Judd W. Patton, Ph.D. (Biography) Bellevue University Online
Bellevue University's - Economic$ Department
Menu
Fast Navigation:

The “Wall of Separation” Between Church and State

by
Dr. Judd W. Patton
(Originally Published in 1994)

      Most Americans have been conditioned to believe and to assume that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a “wall of separation between Church and State.” This concept is seldom challenged today…but it is not actually a part of the Constitution or any of its Amendments; it did not become generally accepted until well into the 20th century.

Meaning Was Clear

      The establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment state: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  The meaning was crystal clear to Americans and American jurisprudence for generations. Very simply, the federal government was prohibited from establishing a single national denomination above all others, such as Great Britain had done with the Church of England, whereby a particular religion or denomination was endowed with public funding, special privileges, and/or penalties imposed on other faiths that opposed the doctrines of the “official church” of the nation. Secondly, the free exercise clause simply meant the federal government could not interfere with the individual’s right and conscience to freedom of worship.

      The purpose of the First Amendment was not to protect Americans, its institutions, its leaders, or the “public arena” from religion, it was to protect religion from government intrusion!  It was a one-way wall. This understanding or view is in full and obvious accord with the raison d’etre of the Bill of Rights itself: to limit the federal government’s power and thereby secure the freedoms of individuals and the rights of the states. The Bill of Rights was a declaration of what the federal government could not do.

     The intent of the First Amendment could never have been to separate Church and State in the sense of keeping religion and morality out of the halls of government. This can be seen clearly from the historical fact that virtually all State Constitutions required their elected officials to affirm belief in the Christian faith! Not one of the States would have ratified the First Amendment in violation of their state Constitutions had its purpose been to separate religious principles from public life. Moreover, the Declaration of Independence requires all officeholders to carry out their duties based on God’s Revealed Law – the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

The Framers Speak

     Quotations from the framers of the Constitution and other leaders of early America bear out this great principle. For example, George Washington as our first President said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.” And our second President, John Adams, tells us, “It is Religion and Morality alone which can establish the principles under which Freedom can securely stand.”  Benjamin Franklin echoes Adams’ sentiment: “Only a virtuous people are capable of Freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

     On the same theme, Dr. Benjamin Rush, a Signer of the Declaration and a leading thinker of that period, said that, “The only foundation for a Republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this, there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty.”  James Wilson, who signed the Declaration and the Constitution for Pennsylvania, pointed out that: “Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends and mutual assistants.  Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.  The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.”

No “Wall” Planned

     Yes, it would have been impossible for these God-fearing men to have deliberately built a “Wall of Separation” between Church and State. They would have been appalled at the idea, for example, that public school children, because of the First Amendment, must be protected from postings of the Ten Commandments.  Here is how the phrase and eventually the concept of this “wall of separation” originated:

      In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association wrote a letter to President Thomas Jefferson. They were alarmed about a rumor. Was a national denomination soon to be established?  Jefferson responded by letter on January 1, 1802, assuring them that there was no basis to the rumor.  He said, “I contemplate with solemn 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 and State.”

Protect The Churches

      The Danbury Baptists were apparently satisfied. They understood the “wall” to be one-directional, protecting them and other church groups from possible discrimination and harm from a governmental-favored denomination. Nevertheless, Jefferson’s eight word phrase, “a wall of separation between Church and State,” has become the defining metaphor for today’s (mis)interpretation of the First Amendment.

      Obviously, Jefferson’s letter and his phrase are not part of the First Amendment. It appears far-fetched legal reasoning to give it the force of law, or to infer intent, to the delegates at the Constitutional Convention in1787. They met over fourteen years before Jefferson’s letter! Moreover, Jefferson was not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He was serving our nation in France during that time. However, Jefferson’s true intent can be deduced from his action on the Washington D.C. school board to use the Bible and the New England Primer as their textbooks.

      Jefferson’s letter remained in relative obscurity until 1878, when the Supreme Court, in the case of Reynolds vs. United States, cited the whole letter. According to the Court, the “wall of separation between Church and State” meant, “Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere (religious) opinions, but was left free to reach (only those religious) actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” Thus the Court ruled against the Mormon practice of polygamy and bigamy because the Justices considered it to be subversive of good order.  In other words, the Court actually used the concept of “separation of Church and State” to keep a general religious principle, monogamy, integral to our society.

New Meaning Given

      Nearly 70 years later, in the 1947 Supreme Court case of Everson vs. Board of Education, a major conceptual change occurred. Citing only Jefferson’s eight words (“a wall of separation between Church and State”) and not their context or previous Supreme Court interpretations, it declared a new meaning: A separation of basic religious principles (Church) from public life (State).  Indeed, Jefferson’s eight words became the catchphrase and metaphor for this new interpretation!

      Then, in 1962 the Supreme Court, in the case of Engel vs. Vitale, re-defined the word “church” to mean “a religious activity in public.” The revolt against the roots of American heritage had begun in earnest.  Separation of Church and State now meant the government (or state) and its institutions must be “protected” from religion!

       Since 1962 there have been over 6,000 court cases challenging religious expressions in public institutions and public life.  For example, numerous court cases ruled that verbal prayers in public schools, even if voluntary and denominationally neutral, were unconstitutional. In 1980, it was ruled that it was unconstitutional to hang the Ten Commandments on the walls of public school classrooms. Ironically, the Ten Commandments are engraved on the chamber walls of the U.S. Supreme Court!  And in Virginia a federal court ruled a homosexual newspaper may be distributed on a high school campus but religious newspapers may not. Needless to say, a cultural war of mammoth proportions was unleashed by the Everson and Engel rulings.

Tide is Turning

      Interestingly, and significantly, the 1990s have seen more and more court decisions based on the original intent of our Founders. The Supreme Court ruled in 1990, for instance, that it is permissible to have prayer and Bible clubs at public high schools.  The Justices also decided in another case that premarital sexual abstinence programs, while religious in nature, may be taught in public schools. The tide appears to be turning back to our traditional, moral heritage. May it continue.

Return Home - Top of Page

Sign My Guest book |  View My Guest book |  Contact Me

/\
Site Designed by JM Web Designs © 2000 BU - Economic$ Department
All Rights Reserved