Separation of Church and State – Answering Critics

Dale · May 26, 2024

I am taking an America perspective here, although church-state relations are important in other countries as well.

Many people have criticized both the phrase “separation of church and state” and the idea behind it. I’m going to try to show that some of their most frequent claims are shortsighted, and downright wrong. If anyone doubts that Separation of Church and State is under attack, I will give some examples in later posts.

Critics almost endlessly repeat that the words “separation of church and state” are not in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. While this is literally true, it ignores the ideas that led to the First Amendment, especially the part that deals with religion. At the time of the American Revolution, Virginia was the largest state, or colony, in population and the most influential. As Governor of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote, and proposed, a bill now called The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. It was not passed immediately. Jefferson went to Paris as Ambassador for the fledgling United States. James Madison argued for this Statute and secured its passage. Although several prominent citizens argued that the US needed a Bill of Rights, James Madison actually wrote the text of all ten Amendments. So James Madison both managed the passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and he also wrote the First Amendment. Thomas Jefferson wrote the VSRF and he also wrote the Declaration of Independence.

What does the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom say? It does deal with matters that were controversial at that time. When Virginia was a British colony the Church of England was the established church. Quakers, Catholics and Baptists, for example, did not appreciate paying taxes to support the Episcopal Church and pay its ministers. Yet the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom also expresses some general thoughts on church-state relations.

The VSRF asks whether we want “legislators and rulers” who are “but fallible and uninspired men” to assume “dominion over the faith of others.” It says that “Almighty God hath created the mind free” and goes on to say that “all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments” only leads to “habits of hypocrisy and meanness.” According to the VSRF, God is an advocate of religious freedom. The Statute concludes that “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship,” and that no one should “suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.”

The VSRF doesn’t use the term “separation of church and state.” It does strongly assert that people should pray in their own words, when and where they choose to do so.

Text of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom:

Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that [Whereas] Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal[ry] rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than on our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also [only] to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact [Be it enacted by the General Assembly] that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act [to be] irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right. <>

Source
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

Dale · May 26, 2024

Here is example of an organization that criticizes separation of church and state, or at least the secular interpretation of it. They do say that a version of church-state separation can be found in the Bible.

This is from Wallbuilders.com. This organization does offer speakers for churches and other groups.

How to Respond to “Separation of Church and State”

May 29, 2023

Quote

<< The phrase “separation of Church and State” cannot be found in the Constitution ... the phrase first appeared in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in 1801. >>

Wallbuilders tries to tell us that “separation of church and state” as a legal concept was an interpretation developed after the Constitution was ratified. They want us to think that this idea was a Johnny-come-lately, tacked on after the fact. As I explained above, this isn’t true. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was passed in 1786, years before 1801. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.

<< How does a student praying over his lunch mean the same thing as Congress making a law? The answer: it doesn’t. >>

Wallbuilders confuses the issue a bit. I don’t believe any school has told students that they can’t say a private prayer, or grace, before lunch. A student choosing to pray before lunch is not the same thing as a teacher requiring students to recite a specific prayer out loud, and in unison.

Source
How to Respond to “Separation of Church and State” - WallBuilders

Dale · May 26, 2024

From D. James Kennedy Ministries, also known as Coral Ridge Ministries:

<< But in recent decades, this idea has been twisted into the so-called “separation of church and state,” a phrase that appears nowhere in the Constitution. >>

James Kennedy/Coral Ridge Ministries is more hostile to “separation of church and state” than the previous source, Wallbuilders. The video repeats the same claim that the words first appear in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. Again, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was passed in 1786, and provides crucial guidance to the meaning of the First Amendment, ratified in 1791.

Source
Church and State - D. James Kennedy Ministries

Ignatius the Kiwi · May 26, 2024

It would be helpful to examine the concept outside of the American context to one which includes all Christian history. American Christians almost deify the constitution as the third Testament and view it as the true authority to which one cannot contend. Yet even within the American context up until recently, the constitution itself did not prevent the establishment of laws on a state level which implemented religious standards. Prayer in schools, blue laws, stuff like that.

The separation of Church and State however has developed into this almost total mandate for secularism and the complete seperation of Christianity from power. The results have been the lessening of Christianity in the public arena, it's complete removal from the standards expected by society and then American Christians marvel at how Christianity is no longer part of the public life of America.

I've heard arguments that the constitution is not as Godless as the OP might like it to be, but if it is, it is not worth defending. Christianity thrived under a system where it was the public and social standard. We should not be opposed to it especially when those who support the current system have no means of actually ensuring Christianity thrives in it. Rather they are resigned to Christianity fading away as a social force.

Tuur · May 26, 2024

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
It would be helpful to examine the concept outside of the American context to one which includes all Christian history. American Christians almost deify the constitution as the third Testament and view it as the true authority to which one cannot contend.

Um...a sidebar to the discussion:

Like it or not, the US Constitution is the final law in Federal and some state affairs. If there is a perceived problem the proper course of action isn't to contend but to amend. That there exists a mechanism to amend the US Constitution comes from the realization that its the work of fallible humans.

I think it's the 14th Amendment (correction welcome) that's used to argue that the Establishment Clause is extended to the states.

Tuur · May 26, 2024

Dale said:
Wallbuilders confuses the issue a bit. I don’t believe any school has told students that they can’t say a private prayer, or grace, before lunch. A student choosing to pray before lunch is not the same thing as a teacher requiring students to recite a specific prayer out loud, and in unison.

Not the incident I was looking for, but found this:

Principal apologizes after telling students they couldn't pray in Va. school hallway

AMELIA Co., Va. (WSET) -- A principal in Amelia County is facing backlash after she allegedly threatened to punish students for praying in the hallway.Students said it happened Thursday toward the end of the school day when eight students held hands and pr

wset.com

The incident I recall was a student who was reprimanded by a teacher for praying thanks before eating. There were enough such incidents that, during the Clinton Administration, the Federal government issued guidelines to clear up confusion on what was permitted and what wasn't.

Ignatius the Kiwi · May 26, 2024

Tuur said:
Um...a sidebar to the discussion:

Like it or not, the US Constitution is the final law in Federal and some state affairs. If there is a perceived problem the proper course of action isn't to contend but to amend. That there exists a mechanism to amend the US Constitution comes from the realization that its the work of fallible humans.

I think it's the 14th Amendment (correction welcome) that's used to argue that the Establishment Clause is extended to the states.

The political constitution is only as good as the people it claims to represent and Americans as a people are very different to the people who wrote the constitution originally. One doesn't have to accept the constitution in their hearts and minds, only as a technical legal requirement. American Christians would be better off thinking outside of that paradigm, acting appropriately within the law (and not like a sovereign citizen for instance), but not venerating the constitution as a sacred document.

John G. · May 26, 2024

D.D. Eisenhower did the American nation a huge disservice when he appointed Earl Warren as chief justice of the supreme court.
Up until 1962, there was no problem saying or singing a prayer in US schools.
The court's reasoning on the banning of prayer in schools was flawed. The first amendment of the US constitution guarantees freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. It bans the establishment of any church which was not an issue.
And, of course, it was also a matter of schools and education which is in the jurisdiction of the states and not the federal government.

PloverWing · May 26, 2024

John G. said:
It bans the establishment of any church which was not an issue.

Actually, that was the issue. Insofar as public schools are a part of the government, if a teacher leads a class in prayer, then, for those few minutes, the government is requiring the students to participate in whatever religion the prayer represents.

John G. · May 27, 2024

Establishment of a church: A certain church, e.g. the Church of England, is declared the official Church of the land. It is supported not only through the donations of its members but also by the government i.e. taxes of the people regardless of Church affiliation.
Clearly, that was NOT an issue. The decision of the Earl Warren court was flawed.

Tuur · May 27, 2024

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
The political constitution is only as good as the people it claims to represent and Americans as a people are very different to the people who wrote the constitution originally. One doesn't have to accept the constitution in their hearts and minds, only as a technical legal requirement. American Christians would be better off thinking outside of that paradigm, acting appropriately within the law (and not like a sovereign citizen for instance), but not venerating the constitution as a sacred document.

I don't think you quite understand. The US Constitution isn't a sacred document (if it were a sacred document, it wouldn't have provisions for amendments). It is a document that limits the Federal government. That's important because while cultures and technology changes, people do not. The Americans who drafted and ratified the US Constitution knew this, and is why, when asked if the US now had a republic or a monarchy, Benjamin Franklin answered "A republic, if you can keep it." Since the nature of humanity remains the same, so does the temptation to absolute power. The US Constitution is the last ditch between representative government in the US and authoritarianism. What you interpret as a sense of sacredness is a sense of trying to keep that last ditch intact. That's something entirely different.

Jefferson's letter to Danbury Baptists came from a concern that the US Constitution didn't give sufficient protection to the federal government meddling in religion. Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" comment comes from his reply, an assurance to Danbury Baptists that there was protection from the central government. That's the ditch Christians in the US seek to maintain. If that ditch gets filled in, then the US has become like Rome in the time of Caesar: a republic in name only.

Ted-01 · May 27, 2024

Strange subject, this... in general, I mean, not the thread.

Strange to me because back in the days, there were always an abundance of "Comparative Region" classes... we even studied religions in grade school. We had to do reports on each "major religion" then did contrast and comparison papers. We even went on field trips to various religious sites and places of worship.

Just saying, the teaching of religious things was considered both useful and taught us respect.

Tuur · May 27, 2024

The US meaning is the establishment clause, which, as explained in the initial posts, means there is no Federally supported denomination in the US. There isn't a Church of the United States supported by tax dollars. That didn't stop congress for giving tariff relief to a bible society, likely because the bibles could be used by all Christian denominations and thus wasn't setting up a particular one. Note that this isn't the same as the bible authorized under the Articles of Confederation, Once had a link to both instances, which took place after ratification of the US Constitution.

