The wall of separation between church and state existed before the Framers amended the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. In the last fifty years, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against many religious activities that were previously practiced on state-owned grounds or during state sponsored functions. These rulings have been a result of a changing perspective of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which states that the government cannot establish a religion.[1]
Some Christian groups have argued the recent decisions violate the First Amendment’s free exercise clause, which guarantees that the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.[2] Some claim the United States is historically a nation founded on Christian principles; the First Amendment must be interpreted according to proper context.
The concept of the wall of separation between church and state did not occur overnight, nor did it instantly form through a Supreme Court decision. The idea of separating ecclesiastical government from secular government goes back to the nation’s spawning.
The term was first coined in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802:
Believing with you that religion is matter which lies solely between man and his God…I contemplate…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.[3]
Prior to the amending of the Bill of Rights in 1789, the Constitution mentioned religion only in the context that religious requirements were prohibited for federal office holders[4]. Article I of the Bill of Rights states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.[5] Although the First Amendment says congress shall make no law, the liberties were later applied to the states through the 14th Amendment.[6]
The First Amendment implies freedom of religion. But what is religion? A dictionary says religion can be “service and worship of God or the supernatural”, “commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance” or “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes.”[7]
The founders of the United States, who were responsible for putting the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, give some hints of what religion was not considered at the time. Historically, the establishment of religion was not viewed as governmental acknowledgement of the deity, but a preference toward a particular denomination or the establishment of an official church[8]. Most living in the time of the Enlightenment took the existence of God for granted. The views of who God is differed, as some prominent Americans like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin embraced deism, a theology stating God created the universe, set natural laws in motion, yet no longer intervened in human affairs.
However, prominent deists like Thomas Jefferson never denied the existence of God’s existence or sovereignty said “the God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.”[9] Jefferson himself attended church services at the capital and wrote in the Declaration that human rights were God-given.[10] James Madison echoed that assumption, saying, “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered a subject of the Governor of the Universe.”[11]
Years later, Joseph Story, a Harvard law professor who served on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1811-1845 reemphasized this view:
…the duty we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence…the rights of conscience are beyond the reach of any human power. They are given by God, and cannot be encroached upon by human authority, without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural, as well as of revealed religion.[12]
Afterwards the Supreme Court in 1890 stated:
The term “religion” has reference to one’s views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for His being and character, and of obedience to His will…the First Amendment to the Constitution in declaring that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or forbidding the free exercise thereof was intended to allow everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States to entertain such notions respecting his relationship to his Maker and the duties they impose as may be approved by his judgment and conscience, and to exhibit his sentiments in such form of worship as he may think proper, nor injurious to the equal rights of other, and to prohibit legislation for the support of any religious tenets or the modes of worship of any sect.[13]
In summary, the historical definition of religion has meant the particular way of worshiping God. Today, some believe the definition means to simply acknowledge or suggest the existence of God. However, historically the belief that God is sovereign over all has been an accepted fact, and serves as the primary basis for the freedoms of the Constitution.
With the definition of religion changed over the years, the Supreme Court has had to make drastic rulings in order to uphold the establishment clause. Yet, “religion” has yet to be defined by the courts, but rather the definition is assumed. Roy Moore criticizes this reluctance to define religion by saying:
Rather than examining the plain meaning of the word religion and seeking to understand what the Framers meant by the term, others prefer to define the term in whatever way would most enable them to reach their desired goal. Some have even gone so far as to suggest a dual or “bifurcated” definition. For instance, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe once suggested that some things are “clearly religious” and therefore banned in the public arena by the Establishment clause, but protected in private by the Free Exercise clause; and some things are “clearly non-religious” and therefore allowed in the public arena by the Establishment clause, but not protected in private by the Free Exercise clause.[14]
Perhaps religious material can give a better definition of “religion”. Yet the highest authority for most Christians, the Bible, has the word “religion” mentioned only twice. Only once is the term “religion” defined: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” James 1:27.[15]
We could look to other holy books of other religions, such as the Qur’an of Islam, the Avesta of the Zoroastrians, the Vedas of the Hindus, the Sutras of Buddhism, but that would require expanding the definition of religion even further to encompass other faiths. The definition of religion becomes more vague when including ideologies that some people consider religions, such as secular humanism, environmentalism or atheism.
The lack of “religion” as a defined term has lead to changes in the way society sees the establishment and free exercise liberties. Recent court decisions have moved the state to a position of neutrality between the church and state affairs.[16] The position dates back to 1947 in the case of Everson v. Board of Education:
The concept of neutrality in church-state law is quite old. One can go back even farther to the first modern Establishment case – the Everson parochial school busing case – where the court embraced the separationist position with some of the strongest language imaginable: “No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, what ever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion…In the words of Jefferson, the clause…was intended to erect a wall of separation between Church and State.
In 1947, the Supreme Court ruled state and federal governments could not “pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another” in Everson v. Board of Education.[17] State sponsored public prayer was disallowed after being interpreted to violate the establishment clause in Engel v. Vitale in 1962.[18] That same year, the Supreme Court ruled the daily reading of the Lord’s Prayer and the Bible in public schools violated the establishment clause in Abington v. Schempp.[19] It also ruled in 1971 that state funds couldn’t even go toward religious institutions to teach secular subjects in Lemon v. Kurtzman.[20]
The Ten Commandments were forbidden from public display in the courtrooms after the Stone v. Graham decision in 1980.[21] Alabama laws permitting public schools to have a one-minute moment of silence were overturned in Wallace v. Jaffree in 1985.[22]
However, not all the Supreme Court decisions have been against religion. In Mueller v. Allen, the Supreme Court upheld the right for parents to receive tax deductions for sending children to parochial schools.[23] The Supreme Court upheld a school program in Zorach v. Clauson, allowing students to be released during a school day to attend religious courses operated outside the school building at the expense of a religious body.[24] The court also protected the exercise rights of a Christian club in Westside v. Mergens, where they ruled the Equal Access Act prohibited schools from barring religious meetings held by students on school premises.[25]
Yet, clearly the wall of separation, dating back to the writing of the Constitution, has grown from a picket fence to an impenetrable barrier. The very first act of Congress was to have 20,000 Bibles printed and distributed to the Native Americans, an act that would blatantly violate the establishment clause by today’s standards.[26] George Washington violated the First Amendment when he issued a national proclamation of thanksgiving and prayer at the request of Congress. Even Thomas Jefferson breached it by both allowing and attending church services conducted in the House of Representatives.[27] Abraham Lincoln asked Americans in 1863 to join in a National Fast Day saying, “we have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven…but we have forgotten God.”[28]
With the changing definition of the term “religion”, the most absurd arguments can be made in the name of upholding freedom of religion. One could say the architecture of government buildings must be absent of certain joints, claiming the joints resemble crosses and therefore establishes the Christian religion. Depictions of the moon and stars on public grounds could be interpreted as displaying the symbol of Islam, therefore giving preference toward Muslims. One could demand prohibiting the teaching of the Greek Mythology, claiming that talking about the gods and goddesses of ancient Greece is equivalent to proselytizing belief in Zeus.
If this approach toward the separation of church and state continues, society will not only be sanitized from any trace of its historical Christian roots, but also eradicate anything remotely spiritual. “Man is a spiritual being;” said Benjamin Hart, “when one faith is eliminated, a new god will rush in to fill the spiritual void. Through out history, there has been a man-made god called the state.”[29]
Indeed the rising wall is denying Christians privileges they enjoyed 200 years ago. But are 21st century American Christians really prohibited from free exercise of religion, even now? Yes, in comparison to the foundational intertwining of church and state in the history of this nation.
However, Christians in America enjoy more freedom today than they have in earlier times. Two thousand years ago, Christianity was born inside the Roman Empire, where no one had heard of the right to religious free exercise or from establishment. Rome’s had an established religion, one consisting of a pantheon of gods and goddesses, where the citizens believed able to coerce the power of deities by performing certain rituals. Roman mythology borrowed aspects from other religions; the Romans generally accepted the Greek gods and goddesses as the same. Cults developed during these times, such as the cult of Isis, an Egyptian goddess, and the cult of Mithras. The government suppressed some cults at certain times to prevent trouble such as the cult of Dionysus, the god of wine, which prompted followers to get drunk and start riots.[30]
Generally, the Roman government was tolerant of other religions in order to expand the empire and keep the people generally happy. Yet two particular religions caused trouble, Judaism and, of course, Christianity.
