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 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.
Thanks very much for leaving a comment.
I used to believe what you believe. I have concluded that I was a victim of educational malpractice.
I recommend reading David Barton's book, Original Intent. His book is a catalog of evidence that was left out of my public school education, and probably yours too. The evidence paints a completely different picture of the Framers and their age.
I agree with Justice Rehnquist: the "wall of separation" is an unconstitutional and destructive metaphor. While the Founders wanted a separation between churches and the State, they did not even contemplate a State that was separated from God. The idea never entered their minds. To be "separated" from God is to be in rebellion against God. They believed government should be "under God." They believed government was an institution ordained by God. They believed government had a duty to acknowledge and obey God.
I have placed your comment on the left, and responded on the right:
| Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. | While the institution of the church had a ministry separate from "the ministry of justice," both institutions were to be governed by God's commandments in the Bible. Some of God's Commandments relate more specifically to churches than to governments, but both institutions were to be "under God," subject to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" (the Bible). |
| 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 | I appreciate this argument from a pedagogical perspective. As we'll see, it's not true. |
| (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), |
|
| (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, | The entire concept of "civil government" was connected to God and religion in the minds of the Framers. By "religion" I don't mean "the Church of England," or "the Roman Catholic Church," I mean "true religion." The creation of the institution of "civil government" was understood to be obedience to a command of God. The Framers believed God wanted them to move out of a "state of nature" into a state of "civil society."
I think you're looking for an answer to a question that was never asked. The Constitution does not create a completely new system of government to replace all the state governments. The States created a very limited government which would have a limited number of enumerated powers. As Madison explained the concept in the Federalist Papers, the federal government would have only a couple of powers: foreign policy (war) and standardization of interstate trade. The vast bulk of governmental functions remained with the States. Everyone on all sides will admit that in June of 1776, all 13 colonies were Christian Theocracies. The Declaration of Independence is a theocratic document that did not change this. The Articles of Confederation left the States as Christian Theocracies. And these Christian Theocracies did not secularize themselves through the Constitution of 1787. Finally, the Constitution does in fact connect itself to God and the Christian religion. It does this by the mentioning of "Sunday" and by dating itself in "the Year of our Lord." Had there been "quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice" (as you say) to remove America from its Christian past, the Framers could have approached things like the French Revolution did, and re-start the calendar. See the discussion here. |
| (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and | Everyone certainly agrees with this. |
| (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. | A "religious test" was actually a church test. Many state constitutions simultaneously banned atheists from public office and eliminated "religious tests." They expressly stated that all Christian denominations would have equal rights. But not atheists. Not Mormons. Evidence here. |
| 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. | It was not the case that the Framers were centralizing all government power into a new and omnipotent federal government. Thirteen Christian Theocracies were confederating to defend themselves against European attack. "State's Rights" were still jealously guarded. And the clergy of the day were jealous of their own ecclesiastical power. They would never have ratified a constitution that gave the slightest appearance of trampling on their jurisdiction. The goal was not to secularize America, but to prohibit the federal government from favoring one denomination over another. The forces of atheism and secularism were virtually non-existent in 1787, but the forces of denominationalism were still powerful. It was denominational jealousy that barred denomination-specific religious language from the Constitution, and even the appearance that the
federal government had any authority over religion.
In short, don't impose a secularist agenda on what was actually a states-rights agenda. There are pages and pages of debates about federal power over the various Christian churches, but there isn't even a hint of a debate about secularizing the nation. This idea is imposed on history by modern secularists. |
| 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. | This is true as it pertains to the various Christian denominations. For 150 years, the Constitution was not interpreted as secular, but it was still Christian. In 1892 the Supreme Court of the United States declared that America was a Christian nation. At about that same time, the Court said that the federal government could prohibit Mormon polygamy because all "Christian nations" do so. The idea of a secularizing constitution is a modern idea. It does not come out of history. |
| The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment. | It rests on secular dreams, not history. |
For further study: