Myth of Separation of Church and State

The Unresponsive Supreme Court

Myth of Separation of Church and State

Excerpts from Bill Scott’s Book: Against All Enemies Foreign and Domestic.

The foundation for the relationship of the government and religion is found in the First Amendment.  To start with the First Amendment Says,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  

Notice it says congress shall make no law.  This is very specific.  It didn’t say Government or no law shall be passed.  It specifically restricted the congress from passing laws establishing religion.  Additional amplifying data is found in the Tenth Amendment which says,

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This clearly shows the founders were restricting some parts of government and not others, depending on the subject at hand.  In this case only congress is restricted from establishing a religion.  The states on the other hand have no such limitation, as far as the constitution is concerned.  Do not misunderstand me; there are some restraints emplaced on the states, but they were put there by an activist court that was acting outside its jurisdiction.  This “one sentence” amendment has created so much controversy and hundreds of court cases.  People are trying to rewrite history and bastardize the constitution while they are at it.  I agree there should not be a federal religion.  I even agree that states should not have a state religion; however, my belief in the latter is not constitutionally based, but I agree with the restriction.  If a state voted to establish a state religion, there is not a constitutional restriction. Of course someone would sue and the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional.  They would be wrong, but that is how they would rule.  They would cite Cantwell vs. Connecticut (1940), a court case that ruled the First Amendment applies to the states.[1]   There is no constitutional base for that decision but that is the way they ruled.  In a word, they pushed it through the backdoor. 

            You might be asking yourself, if the framers, despite what you heard in school, were devout men then, why would they put any restrictions on the government establishment of religion?  The answer is because they were devout men.  You might be thinking this is the beginning of an argument for “Separation of Church and State”, it’s not.  To understand why the framers put the “Establishment Clause” in the First Amendment you have to know your history.  It is not because they wanted to keep religion out of government; it was to keep state out of the church.  There are 3 reasons for amendment. First, is the Church of England.  Remember the newly formed United States went through excruciating methods to ensure that they made a complete break from England.  They established their own form of government, their own legal system, and the relationship of the military and the population.  Prior to the end of the war for independence, the Americans could not print English bibles; they had to rely on the ones from England. This is why one of the first acts of the new congress was to fund and print the first English translated American bible called the Aitken Bible. This bible was to be used in our Schools as a text book. All these things were a way to separate from the English ways.  In regards to the Church of England, the framers wanted to ensure that the US government could not meddle in religion.  In England the King not only was the head of the State, he was also head of the Anglican Church.  Not good!  You might say that is a good reason for the “Separation of Church and State”.  Not so fast.  This was a one way door.  They did not mind religion affecting State just not the other way around.  In fact in early writings the politicians of the day believed the church superior to the state, in a way.  If fact this actually led to the next reason for the “Establishment Clause”.  James Madison the main writer of the US Constitution ran into this issue in Virginia.  The Virginia legislator in 1784 tried to pass a law for creating a TAX to train teachers to teach the Christian faith.[2]  Now Madison was a devout man in a letter basically saying the state has no business poking its nose in the churches’ business. “…Because the bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent judge of religious truth, or that he may employ religion as an engine of civil policy ..Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries.” [3]  Madison wanted to ensure the independence of the church.  The third reason for the “Establishment Clause” is to ensure religious diversity.  In reference to the Bill proposed by the Virginia legislator, Madison in his letter explained that other faiths would be left out if one religion took priority and that would create jealousy and hatred.  “The very appearance of the Bill has transformed that "Christian forbearance, love and charity," which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jealousies which may not soon be appeased.”[4]  So, now you know the reasons for the “Establishment Clause”.  It was not because the framers wanted to keep religion out of government; it was to keep government out of religion.  In other words, a teacher can lead a voluntary prayer in school, but the school can’t force them to pray.