What does separation between Church and State mean? No, not by today’s standards but the standards of the Founders. So many people like to bring out Thomas Jefferson’s letters he wrote, which contain statements that make it appear like Church and State are totally and utterly separate. But what was the consensus of the Founders on this subject?
Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists is commonly used in support of this “wall of separation” argument presented by many liberals of today. But in the same letter in which Jefferson argues for this wall of separation he also adds, “I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.” (T. Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist) Why would a man who believed in a total separation of Church and State include a prayer at the end of the same letter?
The Founders did believe that the choice of religion was up to the individual person, and not the government. However, they did most certainly believe that a person must have religion, meaning Atheism was not tolerated by the Founders. The most cited author during the period of the Founding on the topic of government was the English philosopher John Locke. Locke wrote four letters on Religious Toleration, his first was the most well known. Locke believed that Government could not use the sword to force people to attend a specific Church recognized by the State. Locke says, “Because the care of souls is not committed to the civil magistrate, any more than to other men. It is not committed unto him, I say, by God; because it appears not that God has ever given any such authority to one man over another, as to compel any one to his religion.” Likewise the Church cannot use compulsion to force people to join their Church, as Locke states, “These are not the business of religion. No violence nor injury is to be offered him, whether he be Christian or Pagan.” Everyone has a right of conscience according to Locke. The magistrate lacks ability to force religion through laws because belief in God is inward conversion, not outward forced conversion. Locke states, “The care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate, because his power consists only in outward force; but true and saving religion consists in the inward persuasion of the mind, without which nothing can be acceptable to God.” Locke also proscribes the rights of the Church concerning its members, and also the duties of the Magistrate when it comes to religion.
The Government could, however, ban and punish any persons who did not profess the belief in a supreme Being, ” those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist.” As well as Atheists, Locke asserts that the immoral are also to not be tolerated, “no opinions contrary to human society, or to those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society, are to be tolerated by the magistrate.” Thus if a religion was in violation of the laws of nature it could be prevented from existing. This was the teaching that the Founders had in mind when the created the Government of the Constitution of 1787.
A more direct indication of what was meant by the First Amendment can be found in Article VI of the Constitution of the United States, it states, ” no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” This implies that the Government can’t require anyone to take a religious test. However, this is exempt from children under the age of reason (18) as they are by definition not full citizens and therefore are not given the civil rights a full citizen would possess. The State may also promote religious beliefs by allowing religious groups to use public property for religious teaching. As Joseph Story states in his Commentaries on the Constitution, “Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice.” Religion may be promoted by the Government insofar as the Government is promoting morality as Religion is the source of morality. The People v. Ruggles from 1811 in the State of New York says, “The free, equal, and undisturbed, enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community, is an abuse of that right.” It is once again a clear indication that to denounce religion was not protected by the Bill of Rights.
Despite popular beliefs today the Founders did not believe the Government should not be in the job of promoting religion. Thomas Paine, a radical liberal of his day, professed in Common Sense, “As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensible duty of every government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith.” Religious beliefs should be protected by laws of the society.
Benjamin Rush said in his letter to John Armstrong in 1783, “Without religion I believe learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.” Once again the idea that religion and education must go hand in hand is clear. Religion is the source of morality in a nation, and without a moral people a society cannot be good.
“As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality.”( Massachusetts Declaration of Rights 1780 Article II)
In the State of New York case the People v. Ruggles the Court states ” We stand equally in need, now as formerly, of all the moral discipline, and of those principles of virtue, which help to bind society together.” This is a clear indication that morality is a necessary principle to society. Pornography was banned for the longest time on this context, that it went against the basic principles of morality.
In each of the state Constitutions of the former colonies it is made clear it is the “duty of all men”(Massachusetts Declaration of Rights 1780 Article II) to worship the Almighty Being. Government could not force anyone to attend Church, but it was viewed as your public duty to do so. People would know if one was a religious and pious man, if he was not he would almost certainly fail in attaining public office and trust. Atheism was not tolerated as one without religion was viewed to be without morality as well.
Many views held today violate the free exercise of religion aspect. The ACLU attempts to violate the rights of citizens to free exercise by using the establishment clause of the First Amendment. It is clear that the Government cannot force anyone to attend a Church and that the Church does not have the sword to compel people to attend. However, Churches have a right to promote their beliefs. Companies are also allowed to promote religion. If a hotel chain wishes to include a Bible in their rooms they may. No one is forcing an Atheist from staying at that hotel or to read the Bible. Just as if a Muslim hotel wished to put copies of the Quran in every room they cannot be stopped. Only when a religion is violating the basic rights of life, liberty and property may the Government interfere in the affairs of the Church. By this I mean that if a religious sect is sacrificing individuals, or selling them into slavery or taking their property without consent then the Government may stop them.
The free exercise clause is exactly what it says, a religious sect in complete harmony with the laws of the state and government are allowed to freely practice their religion without molestation from the law. Joseph Story reflects in his Commentaries, “Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship.” Government can and does have the responsibility to promote the overarching religious views of the people. These views changed with the advent of the Progresses in the late 19th and early 20th century. They believed it to be the Government’s responsibility to make the people a moral people. It was no longer the duty of the religion, but of the Government itself. It is clear though that the Founders firmly believed in the proper place of religion in society. Today’s understanding is horribly messed up and takes the Founders out of context. We believe, today that religion has no place in the public sphere, which is totally misunderstood from the Founding. The separation between Church and State is exactly what it says. Government cannot force anyone to believe something against their own personal convictions. This does not mean that the Government cannot place the Ten Commandments outside of it’s buildings. Nor does it mean that if a restaurant wants to place a cross on the wall next to every dinner table that it cannot. These are basic rights of all humans.
Stumble It!
