Skip to comments.

The Origin of "Separation of Church and State" (good article)

Posted on by Andonius_99

Separation of Church and State

NOT SEPARATION OF GOD FROM STATE

by Fr. Bill McCarthy, MSA

Our Founding Fathers

Our Founding Fathers set this great nation of ours upon the twin towers of religion and morality. Our first president, George Washington, said that anyone who would attack these twin towers could not possibly consider themselves to be a loyal American. Not only did they set us up as a nation under God, but a nation founded upon the Judaic-Christian principles summarized in the words, "The laws of nature and the laws of natures God," words that we find in the Declaration of Independence.

Never Intended to Separate State from God or from Religion or from Prayer

The First Amendment never intended to separate Christian principles from government. yet today we so often heart the First Amendment couples with the phrase "separation of church and state." The First Amendment simply states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Obviously, the words "separation," "church," or "state" are not found in the First Amendment; furthermore, that phrase appears in no founding document.

While most recognize 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 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."

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."

In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists, as it should have. Consequently, the fired off a litter to President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state."

His letter explained that they need not fear the establishment of a national denominationand that while the wall of the First Amendment would protect the church from government controlthere always would be open and free religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious duties would never threaten the purpose of government. The government would interfere with a religious activity was a direct menace to the government or to the overall peace and good order of society. (Later Supreme Court identified potential "religious" activities in which the government might interfere: things like human sacrifice, bigamy or polygamy, the advocation of immorality or licentiousness, etc. If any of these activities were to occur in the name of "religion," then the government would interfere, for these were activities which threaten public peace and safety; but with orthodox religious practices, the government would not interfere).

Today, all that is heard 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. 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 Mary 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."

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 believe of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

The Committees explained that they would not separate these principles, for it was these principles and activities which had made us so successfulthey had been our foundation, our basis.

During the 1870s, 1880s, and 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75 years laterin the case Reynolds v. United States, the plaintiffs resurrected Jeffersons letter, hope to use it to their advantage.

In that case, the Court printed an 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, 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."

This was a 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 their 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 1958, in a case called Baer v. Kolmorgen, 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 start thinking it was part of the Constitution. That warning was in 1958!

Nevertheless, the Court continued to talk about separation until June 25th, 1962, when, in the case Engle v. Vitale, the Court delivered the first ever ruling which completely separated Christian principles from education.

Secular Humanism

With that case, a whole new trend was established and secular humanism became the religion of America. In 1992 the Supreme Court stated the unthinkable. "At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. In 1997, 40 prominent Catholic and Protestant scholars wrote a position paper entitled, "We Hold These Truths," in which they stated, "This is the very antithesis of the ordered liberty affirmed by the Founders. Liberty in this debased sense is utterly disengaged from the concept of responsibility and community and is pitted against the laws of nature and the laws of natures God. Such liberty degenerates into license and throws into question the very possibility of the rule of law itself.



TOPICS:

Constitution/Conservatism

Culture/Society

Government

KEYWORDS:

christianity

church

foundingfathers

origins

religion

separation

state





To: Andonius_99

Thanks for posting this...be back later to read the full article.



To: Andonius_99

Obviously, the words "separation," "church," or "state" are not found in the First Amendment; furthermore, that phrase appears in no founding document. Ahhhh... but look at a document where these words CAN be found: The Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

(The Former Soviet Union)

Adopted October 7, 1977 Article 52 [Religion]

(1) Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.

(2) In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.



To: Andonius_99

Excellent! Thank you!



When you read the plain words of the Constitution and take Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in proper context - it becomes clear that Jefferson understood the entire meaning and intent of the 1st Amendment : 'Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion...." due to the precise fact that ONLY Congress and the legislature have the power to MAKE LAW.



This is because the legislatures are BEHOLDEN to you and I, The People. If they vote outside of the values of their constituencies, they can be voted out and new representatives can be installed to safeguard our liberties.



It is why Adams said: ""Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"



The Judiciary has no such accountability to We the People. They were to rule upon matters of WRITTEN LAW passed by the legislatures, not to MAKE LAW by "intepreting" what they think it should or want it to mean.



But Judicial Activism is now considered law, mainly due to the fact that most of us are ignorant of what the plain words written on parchement actually say - let alone what they mean.



Like everything else - We the People have left the running of this nation to the "professionals", and have not heeded our Founder's warnings about the nature of power and government.



