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

To Save a Life

(Like my blog about the peace symbol, this blog was written as a default response to all the parents, students, and other people who are asking my opinion of To Save a Life.) By now you have probably heard of the movie To Save a Life, which opened nation-wide in theaters on January 22nd. The movie deals with so many issues that teens face today, like suicide, cutting, drinking, drugs, premarital sex, teen pregnancy, and abortion. At first glance this movie looks like an awesome resource that we should recommend for our teens, parents, youth pastors, and youth workers. But a closer look at the movie reveals a few disturbing things. For starters, according to pluggedin.com, there are 2 uses of the “A” word, 5 uses of hell (used as a curse word), and once the “D” word is used. There are other crude terms used to describe a girl, and crude terms for referring to sexual activity. There is also a bedroom scene that shows a girl removing a boy’s shirt, then afterwards the girl putting he...

Catechism #15

Q. By what sin did our first parents fall from their original condition? 
A. Our first parents’ sin was eating the forbidden fruit. The first sin we see in the Bible was in the eating of the forbidden fruit by Adam and Eve. But as we saw last week, there are sins of commission and omission. The eating of the fruit was an act of commission—a sin that was committed in the Garden of Eden. But before Eve ever took her first bite, a few sins of omission occurred that led up to the sin of commission. First, notice that it was Eve, not Adam, that did all the talking with the serpent in Genesis 3. Yet it was Adam, not Eve, who was created as the spiritual leader of the family. For whatever reason Adam abdicated his role as the spiritual leader and stood silently by as Eve ate the fruit. After Eve’s bite, she gave it to Adam, and he ate it too. Not only did Adam omit his role as leader, Eve omitted her trust in the goodness of God. Not only did she misquote God ...

All Things To All Men

One of our favorite verses to use in our evangelism methods is where Paul said that he “becomes all things to all men” so that he might “by all means save some (I Corinthians 9:22).” This is certainly a good idea if we keep it in its proper context and application. For example, I remember a time in high school where I knew a kid that loved skateboarding. Being the chicken that I am, I was never a skateboarder. All he would talk about was skating, and I knew none of his lingo. But to help develop a relationship with him (he was new to our church and didn’t know many people), I brushed up on my skating lingo so I could ask if he had done any sick ollies lately (impressed?). This would be like Paul saying “to the skateboarder, I became a skateboarder.” This is effective and necessary. But then there are the people that use this verse to justify doing sinful things in the name of evangelism. The first one that comes to mind is about drinking. Some people will go into the bars to evan...