Return to Nature of Freedom menu
America is the home of the free. Nowhere else in the world are people allowed to follow their own dreams and their own ideas more than in America, especially when it comes to worshiping God as they want. Yet, that freedom also allows men the choice not to worship God if they so desire. And because of that freedom of religion, lately we hear more and more people demand that there needs to be a separation between the church and the state. By that they mean, the government - whether it be the Federal Congress in Washington D.C., or the respective state legislatures, or the local city and county municipalities - should remain completely neutral when it comes to religious matters. It is said that to do otherwise would permit a government agency to endorse or approve one religion over another, thereby establishing the cause of one religion in preference to another, which, it is claimed, violates the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
There are those who point to American history to show how our founding fathers (Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, Madison, Adams, etc) deliberately placed in the Constitution an amendment which expressly forbids the government from engaging in any sort of religious behavior. As such, they contend that the basis upon which America was founded rests squarely on the idea of the separation of church and state.
It is for this reason some have said that a nativity scene in front of a city government office building violates the Constitution because such a display is a religious statement which implies a governmental endorsement of Christianity. Since public schools are supported by government money, it is argued that the saying of prayers or even the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools likewise violates the separation of church and state required by the Constitution. Recently, a California court has gone so far as to declare that the phrase "under God" in our pledge of allegiance violates the Constitutional principle of the separation of church and state.
Since this message has been repeated many times by many different groups of people, the general public has come to take it for granted that the idea of a separation between that of the church and the state is not only a reasonable course of action but a legal requirement as well. However, the foundation upon which people base their argument is not found in the Constitution, nor is it based upon accurate historical facts.
The justification given for a belief in the separation of church and state comes from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Since the Constitution is the supreme law that governs our country, it is important that we correctly understand what it actually says and what the founding fathers intended for it to mean. Therefore let's take a closer look at the wording of this amendment.
It begins by stating that "Congeress shall make no law." Since this is a federal document designed to enumerate the powers of the federal government, the "congress" referred to in the First Amendment is specifically and exclusively referring to the federal Congress, not the state legislatures nor any town, city, or local governments. Furthermore, since each state has their own constitution, it becomes abundantly clear that those who wrote and voted to approve the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United State were only concerned with things relating to thefederal "congress."
The amendment continues by stating that the federal Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." A nativity scene being placed in front of a city government building, nor the posting of the Ten Commandments in our public schools doesn't violate any law passed by our federal Congress. And the reason for that is because Congress is expressly forbidden from making any such law.
But the wording of the First Amendment is even more specific than that. It expressly states that the federal Congress is prohibited from passing a law "respecting an establishment of religion." Placing a nativity scene in front of a government building or posting the Ten Commandments or allowing prayers in school does not constitute an establishment of a national religion. And neither does the use of the words "under God" in our pledge of allegiance establish a national religion.
There are those who will argue that when the government displays one religious symbol over another that they are, in effect, endorsing one religion over another, which they claim is what the First Amendment prohibits. But endorsing something is not the same as establishing it! When something is endorsed it still allows for freedom to choose something else. But when something is established, it becomes the one and only choice permitted.
More importantly the First Amendment only prohibits the federal Congress from such action while allowing each state the right to govern itself according to their own constitution. That's why we have a federal goverment system rather than a national government. Therefore the First Amendment does not prevent any state or local government from establishing its own religious laws.
But the founders of our Constitution didn't stop there. The First Amendment goes on to say that the federal Congress shall make no law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It is a violation of the Constitution for the federal Congress to pass any law which forbids its citizens to worship God in any manner they choose. As such, it is against the federal law to prohibit someone from placing a nativity scene in front of a government building if the owner or manager of that building so desires. It is a violation of the First Amendment to prohibit the posting of the Ten Commandments in a public school if the administrators of that school decide to do so. To say that someone cannot express their religious feelings means they are prohibited from freely exercising their right to worship God as they choose, which the First Amendment clearly and unambiguously forbids the federal congress from doing. The doctrine of the separation of church and state as understood by the founding fathers of our country and expressed in the First Amendment to the Constitution is that the federal government is barred from interfering with the rights of its citizens to worship God when, where, and how they choose.
