Board index ‹ Government and Politics

[Math Guy]

Twofold question. First, how do you interpret the separation of Church and State? Second, do you think it's a good thing or bad?

[jimwalton]

I interpret the separation of Church and State as the prohibition of using the power of government to regulate or enforce religious practice. As 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."

The phrase itself comes not from the Constitution or even one of the amendments, and therefore it's not "law of the land." It comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association. Jefferson's message was that it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion. Basically it said that the government can't make laws that enforce certain religions or prevent others, nor laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.

The First Amendment was never intended to prevent any exercise of religion in or by government, nor of any actions within certain religions, such as prayer before meetings, religious displays, etc. It was to prohibit by law a National Church, an official religion, or a theocracy.

Jefferson's attitude was that exercise of religion should be freely chosen and not governmentally mandated. People should have freedom of religious choice and practice. As Jefferson himself said, "[I]t does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. In neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." He also said, "Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error." The "Wall of Separation between Church and State" was mostly intended to block the creation of official state religions—not to completely close the door between government and religious life.

Indeed, Barack Obama even said, "Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy May, Martin Luther King—indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history—were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. To say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

By the same token, I don't consider a Christmas party at school to be the establishment of religion, nor a Christmas display on public property, nor posting quotes from the Qur'an on a school bulletin board. We must distinguish between an exhibition and coercion to subscribe to a religion. A monument of the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn is not the establishment of religion but a recognition of a respect-worthy moral code. And, of course, the practice of Bible clubs in school is legalized by the Equal Access Law to prevent discrimination against religious groups and practice.

The separation of Church and State is a good thing. Religious practice is a matter of personal choice and the government has no business telling people what they can and cannot believe with regard to religion.