Posted by 
The following is simply an opinion piece from a simpleton Christian.
Next to the reality of the 2nd Amendment, granting each and every citizen of these great United States the right to, (if they are legally able), keep and bear arms, the issue of “separation of Church and State” is the most volatile. If you ever wanted to start an argument, mention publicly your adherence or contempt of this particular concept, and then watch what happens.
The funny part is that The Constitution never actually says “separation of Church and State”. So right from the get-go, those who would defend this concept, maintaining that The Constitution says this, are already on shaky ground and a suspect platform. However, I understand this, because it is easier to allow the limited knowledge that public schools supply in regard to The Constitution and liberal talking points to give you your “anti-Conservative” ammo, than to actually read The Constitution for yourself. (Sorry, I am being judgmental. I should instead simply give you my sympathies for being so ill-read and sorely prepared for the real world, and not hold you accountable in being an American.)
This phrase was first mentioned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists. I wish to point out one specific line here, emphasis mine:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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.
Jefferson was quoting parts of the First Amendment here. (Gasp! You mean “separation of Church and State” isn’t in The Constitution? Darn my public education!) Tell me, please, after reading the full letter, if Jefferson wanted religion removed from Government or merely to never be established by Government. Big difference, folks.
As a Christian, I love the fact that The Ten Commandments are on display in numerous courthouses across this great Nation. (At least until the ACLU can get them properly removed.) As a Christian, I love that Mr. Obama himself took the Oath of Presidency using, wait for it, President Abraham Lincoln’s copy of The Holy Bible. (See picture below.) I love that there is a National Day of Prayer that has quite a turn-out in DC, by the way. (The funny part to this is that no one said you could only pray to the Judeo-Christian God during this event. However, I have not seen nor heard of any other gods being represented. Curious, that. If I am mistaken on this, feel free to correct me with verifiable sources.)
On the very money I have in my wallet and front pocket, issued by the Federal Reserve, there is mention of God. “In God We Trust”. Love it. At Arlington National Cemetery we can find Christian Crosses and Stars of David marking the final resting places of our veterans, on Federal land. Is this not a direct violation of the separation issue? What if someone visits Arlington and presumes that all Americans are either followers of Judaism or Christianity based on these symbols? Heaven forbid! What if someone reads our money and presumes we are all followers of God? Oh my! Will no one stand-up for the atheists and the followers of other gods? Such discrimination!
I’m going to make this really easy to follow, because I have thought of this for some time now.
The reality is simply that those who don’t believe in the Judeo-Christian God detest any mention of Him or reference to Him in the Government arenas. Since it is Government, God should have nothing to do with it because followers of God are all pro-life, gun-toting, flag-waving, Bible-thumping, anti-Evolution religious zealots who believe in a myth and a misogynistic book written by men who say they speak for some god or something. People only mention the issue of separation when it has to do with Jesus or His Father.
You want to mention Allah or Islam? No problem. You want to mention any one of the numerous Hindu gods? No problem. You want to mention Buddhism or Buddha? No problem. You want to mention your Inner Spiritual Guide named Zarkon who you “brought forth” through New Age meditation techniques? No problem. The moment you mention Jesus or His Father, well, you are obviously trying to force your religion down my throat and how dare you do this as an elected official. (Unless you’re a liberal, then it’s okey-dokey. I mean, pftt, it’s not like liberals are that into Jesus like those nutjob Republicans, yeesh!)
To take this “separation of Church and State” argument to its logical conclusion, NO elected official, be they Mayor of some small town, all the way up to President, can have, or be allowed to mention, any religious beliefs.
After all, religion is for the unwashed and uneducated simpletons who litter this country and they need to be enlightened to humanism, or liberalism wherein everyone can do what they want and feel good about it.
But I digress…(that happens when I type too quickly.)
All “separation of Church and State” means, in the hands of God-haters and/or atheists, is that they are mad that Jesus or His Father are mentioned by someone or some organization that is on the Government payroll. Unless that person is Obama. I mean, he’s pretty darn close to being Jesus, isn’t he?
Then you must love President Obama who ends every speech with “…God bless the United states of America.
Every speech? No, not every speech. Especially his inaugural address.
Now, Reagan, on the other hand…
Hey what is with bringing up Reagan every time I mention something about President O? : )
What can I say? He was the first Commander in Chief I killed for. (In the military, people, in the military.) And besides, he had a brilliantly dry sense of humor and was a fantastic dresser. Ha!
When Reagan said, “God Bless America”, I believed it. If I hear Obama say it, I fear I shall start to giggle uncontrollably at the sheer hypocrisy of it all.
The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause of the Constitution. The absence of the phrase in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression the words appeared there and later learned of their mistake. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
While some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decisions, particularly Everson v. Board of Education, as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, that letter played but a small part in the Court’s decisions.
Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that old habits die hard and that tendencies of citizens and politicians could and sometimes did lead them to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
In discussing issues of separation of church and state, it is critical to avoid the all-too-common mistake of conflating the “public square” with “government.” The principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. And in practice, there is plenty of religion out there in the public square; I see and hear of it daily on the street, on the radio, on the TV, on the internet, etc. The First Amendment’s “establishment” clause constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in their classrooms), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is acting in an official or private capacity in any given circumstance can be complex, recognizing the distinction is critical.
The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to transform our secular government into some form of religion-government partnership should be resisted by every patriot.
I have to say that I agree with this, “When Reagan said, ‘God Bless America’, I believed it.” I hate that I feel this way, but when I hear Obama say it I feel like he was told, “it’ll look good, just trust me.” I do not believe that he is moved, in the way that I could feel the emotion coming from Reagan, to actually ask God to bless America. Maybe I’m a horrible judge of character, but all that I can go off of is his public persona. His words, actions, and in many cases lack of action, lead me to believe that he is of different character. I do admire him though. I think he’s got a lot of charisma and that he is just likeable. I think he is an intelligent human being. But I still do not believe he is being genuine when he concludes a speech with a robotic and stale rendition of “God bless America.” It actually reminds me, as a mom, of when the children hit another child and are made to apologize. The kids won’t look one another in the eye and then out comes this reluctant and snippy “I’m sorry.”
Doug Indeap,
Bravo, sir! Your comments were brilliantly written and very insightful. I especially liked how you made your point so firmly at the end, saying:
The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to transform our secular government into some form of religion-government partnership should be resisted by every patriot.
I particularly liked this line:
The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others.
I firmly believe in Jesus as my God and Lord, but if our government ever said, “Hey, we are all Christians (Muslims/Buddhists/etc.) now, so deal with it!”, I would be a bit freaked-out.
My stance in this article was simply to say that whenever I see the issue of “separation of Church and State” mentioned in this modern-day America, it seems to boil down to rejecting and vilifying any mention of Jesus or His Father. This doesn’t surprise me, as it is the name of Jesus that is elevated above every other name in existence and it is only by His name that mankind may be saved. It makes sense that secularists despise His name above all others, as the names of false gods are impotent and hollow.
I fully agree with and support never having government force any religious ideals upon our Nation, absolutely. But since God has already been sourced in the establishment of our Nation and in the writing of The Constitution, how can we remove His influence?
Oh, one of my fave James Madison quotes, since you mentioned him in your comments, is this:
“We have staked the whole future of American Civilization…upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to The Ten Commandments of God.”
I mention this because it seems painfully obvious to me that our Founding Fathers had no small amount of acknowledgement of God not only in their daily lives, but in their very mindset as they wrote The Constitution. Well, at least Madison did.
Some additional food for thought:
* In response to a request that all reference to religion be removed from government, the House Judiciary Committee Report March 3, 1854 said:
“Had the people, during the Revolution, had any suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, the Revolution would have been strangled in the cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the Amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect. In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. The great vital and conservative element in our system is the doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
h/t to http://www.jeremiahproject.com/
Natalie,
The insincere apology and the less than heartfelt prayer.
Your analogy reminds me of a conversation I once took part in with a few members of our congregation (on the outreach committee) and our Pastor. I was making the case that some of our outreach should continue to focus on young families that have new children and no “home church”. A few of the other members of the committee did not like us bringing these families in, because when they heard these new people pray, they sounded hesitant or even insincere. I argued that perhaps religion was new to some of these families, and they were just fumbling a bit, but my Pastor said “No, they sound hesitant, because they are hesitant”, which really surprised me. I was surprised, because our Pastor was a strong advocate of reaching out to these families, and he seemed to be supporting those who where against outreach to this group.