To better understand the purpose behind why our founding fathers wrote the first amendment to their newly created constitution, we need to understand the historical background from which it was produced.
From the time of the Middle Ages, there was no distinction between the Catholic church and the rulers of the various civil governments. In the minds of the people of that era, the two were indistinguishable from each other. The power of the church and the power of the state were, for all practical purposes, one and the same.
When Christopher Columbus sought financial help from the King and Queen of Spain, his main purpose was not so much to discover a new trade route as it was to spread the Catholic faith to new parts of the world. In his journal he wrote that one of the primary reasons for sailing to India was to learn the disposition of the people there "and the proper method of converting them to our holy faith."
History records that instead of discovering a new route to India, he discovered several islands in the Caribbean sea. Shortly thereafter, Spain went on to conquer and possess the land of Central and South America, brutally imposing its religious views and extending their religious power by the use of force. At the same time, the Queen of England was doing the same with the land of North America.
The very first English charter which officially authorized the possession of land in this new part of the world was given by Queen Elizabeth to Sir Raleigh. In that charter it called for him and his heirs to establish a government which was "agreeable to the forme of the lawes, statures, government or pollicie of England." Furthermore, Sir Raleigh was instructed by the Queen that these laws should "be not against the true Christian faith," as professed by the Church of England.
In the 16th and 17th century the Church of England and the government of England were essential one and the same. The King or Queen was not only the supreme head of the government of England but they were also the supreme head of the Church of England. During this time the powerful House of Lords, which was the governmental body that enacted the laws of that society, consisted of the bishops from the Church of England. Because of that, they were able to pass laws that mandated church attendance, proscribed the form one must follow in worship, and made denial of the Trinity an imprisonable offense. They likewise were the ones who defined what was to be considered heresy and then made it a criminal offense, punishable by death, for anyone convicted of teaching heresy. Even though the doctrines of the Anglican Church were nearly identical to those of the Roman Catholic Church, no Catholic was allowed to hold public office.
During that time there was a group of people in England who referred to themselves as "free thinkers." The Church of England considered their teachings to be heretical and threatened to have their children taken from them. Because of this intertwining power of the church and state, James Madison remarked that the bishops of England were "agents of persecution and oppression. And much of this bad odor clung to bishops in the 18th century as well."
These were the kinds of abuse of religious power that the writers of our Constitution tried to prevent from happening in their new government. When Patrick Henry argued for a bill that would make Christianity the official religion, James Madison, a deeply devout Christian, nonetheless strongly objected to any bill that would establish Christianity to the exclusion of all other religions.
From its very discovery to its colonization, America was a land where people came to worship God according to their own beliefs and where they could have the opportunity to advance their ideas through missionary conversion. And, in so doing, they established their civil laws in accordance with their religious beliefs.
On January 24, 1638 the first constitution establishing the commonwealth state of Connecticut was adopted by the voice of its people. Its opening session began by having the Reverend Thomas Hooker preach a sermon to the delegates. His sermon was titled "The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people." He closed his address by admonishing his listeners: "As God has given us liberty let us take it."
The same was true when the Constitution of Delaware was established in 1776. Article 22 of that document requires an oath by all officers of the state as follows: "I, A.B., do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
As the King of England began to impose an increasing number of harsh rules upon the colonists, more and more of them became anxious to rid themselves of his tyrannical rule. However, not everyone was convinced that such a course of action was wise or even necessary. For years the debate over this matter was hotly argued among the colonists. On March 23, 1775, in a small church on the edge of Richmond, Virginia, a group of people secretly gathered together to once more debate this issue. During that meeting in St. John's church, a young man by the name of Patrick Henry rose to the floor and gave an impassioned speech. He concluded his remarks by saying, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
So powerful were his words that they swayed those assembled to accept the idea of resisting the rule of their mother country, England. In that speech, Patrick Henry made reference to God four times and twice he quoted verses from the Bible.
