The Myth of
the Separation of Church and State
Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry,
"Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears
in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly
enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and
"state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment
reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The statement about a wall of
separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas
Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard
a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the
national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious
persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in
his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would
not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's
letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed
first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:
I contemplate with solemn 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. (1)
The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state"
was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a
member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to
the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the
words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had
said:
When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of
the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself,
removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that
there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of
necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)
The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the
church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was
free to teach the people Biblical values.
The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in
England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went
so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and
keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state
established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other
churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled
under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment
and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of
religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to
instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers
were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid
foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's
ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute
standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one
dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another.
Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to
either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted
against Christianity.
Each form of government has a guiding principle: monarchy in which the guiding
principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican
democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding
principle is fear. Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct,
society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of
government to obtain what they want at the expense of others. The U.S. Constitution
is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people. The
virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality
was taught in public schools until the early 1960's. Government officials were
required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a
case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960). God was seen
as the author of natural law and morality. If one did not believe in God one could
not operate from a proper moral base. And by not having a foundation from which to
work, one would destroy the community. The two primary places where morality is
taught are the family and the church. The church was allowed to influence the
government in righteousness an d justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not
allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our
foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church
to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -- the
representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's.
Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or
dictatorship. Instead, it was to be our servant. The founding fathers believed
that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some
of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights. Each person
should be self-governed and this is why virtue is so important. Government was meant
to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous
amount of social programs. The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to
have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as
much damage. Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the
rights of the people. The worldview at the time of the founding of our government
was a view held by the Bible: that Man's heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to
advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to
do so. They firmly believed this and that's why an enormous effort to set up checks
and balances took place. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They wanted to
make certain that no man could take away rights given by God. They also did not set
up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man
tends towards wickedness. Just because the majority wants something does not mean
that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not
to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the
principles of the Bible.
Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of
the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work
upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3) We can go back in history
and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their
ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles
Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between
1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other
sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all
citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form
their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were
based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated
them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church
they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our
government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into
our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the
Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this
scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative,
and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man
was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the
government. For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make
them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The
simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from
tyranny. The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although
he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated. Since this is
true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state? People have read
too much into the phrase "separation of church and state", which is to be a
separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values.
Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation
of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we
remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?
Our founding fathers who formed the government also formed the educational system of
the day. John Witherspoon did not attend the Constitutional Convention although he
was President of New Jersey College in 1768 (known as Princeton since 1896) and a signer
of the Declaration of Independence. His influence on the Constitution was far
ranging in that he taught nine of fifty-five original delegates. He fought firmly
for religious freedom and said, "God grant that in America true religion and civil
liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue
tend to the support and establishment of both."(4)
In October 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States removed prayer from schools in a
case called Engel v. Vitale. The case said that because the U.S. Constitution
prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion officials of public schools may
not compose public prayer even if the prayer is denominationally neutral, and that pupils
may choose to remain silent or be excused while the prayer is being recited. For 185
years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention itself was opened
with prayer. If the founding fathers didn't want prayer in government why did they
pray publicly in official meetings? It is sometimes said that it is permissible to
pray in school as long as it is silent. Although, "In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year
old James Gierke was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time... the
boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was
against the law."(4) The U.S. Supreme Court with no precedent in any court
history said prayer will be removed from school. Yet the Supreme Court in January,
1844 in a case named Vidal v. Girard's Executors, a school was to be built in which no
ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever was to be allowed to even
step on the property of the school. They argued over whether a layman could teach or
not, but they agreed that, "...there is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone
can teach, viz. a pure system of morality." This has been the precedent
throughout 185 years. Although this case is from 1844, it illustrates the
point. The prayer in question was not even lengthy or denominationally geared.
It was this: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg
Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." What price
have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God's protecting hand in our
lives? Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among
10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all
gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990's -- even after taking into account population
growth. The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the
Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant
view. Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose? Secular Humanism
is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and
unity and make heaven on earth. They promote a way of life that systematically
excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense. That Man is the highest
point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe
was not created, but instead is self-existing. They believe that Man has the
potential to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct conflict
with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history. In June
1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among
religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief
in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and
others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion.
The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as
ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a
religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public
prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of
Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop
from happening with the first amendment.
1. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary
Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 510, January 1, 1802.
2. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (MI: Baker Book House, 1987),
p. 243.
3. M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United
States Constitution (Marlborough, N.H.: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), p. 4-5.
4. John Witherspoon, "Sermon on the Dominion of Providence over the Passions
of Men" May 17, 1776; quoted and Cited by Collins, President Witherspoon, I:197-98.