The Pastor explained, the Holy Spirit calls all of us, in many different ways, some hear the call clearly, for some it is less than a whisper, for some an urge or a need unfulfilled. He went on, many of these young families are hearing the call – they are hesitant yes – but still they come. For many of them, they have not sought out God for themselves, but now that they have a child, the need is greater, the call a bit louder. But don’t assume that their hesitancy, is insincerity, some people are seeking God, but don’t like the religious dogma the church have to offer, some seek God, but don’t like the Pastor (some other Pastor not him), some seek God, but want to be able to express themselves in their own way, and yes for all of these families this is all new. The important thing here, is that these families DO come and they DO pray, and even if it is not up to our standards, it is not for us to set that standard.
My Pastor had a lot more to say about how we, as a congregation, should be welcoming these families but that is not the point here.
I don’t think President Obama is being insincere when he says “God bless the United States of America” at the end of his speeches. He doesn’t sound hesitant to me, but neither does this one line invocation move me spiritually. To me, it sounds pro forma, (this is just what you say at the end of a Presidential speech) like when I say “Amen” at the end of grace before I eat, it is often just pro forma, not truly heartfelt. And although certainly a heartfelt “Amen” is the best, I think the habit of a prayer of thanks before a meal, a “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, or “God bless America” at the end of a speech provide touchstones that are good for our society. So, while you may be very perceptive, and sense that he is only saying this because someone else thinks he “should” say it, I am glad that he DOES say it, even if it is not up to the “Reagan gold standard” of how someone should deliver that line.
I like what your Pastor has to say, PJ, but I don’t think that it applies to this situation. I have no idea how Obama prays when he does so in the privacy of his home (however public his home may be) or his Church, and I do NOT submit that I have some standard for how it should be done. I am not perfect nor do I hold anyone else up to be. But I am being perfectly honest and not the least snarky when I tell you that I do not hear a love of country in his voice when he says that line. I’ll tell you why and what I base the claims on: When you hear Obama speak on something for which he holds a passion, you hear that passion. It’s the reason so many flocked to him. “I will end don’t ask don’t tell!” (I’m paraphrasing from memory so the quote may be off). When you heard him say this, you (or at least I) heard sincerity. Granted he may not be successful in that venture, but I get that he wants to be successful. When he speaks to a group like ACORN or SEIU, you feel his passion because he relates to them. But when he states (or reads in many cases) “God Bless the United States of America” it is more robotic and as you aptly called it “pro forma.” It’s kind of like when my kids get in trouble for saying “What?” instead of the requisite “Ma’am?” I ask them what they meant to say and they mumble, “maaaa’aaaaam” with about as much heart as I hear from Obama when he purportedly asks God to bless our nation. That’s all I’m saying. It’s an observation that I wish I was not in the position of having to make. I want to be able to believe it, not hear reluctance (which by the way is not at all the same thing as hesitation.) To go to your analogy as your Pastor told it, a new Christian might be hesitant to pray because we’re human and we fear not measuring up to either man’s standards or to God’s. We don’t know if we’re going to say the right things, therefore we hesitate. What does the President of the United States of America need to worry about when he professes his love of country? Lest we forget, many didn’t agree with Reagan (since you brought him up) but I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who didn’t truly think he was patriotic and loved this great nation.
Donald,
Thank you for the kind words.
Take care in quoting the founding fathers. Fake quotations abound, and the one you offer is among them. See http://candst.tripod.com/misq1.htm
I am familiar with the House Judiciary Committee Report you quote. It was prompted by questions raised about the constitutionality of Congress’ appointment of chaplains–one of the very topics Madison addressed in his Detached Memoranda. As Madison’s commentary was not published until many years later, the Committee did not see or consider it. If they were acting as objective historians, they may have been persuaded to reach the same conclusion as Madison. But they acted as politicians issuing a political document, so knowledge of Madison’s understanding likely would have made little difference to them–though it certainly would have been interesting to see them struggle to sidestep it.
You are right to note that many of the founding fathers and others of their time were much influenced by religion, including various forms of Christianity as well as deism. Whatever the religions of the various founders, though, they drafted a Constitution that plainly establishes a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity) and says nothing substantive of god(s) or religion except in the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion and another provision precluding any religious test for public office. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion, and indeed that is what the founders did.
Doug,
I just read the article by Jim Allison, and now find myself feeling rather like I have some egg upon my face! Thank you for the correction. I’m not an historian by any stretch of the imagination, and I pulled that Madison quote from somewhere on the Internet. Lesson learned, to be sure. I shall endeavor to fully research these things more astutely. Again, thanks for the correction.
