Separation of Church and State

By John G Frazier, III Ph.D.

The First Amendment

In his book, “Separation of Church and State, What the Founders Meant,” David Barton traces the history of the First Amendment. He tells us that in the first meeting of Congress the Founders said repeatedly over a period of several months, that in writing the First Amendment “they were seeking to prevent what they had experienced under Great Britain: the legal establishment by the government of a single religious (Christian) denomination (church) in exclusion of all others.” ¹

The first clause in the First Amendment, called the Establishment Clause, says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This clearly means that the federal government shall not establish a state church. The second clause, called the Free Exercise Clause reads, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This clause forbids “the federal government from interfering with the people’s public religious expressions.” ² The phrase “separation of church and state” is not found anywhere in the First Amendment. This is critically important: it simply does not say that.

“Both clauses restricted the actions of the federal government; neither restricted the actions of citizens.” ³ Clearly the founding fathers did not want the government to sponsor a state church, but “did expect basic Biblical principles and values to be present throughout public life and society.” ⁴ That is, they wanted the American people to have “the free exercise” of their religion. And as David Barton points out, for the first 150 years after the First Amendment was written this was the only meaning held by the courts and the public. ⁵

A Reversal of Meaning

This understanding changed in a 1947 Supreme Court decision, in Everson v. The Board of Education. In the majority opinion, “Justice Hugo Black quoted (from) an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, wherein Jefferson described ‘a wall of separation between church and state.'” ⁶ In his book, David Barton points out that this was a complete “reversal” of the meaning of the First Amendment, and for the first time the Supreme court interpreted the concept of the separation of the government from the church to mean that the federal government should deny people the right to public religious expression. ⁷

The Ruling was Unfounded

This interpretation was completely unfounded. David Barton explains: In October 1801, “the Danbury Baptist Association…sent a letter to President Thomas Jefferson expressing their concern that protection for religion had been written into the laws and constitutions.” ⁸ In January 1802, “Jefferson responded…. He assured them that because of the wall of separation, they need not fear government interference with religious expressions…. In his letter , Jefferson made it clear that the wall of separation was erected not to limit public religious expressions but rather to provide security against government interference with these expressions, whether private or public.” ⁹

Judicial Distortion

“On numerous other occasions, Jefferson repeatedly affirmed that the sole purpose of the First Amendment was to ensure that the federal government could not interfere with public religious expressions.” ¹⁰ Thus to reach their conclusion the Court had to snatch a phrase from Jefferson’s letter, remove it from context and “apply it in a manner exactly opposite to Jefferson’s clearly articulated intent.” ¹¹ What makes this ruling even more egregious is that in previous rulings, the Supreme Court had used Jefferson’s entire letter to preserve religious expression. This Court did not quote Jefferson’s complete letter, they used only 8 words from it and changed the meaning of what he said. ¹²

And They Made it Worse

David Barton continues by telling us that the 1947 ruling was followed by “one absurd ruling after another.”¹³ These rulings have denied citizens the right to have prayer (1962), Bible teaching (1963), the Ten Commandments (1980) and graduation prayers (1992) in the public schools, thus depriving our children of these positive influences and a moral education. The result? With the absence of the Bible and prayer in the schools, the incidence of violent crime and of immoral behavior has increased about 700% in the teenage population. ¹⁴

This “strict separationist dogma…has been used to silence religious voices in the public marketplace of ideas…. Federal and state courts have used the ‘Wall of Separation’ concept to justify censoring private (and public) religious expressions,” ¹⁵ such as manger scenes, crosses, cemetery markers, memorials, the Ten Commandments, as well as by denying educational vouchers for religious schools, government contracts for religious organizations, and excluding “faith-based social welfare agencies from full participation in public life.” ¹⁶

There has been a “systematic and coercive removal of religion from public life (which) is at war with our cultural traditions…(which exhibits) a callous indifference toward religion (and which) offends (the) basic (constitutional) notions of freedom of religious expression and association.” ¹⁷

The Founders’ Intent

Professor Daniel L. Dreisbach explains the founders’ thinking. “There was a consensus among the founders that religion was indispensible to a system of republican self-government. The challenge…was how to nurture personal responsibility and social order in a system of self-government. Tyrants and dictators can use the whip and the rod to force people to behave as they desire, but clearly this is incompatible with a self-governing people.

“In response to this challenge the founders looked to religion (and morality informed by religious faith) to provide the internal moral compass that would prompt citizens to behave in a disciplined manner and thereby promote social order and political stability.

“Believing that religion and morality were indispensible to social order and political prosperity, the founders championed religious liberty in order to foster a vibrant religious culture in which a beneficent religious ethos would inform the public ethic and promote an environment in which religious and moral leaders could speak out boldly, without restraint or inhibition, against corruption and immorality in civic life.

“Religious liberty was not merely a benevolent grant of the civil state, it reflected an awareness among the founders that the very survival of the civil state and a civil society was dependent on a vibrant religious culture and religious liberty…” ¹⁸

The Truth of the Matter

“On numerous…occasions, Jefferson…affirmed that the sole purpose of the First Amendment was to ensure that the federal government could not interfere with public religious expressions.” ¹⁹
For 150 years after the First Amendment was written this was the only meaning held by the courts and the public. ²⁰
The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment forbids congress from establishing a national church, it does not forbid the establishment of a national morality. ²¹
In accordance with the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment, our early government did not attempt to interfere with the people’s public religious expressions; they supported these expressions. They did not separate God and morals from public life. ²²
The founders believed that “church and state alike depended on a populace able to read and understand the Word of God. Bible reading would foster faith, which would foster ethical behavior, which would sustain social order…” ²³ The belief was that we needed to have a moral people in order to make our form of government work. Thus, teaching the moral law of God as found in the Bible was seen to have “a good secular purpose, to maintain the government and the happiness” of our citizens.²⁴
In the early days of our nation the Bible and the teachings of the Christian faith were taught, memorized, and learned in homes, churches, schools, and colleges. Everyone learned the basics of Christianity and the tenets of Christian morality. ²⁵
In those days the church as a moral force was able to influence the government, and the government did not inhibit the church’s influence. ²⁶
The Founders believed the Ten Commandments and morality were the basis of civil law.²⁷
Those hostile to the Christian faith and Biblical morality have taken advantage of this wrong interpretation of the First Amendment and have used this erroneous view to try to eradicate both the public practice of the Christian religion and its symbols in our society.

To Sum it Up

So what have we learned? We see that the teaching of the Bible and morals as well as religious expression in public is not forbidden by the U. S. Constitution, that both were promoted by the Founders, that such teaching and expression is beneficial to individuals, society and government, and that Biblical moral teaching is the basis for civil law and has a legitimate secular purpose. Thus we understand that there is no legitimate legal reason which prevents the teaching of the Bible and Christian morality or the public expression of the Christian faith in our society. We also believe that such was the intent of the Founders from the beginning.

It is therefore incumbent upon us to express our faith in business, government, the media, and courts, that is, in all of society. And we should demand that our Christian views be respected because we have both a constitutional and God-given right to them. We should also make an effort to teach the Bible and morality in our homes, schools, and churches. Our society would be transformed if true morality became the norm instead of the exception. So we should pray and work toward this end. Let’s get back to normal and become a moral nation again.

Moreover, we should support those who argue the case that Christian morals and public expression is supported by the U. S. Constitution and try to enact laws that allow and promote this in our society. Teaching the Bible, the Ten Commandments and morals makes a positive difference. The founders knew this and warned us. We will do well to heed their counsel.