Rome recognized Christianity as an emerging religion around 30 A.D. when Emperor Tiberius asked the Senate to add Christ to the existing pantheon of gods. The Senate refused and instead labeled Christianity as an “illegal superstition”. Thirty years later, Nero blamed the Christians for starting the fire of 64 A.D. Rumors spread about the Christians, claiming they were cannibals for eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ, incestuous for loving one another as brother and sister and atheists for not believing in the multitudes of Roman gods and goddesses.[31]
Persecution begin,. not with court injunctions but by being “torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or made into torches to be ignited after dark as substitutes for daylight.”[32]
In 110 A.D., the persecutions died down as Trajan reached a compromise between the growing number of Christians and the Romans who wanted them exterminated. Yet the persecutions continued in various forms over the years, depending on the attitude of the emperor and Senate. In 313, Constantine permitted all Romans “to follow the religion which he chooses”. As a result, Christianity swept the empire as a result of religious freedom.[33]
The era of religious freedom ended when Theodosis made Christianity the official state religion in 395 A.D., which of course altered the development of Christianity in a fusion of church and state. But prior to the time, the Scriptures making up the New Testament had been written almost 300 years earlier and the churches throughout the empire established the Apostle’s Creed and a rough canon of what is known today as the Bible.
Christianity was born, grew and survived in an environment that has established the Roman religion and denied Christians and Jews free exercise of their religions. The New Testament was written without government sanction, but by authors persecuted by a government that either expressed strong disapproval of their religion or demanding death for their faith.
Numerous passages in the New Testament instruct Christians to obey the authorities, those known to be followers of the Roman religion and perhaps hostile to Christianity.[34] Thus the Bible doesn’t give Christians an excuse to not deny their faith because the government holds different religious views. An author for Summit Ministries wrote in an article:
True freedom can only exist in a land governed according to the principles set forth in Romans 13:3-4: “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrong-doer,”[35]
Although for the Christian, it may be an ideal for Christians to be in offices of power, the Scriptures command obedience regardless of the government’s religious viewpoints. In scriptural perspective, Christians are expected to obey the governments granting large amounts of religious freedom and those denying it.
Yet Christians can find a great deal of freedom to worship even if the U.S. continues to adopt a stance of religious neutrality. Isaac Backus assured this in 1773 when writing about the differences between church and state:
It appears to us that the difference and exact limits between ecclesiastical and civil government is this, that the church is armed with light and truth to pull down the strongholds of iniquity and to gain souls for Christ and into his Church to be governed by his rules therein…while the state is armed with the sword to guard the peace and the civil rights of all persons and societies and to punish those who violate the same. And where these two kinds of government, and the weapons which belong to them are well distinguished and improved according to the true nature and end of their institution, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other.[36]
Although that church and state can be affectively separated, aspects of Christianity do not easily fit into such compartments. Church and state will always conflict in the case of the Great Commission, Christ’s last command to go to all the earth and make disciples.[37] A public official who testifies as a witness for Christ while on public grounds will likely be found in violation of the First Amendment. In the Christian’s viewpoint, evangelization should be protected under the Free Exercise, but for the state, evangelization must be denied under the Establishment clause.
Does Scripture support the separation of church and state? The Mosaic law of the Old Testament clearly doesn’t, because the church and state were ordained as one entity — the theocracy of Israel. The judges and kings were seen as national spiritual leaders.
But the New Testament is different. Christ, who is proclaimed as Lord over all, yet he tells is not a ruler in this world. Perhaps the New Testament hints at a separation of church and state: as a citizen of the state, the Christian obeys the civil government, which governs matters of civil concern. Yet above that, as a citizen of heaven, the Christian obeys Christ, who governs matters of morality and spirituality.
The state and church aren’t seen as equal, but rather, God is the supreme authority who divests it to the state. As obedience to Christ, the Christian obeys the God-established state, as long as obedience to the state doesn’t necessitate disobedience to Christ.[38] Where there is a conflict of interest between God and state, God takes precedence.[39]
So where does that leave 21st century Christians in the United States? Shall Christians publicly pray on public grounds despite Supreme Court rulings? Christ didn’t seem too favorable toward public prayer 2000 years ago: “When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray…to be seen by men. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”[40]
What about other issues that involve matters of church and state in the 21st century America, such as abortion, homosexuality, evolution, school vouchers and etc? Shall Christians obey God or the state? Can they obey both?
Perhaps they can. Christians can live in a society permitting abortion, and yet not abort their own children. They can live in a society accepting sexual devience while abiding by God’s design for sex. They can attend schools teaching evolutionistic dogma while believing God as Creator. Perhaps by living a higher standard in a world of low standards, Christians will be the light of the world and salt of the earth.[41]
Christians come from a heritage of being persecuted, both heavily and lightly. They are not expected to practice their faith only when conditions are right, when governments permit religious freedoms. Christ said his followers should be happy in the face of persecution, both great and small: “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.”[42]
[1] U.S., Constitution, amend. I.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Thomas Jefferson, to the Danbury Baptist Association, 1802.
[4] “Bill of Rights in Action,” Constitutional Rights Foundation Web Lessons, http://ww.crf-usa.org/bria/bria134.html, 1997.
[5] U.S., Constitution, amend. I.
[6] U.S., Constitution, amend. XIV.
[7] Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed. (Springfield: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 1998), s.v. “Religion.”
[8] Summit Ministries, The Role of the Bible and Christianity in America, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-g001.html, 1995.
[9] Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America (9th printing Library of America, 1774).
[10] Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776.
[11] James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance,1787.
[12] Joseph Story, 3 Commentaries on the Constitution, 1870.
[13] Davis v. Beason, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1915 (1890).
[14] Roy S. Moore, “Religion in the Public Square,” Cumberland Law Review, 1998, 2.
[15] James 1:27 (New International Version).
[16] Steven Green et al., “Contemporary Challenges Facing the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses,” New York Law Review, 1999, 1.
[17] “Bill of Rights in Action,” Constitutional Rights Foundation Web Lessons, http://ww.crf-usa.org/bria/bria134.html, 1997.
[18] Engel et al. v. Vitale et al., 1962 U.S. LEXIS 847 (1962).
[19] Abington Township v. Schempp, et al., 1963 U.S. LEXIS 2611 (1963).
[20] “Bill of Rights in Action,” Constitutional Rights Foundation Web Lessons, http://ww.crf-usa.org/bria/bria134.html, 1997.
[21] Stone et al. v. Graham, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Kentucky, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 2 (1980).
[22] Wallace, Governor of Alabama, et al. v. Jaffree et al., 1985 U.S. LEXIS 91 (1985).
[23] Mueller et al. v. Allen et al., 1983 U.S. LEXIS 96 (1983).
[24] Zorach et al. v. Clauson et al., 1952 U.S. LEXIS 2773 (1952).
[25] Board of Education Westside et al. v. Mergens et al., 1990 U.S. LEXIS 197 (1990).
[26] Summit Ministries, The Role of Christianity in America, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-g001.html, 1995.
[27] Roy S. Moore, “Religion in the Public Square,” Cumberland Law Review, 1998, 5.
[28] Summit Ministries, The Role of the Bible and Christianity in America, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-g001.html, 1995.
[29] Ibid.
[30] “Bill of Rights in Action,” Constitutional Rights Foundation Web Lessons, http://ww.crf-usa.org/bria/bria134.html, 1997.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Romans 13:1, I Peter 2:13-14.
[35] Summit Ministries, The Role of the Bible and Christianity in America, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-g001.html, 1995.
[36] Kathleen Brady, “Fostering Harmony Among the Justices: How Contemporary Debates in Theology Can Help Reconcile the Divisions on the Court Regarding Religious Expression by the State,” Notre Dame Law Review, Dec. 1999, 4.
[37] Matthew 28:18-20.
[38] Romans 13:1.
[39] Acts 5:29.
[40] Matthew 6:5-6 (New International Version).
[41] Matthew 5:13.
[42] Matthew 5:11 (New International Version).