Robert Meyer
Properly understanding separation of Church and State
By Robert Meyer
I was inspired to write this piece, based on a letter to the editor sent to my local home town newspaper, and forwarded to me by a local vitriolic atheist. He claimed that the concept of separation of Church and State is not a historical myth, but it is clear from his response that he doesn't comprehend what is connoted by applying the term "myth" to this issue.
It is true that Thomas Jefferson penned the phrase "a wall of separation between Church and State," in reply to a letter sent to him by a Baptist association from Danbury Connecticut. Yet unless we understand why the Danbury Baptists wrote the letter, and what Jefferson meant by the controversial phrase, we can never hope to understand the meaning and the intent of the First Amendment of our Constitution. The most common form of obfuscation on this issue is to take isolated quotations from notable founders, spoken decades after the Constitution was drafted, and then apply them as if they were commentary remarks at the time of the document's framing.
The Baptists were a minority in Connecticut, where the Congregationalists were the state established church. They were concerned about the adverse impact of a predominant sect gaining favoritism with the national government. It was in that spirit they made inquiry to newly elected President Jefferson regarding their position in reference to the First Amendment. In his reply he reassured them that the establishment of religion was out of the jurisdiction of the federal government, thus erecting "a wall of separation between Church and State." This is quite different from a wall keeping religious precept out of government policy. In the metropolitan area where I live, there is a high concrete retaining wall separating the freeway from residential areas. We might argue that the purpose of the wall is to keep the dangers of the highway separated from the subdivisions on the opposite side, but we would never argue that its purpose is to keep suburbanites from using the freeway. This analogy corresponds to the original intent of the religious clauses in the U.S. Constitution.
Jefferson likely borrowed the idea of "separation" from the 17th century advocate of religious liberty, Roger Williams. But Williams' understanding of "separation" meant that the civil government shouldn't regulate the church or encumber the conscience of the individual. This was the idea promoted in the First Amendment. Not until the Everson decision in 1947, do we see the religious clauses used to keep religious precept out of government. In fact, if we read Washington's Farewell Address of 1796, we discover that Washington believed religion to be an essential pillar of support for good government.
Jefferson more clearly explains the meaning of his famous metaphor in this excerpt from his second inaugural message, "In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies...." Thus the real "separation" he envisioned was a separation between the Federal State (no jurisdiction to regulate religion) and the individual states(authority over religious establishment). Jefferson as Governor of Virginia had recommended days of thanksgiving to God, which he declined to do as President for the same reasons.
Further proof is offered by James Madison. In his original draft proposal of the First Amendment, dated June 8th, 1789, Madison offers this version: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established (my emphasis), nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed." Notice that in Madison's "no establishment clause" draft, the word "national" is present. At the time the Constitution was framed there were as many as 10 states with established churches. The First Amendment never affected them, because it had no jurisdiction over the individual states. Neither did the 14th Amendment, until the doctrine of incorporation was fully codified into jurisprudence by virtue of the 1940 Cantwell v. Connecticut decision. Again, this was the product of an activist court and not the true intent of legislators.
Frequently, Atheists and Humanists will play the "no religious test" clause card from the Constitution, as if this were a mandate specifying affirmative action for the Atheist. In reality this fits in with the idea of non-establishment of a state religion. The Danbury Baptists, as mentioned above, would have seen such enactment as very favorable, by virtue of their minority status.
Another ploy they use is to say that the Constitution is strictly secular, since there is no reference to God until the last line of the Constitution (and they call that phrase meaningless legalese). They seem oblivious to the fact that the Declaration of Independence supplies the bedrock on which the Constitution is built, and it mentions God four times. But if failing to mention a word is the test criterion, then we must conclude that the Constitution is not a secular document either, since the word "secular" is never used. One can easily see the distinctions between our Constitution, loaded with biblical principles, and the writings of the French Revolution, being humanistic/atheistic, by reading the treatises that compare the two movements.
Additionally, they try to weave a seamless garment around Jefferson's constitutional and theological views. If Jefferson was not an orthodox Christian, they reason, then his metaphor for the First Amendment must have been intended to be exclusionary toward religion, particularly Christianity. But as you view Jefferson's writings, it is apparent that he feared the potential abuses of judicial review more than some imaginary theocracy lurking in the shadows.
The "separation of Church and State" must be understood as a functional and jurisdictional division of duty and authority, where both institutions are under God. The Church exercising the ministry of grace, and the State charged with administration of justice. The Secularist sees a gorge between the two, where the reign of God (if one exists) is limited to the churches, and the state is wholly independent and completely secular. Yet, I know of no framer who believed he wasn't accountable to God in acts of his governance. Even the least religious of our framers, Ben Franklin, said that building a nation without a reliance on the Almighty would fare no better than the builders of Babel. Our founders never intended a separation of reliance on God and operation of government — so let's restore that vision.