To: Andonius_99

Thanks, great article.



by 5 posted onby Jaded (But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Mat. 5:44)

To: Andonius_99

Read later bump



To: Andonius_99

read later



To: INVAR

Also keep in mind that Jefferson was not involved in writing the Constitution or the 1st Amendment. He was ambassador to France and living over there. To use his words, especially when penned over 10 years after, to interpret the Constitution is ludicrous.



To: sakic; sinkspur; Javelina

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972219/posts?q=1&&page=101



To: lugsoul



Jusge Moore is standing up for the rights of all. Religious freedom is for all.

Free speech is for all. The first amendment is for all. The ACLU is trying to

restrict our freedoms to only what they approve (atheism).







129 posted on 08/28/2003 3:18 PM PDT by Jim Robinson



(Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND...

ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)

To: lugsoulJusge Moore is standing up for the rights of all. Religious freedom is for all.Free speech is for all. The first amendment is for all. The ACLU is trying torestrict our freedoms to only what they approve (atheism).129 posted on 08/28/2003 3:18 PM PDT by Jim Robinson(Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND...ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)

by 9 posted onby f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)

To: Andonius_99

Such liberty degenerates into license and throws into question the very possibility of the rule of law itself. except it is founded solely one the ability of the power to coerce.



To: RobbyS

fC ... The rag head taliban in America is the aclu ... just like the ones in mecca - afghanistan - nkorea --- blowing up thousand year old Buhdda statues ! BACKGROUND "The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times." "We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration." ... link below ! eas ... "No. The ACLU says the First Amendment protects their right to free speech (( atheism )) , which the Second does not protect your right to keep and bear arms." "I was going to say they don't understand the concept that the militia is made up of the very people referenced in the text of the amendment. But they do get this, and very well. They simply know that when the people are completely disarmed, there is no impediment to the ... ACLU becoming --- a latter-day Politburo." "I'm telling you ... gather weapons and ammo now (( knowledge - associates - VOTES )) --- while you still can." 50 posted on 03/28/2002 4:02 PM PST by Euro-American Scum



by 11 posted onby f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)

To: f.Christian

The main reason I support the 2nd Amendment is not that I personally desire to own weapons but that it recognizes the right of the state as an autonomous republic to defend itself.



To: RobbyS

it recognizes the right of the state as an autonomous republic to defend itself. I've never looked at the 2nd in that light. Makes sense though. What is you opinion of CA trying to pass a law making the .50cal illegal? ------------------ Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, unless the state wants to limit the caliber size. Welcome to Animal Farm.



To: OXENinFLA

Regulatoion rather than a fat ban would seem to be more appropriate. I think a ban can be justified only if there is real danger of someone raising a private army and equipping it with .50s. These things ARE pretty fearsome.



To: RobbyS

Welp, you can't stop tanks with a .22.



As to a ban itself.....the 2nd Amendment prohibits any such infringement.



But when did the law ever matter to the power-hungry?



To: INVAR

I think it prohibist a federal ban.The whole Bill of Rights is designed to limit federal power. The state can do it. That is if the theory of incorporation has not been extended to the states



To: RobbyS

I think it prohibist a federal ban.The whole Bill of Rights is designed to limit federal power. The state can do it. That is if the theory of incorporation has not been extended to the states

16 -robb-





Under the supremacy clause of Art VI, our BOR's has always applied to all government, -- fed/state/local.

From our beginnings people in new territories were subject to territorial law, administered by the congress, which was under the BOR's restrictions.



After statehood, it would hardly be rational to claim a mans freedom of speech or RKBA's could now be prohibited by the new states legislators.

CA entered our union without a RKBA's provision in their state constitution. They now claim the 'right' to prohibit certain rifles because of that oversight.

They are wrong.

Don't swallow the 'states rightists' bull.

They are statists, not conservatives.



by 17 posted onby tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)

To: tpaine

The Bill of Rights was not applied to the States until the 1920s and under the terms of the 14th Amendment equal protection clauses in accordance with the incorporation doctrine. The practical effect has been to negate the 9th and 10th Amendments.



To: RobbyS

Yep, that's the current 'line' from the statists. Why do you want to swallow their hook?



Why do you WANT to claim a mans freedom of speech or RKBA's can be prohibited by a states legislators?

Makes no sense to me.



by 19 posted onby tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)

To: tpaine

Freedom of speech, no. Gun control, yes. By the way, the right to vote has also traditionally been a province of the state. Back in the 1850s,the Irish used to march off the boats in New York to be registered by Tammany hacks. So the bill that Davis just signed, which entitles illegal to drivers Licenses will also entitle them to vote, and that is nothing new.



Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson