
“You can’t pray in Jesus’ name at (insert your public appearance here). Haven’t you ever heard of the separation of church and state?”
I could go on, but I’m sure you get the idea. It’s funny that most people invoking this wall of separation are ones who claim to study and defend the Constitution; they, more than anyone else, should know that the mythical “wall” is nowhere to be found in our nation’s governing documents.
So where does the wall of separation appear? In a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group known as the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut. This letter was a response to a letter from the group in which they voiced their concerns that their state was going to establish a State Church.
A student of American history will remember that it was that very concept—a State Church—that led the Puritans and Separatists to leave their homeland in search of a place where they could practice their religion freely; this exodus eventually led them to the New World, and from Day 1 religious liberty was a focal point.
In fact, most state charters are steeped in theologically sound Christian doctrine, with an emphasis on allowing the people to worship freely, as opposed to the State forcing their religion.
Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists upheld the desires of the people, that Congress make no law “respecting an establishment of religion.” In context, Jefferson was defending the American people from a state-sponsored church; his wall of separation was to protect the church from the state, not the state from the church.
Of equal importance is the reciprocal command: Congress shall not “prohibit the free exercise” of religion. So when people tell me I can’t pray in Jesus’ name, for example, my free exercise is being prohibited.  
These defenders of the wall of separation are prohibiting my free exercise. They are adding to and taking away from the Constitution. Don’t let people deceive you; read Jefferson’s letter for yourself. Here is the final draft of the little letter that started the big war:
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. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
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. 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 & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Thomas Jefferson

Jan.1.1802.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The “Christians Hate Gays” Myth

During these Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) hearings before the Supreme Court I keep hearing how much Christians hate gay people. This was news to me since I am a Christian and I don’t hate gay people. I also go to church with over 1000 other Christians, and if any of them hate gay people, they sure haven’t told me. Before moving to South Carolina I worked at or attended several churches in Texas; prior to that I spent a decade going to church in Florida. Guess what? No one hated gay people. In fact, I don’t know any Christians who hate anybody. The very uniform of a believer is his love, and if a person does not show consistent love, then he is not actually a believer. Are there non-believers who hate gay people and claim to be Christian? Of course. But that doesn’t represent Jesus or His church. Equating  hateful sign-wavers with Christianity is like equating a kindergarten baseball team to the New York Yankees. They may claim to be playing the same

Famous Frauds in Homosexual Science Part 2: Twin Studies

A second piece of shoddy science has been heralded as proving people are born gay. This time, instead of cadavers, living twins were studied. This study compared male identical twins to male fraternal twins; in each set of twins, at least one man was homosexual. 22% of the fraternal twins showed both brothers to be gay, compared to 52% of the identical twins. Since identical twins are closer genetically than fraternal twins, this study claimed that genetics play in to homosexuality, or that people are born gay. But an obvious question that arose from this study is, why did 48% of the identical twins only have one gay brother? If they are so close genetically, then 100% of the identical twins should have two gay brothers. This study does more harm than good to the argument from genetics. There are other factors to be considered. One is that the men doing the study (Richard Pillard and Michael Bailey) could have intentionally picked fraternal twins that the

The Rose of Sharon and Lily of the Valley

If you have spent much time in church you have probably sung some songs with lyrics like these: “He leads me to his banqueting table, his banner over me is love… Jesus is the rock of my salvation, his banner over me is love.” “Sweetest rose of Sharon, come to set us free.” “He’s the lily of the valley, the bright and morning star…” But are those songs biblical? They come out of the writings of the Song of Solomon, but are we to understand those lines as describing Christ? The Song of Solomon is a collection of love poems that were written between two people who were deeply in love and about to be married. While we know that King Solomon is one of the writers, the other’s name has escaped us, and we know her today simply as the Shulamite woman. Some people believe that since this woman is not named then she never existed; some teach that this book is pure allegory, only existing to serve as symbolism. King Solomon, they say, represents