I enjoyed your response and would like to point out one of your lines:
It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion, and indeed that is what the founders did.
I wholeheartedly agree with your words here. I hope I never gave the impression that I wished the Government was populated with Christians, run by Christians, and only Christians would pass legislation for Christian benefit. Again, my beef, if you will, is simply that religion in government is tolerated as long as it isn’t Jesus or His Father. But I believe you got that.
Not to belabor a point, but what did you think of my theory that in a perfectly liberal government, no one would have any religious convictions whatsoever if they were elected officials or held elected offices?
–To take this “separation of Church and State” argument to its logical conclusion, NO elected official, be they Mayor of some small town, all the way up to President, can have, or be allowed to mention, any religious beliefs.
After all, religion is for the unwashed and uneducated simpletons who litter this country and they need to be enlightened to humanism, or liberalism wherein everyone can do what they want and feel good about it.–
Was this an unreasonable theory or did it make sense in light of what we see in DC today? I cannot think of one devoutly religious person in the progressive/liberal camp. I would cite either Pelosi or Biden, but…..
When our leaders, (ugh, I hate calling them that!), do not exercise their religious freedom to actually worship some kind of higher power, it makes me wonder how long it will be until the worship of higher powers is considered old-fashioned and archaic, and highly unsuitable for this new enlightened age.
Would it matter if they went to church? Would that change my mind about them? Hmm. It would in the sense that they are openly acknowledging the fact that they cannot do their jobs without the help of some higher power. It would show humility and a servant’s heart. It’s not easy to feel like you are hot stuff if you bow and submit to your Creator once in a while.
But, sorry, I’m rambling now.
Thanks again for the correction and your responses. Long Live the Republic! Oh, which reminds me: Did Franklin really say that famous, “A republic, if you can keep it”, line?
Donald,
I suppose my interest in Constitutional law led me to focus on that rather than your observations about liberal politics. It is an interesting thought.
The Constitutional principle of separation of church and state, as I see it, certainly does not prevent those in government from mentioning religious beliefs. They can discuss religious beliefs whenever acting in their individual capacity (when “off duty” so to speak) as they, like all individuals, are guaranteed freedom of religion. They can discuss religious beliefs when “on duty” as well, as long as they do so in a manner that does not amount to government promoting or otherwise taking steps toward establishment of religion. While it is easy enough to express and agree on this general concept, when it comes to actual cases, reasonable people may disagree about whether this or that statement about religion crosses the line.
As I mentioned, though, apart from the Constitution, there is this broader, amorphous “cultural” attitude about separation of church and state. Even if a government official’s statements on religion in a particular case do not contravene the Constitutional principle, they may nonetheless bother some people and strike them as inappropriate. Others may well appreciate the official’s words and cheer him on. In our rather polarized society, both reactions are fairly common nowadays.
I can understand your impression of liberal politicians. As a sizeable portion of their constituency is not religious, or at least not actively so, liberal politicians have tended to shy away from expressions of piety, at least relative to conservative politicians (who, owing to the nature of their constituency, tend to display their religiosity more). As Christianity is the dominant religion in our society, when liberals “don’t mention” religion, it may be perceived largely as not mentioning Christianity. At the same time, liberals also tend to be big on diversity and sensitive about discrimination against minorities and interested in inclusiveness. These tendencies may lead them to treat “minority” religious groups relatively more tenderly than majority religious groups (i.e., Christians). All that may be perceived, and perhaps rightfully so, as unequal, discriminatory, and unfavorable with respect to Christianity. My take is that liberals who act this way (it’s hardly all) do so not out of ill will toward Christians, but rather out of a desire to embrace those perceived as “less” in terms of numbers, power, etc.
From the perspective of atheists, concerns of Christians (the dominant religious group in our society) about not enough recognition of Christianity by politicians and other government officials may seem overblown and other nearly opposite concerns loom large. It appears that politicians of all stripes commonly find it useful or even necessary to proclaim their faith in order to garner votes–liberals perhaps just a little less so (although that tendency seems to be changing of late). Few–very few–acknowledge they are atheists (either because they actually aren’t atheists or can’t find the courage to say they are), and doing so usually is not a smart political move in today’s social climate. Polls put atheists at the bottom of the electability pile.