I am glad that I live in a country that offers the freedom of religion. It would not be pleasant to live where I would be fearful for my life and liberty simply for owning a Bible or gathering with other believers to pray and worship God. Living in a country where we have the freedom to believe what we want about God and worship God as we see fit is a great privilege and a great benefit.
But is the freedom of religion a guaranteed right? The first amendment to the constitution contains these words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Since this amendment is part of what is known as “The Bill of Rights” many people believe that the freedom of religion is a “right.” We demand this right, fight for this right, and sue other people and organizations whom we feel infringe upon this right.
The Separation of Church and State
I am not a constitutional scholar, but let us consider the idea of the “freedom of religion” from several angles. First, let us look at the freedom of religion from a historical and political perspective. The section of the First Amendment to the Constitution which deals with religion is known as “The Establishment Clause.” It says that congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Politicians, theologians, judges, and constitutional lawyers have debated for centuries what exactly this means, but it is from this statement that people get the idea about “the separation of church and state.”
The Separation of Church and State is Not in the Constitution
Strictly speaking, the idea of “the separation of church and state” is not in the constitution. Most people think it is, but the constitution says nothing of the sort. It simply has the Establishment Clause, which is interpreted in various ways, one of them being “the separation of church and state,” which in turn is sufficiently ambiguous to be applied in numerous different fashions.
Most people today believe that the separation of church and state is a good idea. I suppose it is, because we are fallen human beings, and whenever a group of people get too much power, especially the combined powers of government and religion, such a combination of powers is usually accompanied by the terrible abuse of that power. We see this in countries today where there is no separation of church and state. Where the government controls the religion (such as in China and most of the Middle East), there is great abuse by the government upon people who want to practice a religion different than those allowed by the state. So separating the two powers of government and religion creates checks and balances for each, and allows greater freedom for the people who wish to follow the spiritual dictates of their heart.
The Separation of Church and State is Not in the Bible
However, from a theological perspective, the idea of the separation of church and state is not biblical. In biblical times, government and religion were always interwoven, and even the eventual government of Jesus will be a Theocracy, a complete and perfect intertwining of government and religion. The idea of the separation of church and state resulted from Enlightenment ideals in response to how religion is often used by government to dominate and control its citizens and make war on other nations.
The term “separation of church and state” comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, and is not in the constitution. Although people have varying views on the issue, history has repeatedly shown that when the church controls the state or when the state controls the church, the entity in control tends to become a tyrannical dictator.
Sam,
I did not know it’s origin! Now I do. I have always wondered where it came from.
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
That the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered a key to solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
I agree. The separation of church and state is like the separation of powers.
When governments and religion are put together in one person, very bad things happen.
Most people today who argue for separating church and state actually have as their intent to expunge acknowledgement of God from public life. The former just gives political cover for the latter.
Mike,
That is true. In an attempt to “uphold the constitution” they are making all sorts of laws about religion…
It is important to distinguish between the constitutional principle of separation of church and state and the political doctrine that often goes by the same name. The constitutional separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. Nor does the constitutional separation of church and state prevent citizens from making decisions based on principles derived from their religions. Moreover, the religious beliefs of government officials naturally may inform their decisions on policies. The principle, in this context, merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion; in other words, the predominant purpose and primary effect must be nonreligious or secular in nature. A decision coinciding with religious views is not invalid for that reason as long as it has a secular purpose and effect.
Confusion understandably arises because a political doctrine that goes by much the same name generally calls for political dialogue to be conducted on grounds other than religion. The underlying reasons for that approach are many, but two primary ones are that it facilitates discussion amongst people of all beliefs by predicating discussion on grounds accessible to all and, further, it avoids, in some measure at least, putting our respective religious beliefs directly “in play” in the political arena, so we’re not put in the position of directly disputing or criticizing each other’s religious beliefs in order to decide on some political issue. This political doctrine, of course, is not “law” (unlike the constitutional separation of church and state, which is). Rather, it is a societal norm concerning how we can best conduct ourselves in political dialogue. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the doctrine is a good idea or not and whether or how it should influence us in particular circumstances.
Doug,
Good points. I fully confess that although I have some general “leanings” in my thinking about this, the idea is not clearly developed in my own mind, and so I value your feedback!
One of the reasons I write is so I can learn! Your comment shows me I have much more to learn…
Jeremy,
If you’re interested in digging deeper, you might like knowing that Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law (rather than history) of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
Thank you for that link. I will go check it out!
On the biblicality of the Separation of Church and State, what do you make of John 18:36- “Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place”? The building of the government of God on this earth is clearly not of this earth. Yes, those who are in Jesus are being drawn into his new theocratic government but this new kingdom is in opposition to the systems of this world. When we look at God’s government we mustn’t confuse it with ours. His ‘State’ is not the State of the USA, UK, UN or any democratic body.
Matthew 22:21 (“So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”) also implies that what belongs to Caesar does not belong to God.
While I’m immensely glad and in admiration of Christians who pursue justice in politics because of their faith (MLK, Wilberforce, et al) some aspects of what’s required to protect a worldly nation are in direct opposition of the commands of Jesus, such as “Turn the other cheek”, and many others. Is it really possible to be both a christian and a President?
Aidan,
Great questions. I guess all I am saying was that Jesus’ words were intensely political. And yet, He was not trying to overthrow or change any governments, or get the kingdoms of this world to align with His ethics. He had a strange way of leading and inspiring change, which was primarily through love, service, and forgiveness. These sorts of actions challenged the political powers of his day (and the religious powers) which is one reason they killed him.
Spot on.
Actually, the term “separation of church and state” is found in the communist constitution. Our founders were very concerned that the government not establish a church, hence the Bill of Rights. However, the current interpretation by certain people is that the government should guarantee freedom from religion, including any public expression of religion, and that was not the founders intent at all.