From the outset of forming our country, our Founders were determined to keep religion as a foundational element, given that many people had left their homes in Britain to be able to practice their religions as they chose. The goal was not for the government to reject faith, but for it to be prevented from dictating doctrine.
But over the years, the Left has distorted the meaning of “separation of church and state” (a phrase that’s not written into the Constitution) and now the country feels obligated to ban religion from every nook and cranny. How did a country founded in part by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment find itself dominated by secularism?
The Danbury Baptist Association was one of the first organizations in 1802 to ask Thomas Jefferson about the protections of their religious practice. Here, in part, is Jefferson’s reply:
‘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 and State,’ Jefferson said.
The metaphor of a ‘wall of separation’ was not intended to say that religion should not influence opinion on government issues. Rather, it was used to affirm free religious practice for citizens.
The First Amendment was written to ensure that Congress would not create legislation beyond civil matters, again prohibiting the creation of a state religion:
The First Amendment prevents congress from creating or establishing a religion, and thereby prevents the power of the government from expanding beyond civil matters. The First Amendment also protects people’s right to worship however they choose, or to not worship at all. Protecting people’s right to decide what is right for themselves without government interference is a key foundation (and result) of our democracy.
What evidence do we have that the Founders were determined to prevent a single religion from becoming a state religion? Because they told us so:
The Congressional Record (required by the Constitution in Art. i, Sec. 5, ¶ 3) contains all the official words and acts that occur in congressional chambers. Those records therefore include the discussion of the ninety Founders in the first federal Congress who, from June 8 to September 25, 1789, framed the First Amendment. In those lengthy discussions that spanned months, the Founders repeatedly explained that they were seeking to prevent what they had experienced under Great Britain: the legal establishment by the national government of a single religious denomination in exclusion of all others (whether Catholic, Anglican, or any other). Very simply, their oft-repeated intent was that Congress could not officially establish any one denomination in America; or, in the wording proposed by James Madison, ‘nor shall any national religion be established.’
However, preventing a dominant state-controlled faith did not mean that the Founders wished to erase religion from public life or from people’s values. George Washington, before he left the Presidency, insisted religion being included in the public square:
In his famous ‘Farewell Address,’ Washington reminded Americans that religious teachings and values must never be removed from politics and public policy, declaring:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable [inseparable] 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. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.
The Supreme Court allowed the state to intrude, in a very limited fashion, into how religion in America is practiced, provided it stayed out of the core doctrines of traditional biblical faiths:
Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People identified actions into which—if perpetrated in the name of religion—the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, patricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.
Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel”—whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.
By 1980, though, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court was actively removing religion from the public square:
Stone v. Graham, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on November 17, 1980, ruled (5–4) that a Kentucky statute requiring school officials to post a copy of the Ten Commandments (purchased with private contributions) on a wall in every public classroom violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which is commonly interpreted as a separation of church and state. .
[snip]
The Supreme Court held that the Kentucky statute violated the first part of the so-called Lemon test. The court rejected arguments that the notation on the bottom of the Ten Commandments was sufficient to indicate the secular purpose of the posting. Moreover, the court was of the opinion that the posting of the Ten Commandments was clearly religious and not educational. The Commandments were not part of the curriculum, and the court maintained that the state was instead encouraging students ‘to read, meditate upon, and perhaps venerate and obey’ the Commandments, which is a violation of the establishment clause. The court considered it to be irrelevant that the copies were bought with private funds, because displaying the Commandments demonstrated official state support of their message.
Thus, the highest court in the land committed a shocking error in how it interpreted the First Amendment, for it abandoned completely the Founders’ expressed belief that the biblical faiths were essential to America’s existence. Even though the SCOTUS decision was a pitiful interpretation of the Separation Clause, which only prohibited the establishment of a state religion, they sent a clear message that religion and its values should not appear anywhere near our citizenry.
Someone must challenge this decision and rectify this injustice. Our country is desperately in need of revitalizing our spiritual and religious climate, and our important institutions should support that effort.
Public domain.
Jesus Christ is King