© Robert Meyer
I was inspired to write this piece, based on a letter to the editor sent to my local home town newspaper, and forwarded to me by a local vitriolic atheist. He claimed that the concept of separation of Church and State is not a historical myth, but it is clear from his response that he doesn't comprehend what is connoted by applying the term "myth" to this issue.
It is true that Thomas Jefferson penned the phrase "a wall of separation between Church and State," in reply to a letter sent to him by a Baptist association from Danbury Connecticut. Yet unless we understand why the Danbury Baptists wrote the letter, and what Jefferson meant by the controversial phrase, we can never hope to understand the meaning and the intent of the First Amendment of our Constitution. The most common form of obfuscation on this issue is to take isolated quotations from notable founders, spoken decades after the Constitution was drafted, and then apply them as if they were commentary remarks at the time of the document's framing.
The Baptists were a minority in Connecticut, where the Congregationalists were the state established church. They were concerned about the adverse impact of a predominant sect gaining favoritism with the national government. It was in that spirit they made inquiry to newly elected President Jefferson regarding their position in reference to the First Amendment. In his reply he reassured them that the establishment of religion was out of the jurisdiction of the federal government, thus erecting "a wall of separation between Church and State." This is quite different from a wall keeping religious precept out of government policy. In the metropolitan area where I live, there is a high concrete retaining wall separating the freeway from residential areas. We might argue that the purpose of the wall is to keep the dangers of the highway separated from the subdivisions on the opposite side, but we would never argue that its purpose is to keep suburbanites from using the freeway. This analogy corresponds to the original intent of the religious clauses in the U.S. Constitution.
Jefferson likely borrowed the idea of "separation" from the 17th century advocate of religious liberty, Roger Williams. But Williams' understanding of "separation" meant that the civil government shouldn't regulate the church or encumber the conscience of the individual. This was the idea promoted in the First Amendment. Not until the Everson decision in 1947, do we see the religious clauses used to keep religious precept out of government. In fact, if we read Washington's Farewell Address of 1796, we discover that Washington believed religion to be an essential pillar of support for good government.
Jefferson more clearly explains the meaning of his famous metaphor in this excerpt from his second inaugural message, "In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies...." Thus the real "separation" he envisioned was a separation between the Federal State (no jurisdiction to regulate religion) and the individual states(authority over religious establishment). Jefferson as Governor of Virginia had recommended days of thanksgiving to God, which he declined to do as President for the same reasons.
Further proof is offered by James Madison. In his original draft proposal of the First Amendment, dated June 8th, 1789, Madison offers this version: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established (my emphasis), nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed." Notice that in Madison's "no establishment clause" draft, the word "national" is present. At the time the Constitution was framed there were as many as 10 states with established churches. The First Amendment never affected them, because it had no jurisdiction over the individual states. Neither did the 14th Amendment, until the doctrine of incorporation was fully codified into jurisprudence by virtue of the 1940 Cantwell v. Connecticut decision. Again, this was the product of an activist court and not the true intent of legislators.
Frequently, Atheists and Humanists will play the "no religious test" clause card from the Constitution, as if this were a mandate specifying affirmative action for the Atheist. In reality this fits in with the idea of non-establishment of a state religion. The Danbury Baptists, as mentioned above, would have seen such enactment as very favorable, by virtue of their minority status.
Another ploy they use is to say that the Constitution is strictly secular, since there is no reference to God until the last line of the Constitution (and they call that phrase meaningless legalese). They seem oblivious to the fact that the Declaration of Independence supplies the bedrock on which the Constitution is built, and it mentions God four times. But if failing to mention a word is the test criterion, then we must conclude that the Constitution is not a secular document either, since the word "secular" is never used. One can easily see the distinctions between our Constitution, loaded with biblical principles, and the writings of the French Revolution, being humanistic/atheistic, by reading the treatises that compare the two movements.
Additionally, they try to weave a seamless garment around Jefferson's constitutional and theological views. If Jefferson was not an orthodox Christian, they reason, then his metaphor for the First Amendment must have been intended to be exclusionary toward religion, particularly Christianity. But as you view Jefferson's writings, it is apparent that he feared the potential abuses of judicial review more than some imaginary theocracy lurking in the shadows.
The "separation of Church and State" must be understood as a functional and jurisdictional division of duty and authority, where both institutions are under God. The Church exercising the ministry of grace, and the State charged with administration of justice. The Secularist sees a gorge between the two, where the reign of God (if one exists) is limited to the churches, and the state is wholly independent and completely secular. Yet, I know of no framer who believed he wasn't accountable to God in acts of his governance. Even the least religious of our framers, Ben Franklin, said that building a nation without a reliance on the Almighty would fare no better than the builders of Babel. Our founders never intended a separation of reliance on God and operation of government — so let's restore that vision.
© Robert Meyer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