What we see again and again in the statements of the earliest Americans, especially those who founded the government of our nation, that they considered religion - specifically the Christian religion - to be an integral and important part of their governmental process.
On February 29, 1892, the United States Supreme Court, in its verdict of The Holy Trinity Church VS the Untied States said of these statement: "There is no dissonance (disagreement, conflict of opinion) in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings of private persons. They are organic (fundamental, basic, underlying) utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people."
Far from thinking that religion had no place in our government, those who established our nation and were the first to write its laws felt that God was an indispensable, essential, and fundamental part of government. What they didn't want was for the government to dictate to its citizen how they were to worship, as England had done. Section II of the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania, enacted into law on September 28, 1776 stated it this way: "All men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding… that no authority can or ought to be vested in or assumed by any power whatsoever that shall in any case interfere with or in any manner controul the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship."
Likewise, the very first amendment which the founders of our country added to their newly created federal Constitution guaranteed the right of its citizens the freedom to practice religion as they saw fit, which freedom England had brutally denied them.
Instead of removing all religion from government, our founding fathers, with purposeful deliberation and thought, did all in their power to make sure that government would never be able to suppress religious worship among its citizens. That is why they created a union of states that was designed to make us one nation under God.
The freedom to worship God without the government dictating or suppressing that worship by force is what the framers of the Constitution meant to establish. Placing a nativity scene in front of a government building does not force anyone to worship Jesus Christ, nor does it prevent anyone from worshiping or not worshiping whatever kind of God they desire. Placing a sculpture of the Ten Commandments in the lobby of a courthouse, where people are told to place their hand on the Bible and swear before God that they will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, does not force compliance to one religion to the exclusion of all others. Saying prayers in a school might offend an atheist but they are not forced to pray nor are they punished for not participating in the prayer. But when anyone, whether it is an individual or a governmental body, prevents others from exercising their right to express their religious beliefs as they so desire, they are forcing them to accept someone else's standard and use the law to punish those who don't agree with their religious or non-religious viewpoint.
The Constitution of the United States of America allows its people the freedom to practice their religion without government interference but now there are a minority of people who want to remove that freedom, by perscribing through the use of government law, how the majority can and cannot practice their religion. When religious symbols are forbidden to be placed in public by an act of law, government is behaving in the same manner as did England in the 16th and 17th century.
When government forcibly prevents the right of its citizens to worship God in the manner they choose, then, instead of separating the powers of government from the power of the church, the government is, in reality, dictating to its citizens what form of public worship is acceptable and which is not. This sort of action by the government is the very opposite of what the founders of the United States Constitution meant when they talked about the separation of church and state.
(For a more detailed history behind the original intent of the separation of church and state read "Freedom From Religion" )
UPDATE
DES MOINES, Iowa, June 3, 2006 (AP) -- A judge has ruled that a Bible-based prison program violates the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause by using state funds to promote Christianity to inmates. Prison Fellowship Ministries, which was sued in 2003 by an advocacy group, was ordered Friday to cease its program at the Newton Correctional Facility and repay the state $1.53 million.
Barry Lynn, executive director of the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed the suit. Lynn's group accused Prison Fellowship Ministries of giving preferential treatment to inmates participating in the program by giving special visitation rights, movie-watching privileges, access to computers and access to classes needed for early parole. U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt called the perks "seemingly minor benefits" that constituted unfair treatment to those not in the religious program. Despite any claims of rehabilitating inmates, the program "impermissibly endorses religion," Pratt wrote.
The InnerChange Freedom Initiative was implemented in Newton in 1999. State prison officials have said they hired the religious group to improve inmate behavior and reduce recidivism -- not promote Christianity. Ministry president Mark Earley said in a statement Friday "This decision, if allowed to stand, will enshrine religious discrimination," Earley said. "It has attacked the right of people of faith to operate on a level playing field in the public arena and to provide services to those who volunteered to receive them."
Return to Nature of Freedom menu
Return to main menu