I suspect the church services held each Sunday in US government buildings in DC also didn't favor a particular denomination. The largest worship service in the US for a long time was the service held at the US Capitol Building. The US Marine Corp used to provide music until some complained it didn't set the right atmosphere.

Ignatius the Kiwi · May 27, 2024

Tuur said:
The US meaning is the establishment clause, which, as explained in the initial posts, means there is no Federally supported denomination in the US. There isn't a Church of the United States supported by tax dollars. That didn't stop congress for giving tariff relief to a bible society, likely because the bibles could be used by all Christian denominations and thus wasn't setting up a particular one. Note that this isn't the same as the bible authorized under the Articles of Confederation, Once had a link to both instances, which took place after ratification of the US Constitution.

I suspect the church services held each Sunday in US government buildings in DC also didn't favor a particular denomination. The largest worship service in the US for a long time was the service held at the US Capitol Building. The US Marine Corp used to provide music until some complained it didn't set the right atmosphere.

When you say a piece of paper is the only thing protecting your country from authoritarianism, it kind of sounds like you're treating it as a sacred document. Your condescension aside, the US constitution won't protect you from anything. It won't protect you, for instance, from a government that forces people to lockdown (closing churches but keeping bottle stores open) over a disease which is killed less than one percent of the population. Nor will it allow you the freedom to live in a Christian society since it will always undermine a Christian society as it is understood today, it's a document which enforces secularism and removes Christianity from the public space.

Americans have changed since the times of their founders and if a system or constitution has been corrupted or is no longer beneficial to the group to which you belong, why would you intellectually commit yourself to defending it?

Dale · May 27, 2024

Tuur said:
Not the incident I was looking for, but found this:

Principal apologizes after telling students they couldn't pray in Va. school hallway

AMELIA Co., Va. (WSET) -- A principal in Amelia County is facing backlash after she allegedly threatened to punish students for praying in the hallway.Students said it happened Thursday toward the end of the school day when eight students held hands and pr

wset.com

The incident I recall was a student who was reprimanded by a teacher for praying thanks before eating. There were enough such incidents that, during the Clinton Administration, the Federal government issued guidelines to clear up confusion on what was permitted and what wasn't.

Thanks for that example. I notice that it is several years old, so this doesn't seem to be typical. I don't know if this teacher was expressing their own antireligious views or just confused about what the policy is.

In the schools I went to, the Administration was not hostile to religion. During the Easter season, the Passion play was being performed nearby, the Passion as in the Passion of Christ. We were told that we would be given time off from school to see the Passion Play if we wanted to go. It was also possible for a student to to Independent Study for course credit. One student did Independent Study on the Missionary Journeys of Paul. At the end of the semester he gave a seminar where he summarized what he had learned. Any student could get out of class to attend that seminar.

Dale · May 27, 2024

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
It would be helpful to examine the concept outside of the American context to one which includes all Christian history. American Christians almost deify the constitution as the third Testament and view it as the true authority to which one cannot contend. Yet even within the American context up until recently, the constitution itself did not prevent the establishment of laws on a state level which implemented religious standards. Prayer in schools, blue laws, stuff like that.

The separation of Church and State however has developed into this almost total mandate for secularism and the complete seperation of Christianity from power. The results have been the lessening of Christianity in the public arena, it's complete removal from the standards expected by society and then American Christians marvel at how Christianity is no longer part of the public life of America.

I've heard arguments that the constitution is not as Godless as the OP might like it to be, but if it is, it is not worth defending. Christianity thrived under a system where it was the public and social standard. We should not be opposed to it especially when those who support the current system have no means of actually ensuring Christianity thrives in it. Rather they are resigned to Christianity fading away as a social force.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
When you say a piece of paper is the only thing protecting your country from authoritarianism, it kind of sounds like you're treating it as a sacred document. Your condescension aside, the US constitution won't protect you from anything. It won't protect you, for instance, from a government that forces people to lockdown (closing churches but keeping bottle stores open) over a disease which is killed less than one percent of the population. Nor will it allow you the freedom to live in a Christian society since it will always undermine a Christian society as it is understood today, it's a document which enforces secularism and removes Christianity from the public space.

Americans have changed since the times of their founders and if a system or constitution has been corrupted or is no longer beneficial to the group to which you belong, why would you intellectually commit yourself to defending it?

Kiwi: “I've heard arguments that the constitution is not as Godless as the OP might like it to be, but if it is, it is not worth defending.”

I am not advocating a Godless society. Look at it this way. In the late Roman Empire, after Constantine, the writing of Origen were controversial. Bishops went to the secular authorities and there were platoons of soldiers marching on monasteries and throwing out monks who were studying Origen. That is exactly what we do not need.

The United Kingdom has a state church but as a whole, the country is less religious than the US. I am not seeing any advantage to a state church.

Kiwi: “… the US constitution won't protect you from anything.”

On whether the Constitution protects us, try this. The Constitution is like a road sign that says,

“STOP! YOU ARE ABOUT TO GO OVER A CLIFF!”

That doesn’t guarantee that no one will ever crash through the sign and go over the cliff, but you have been warned.

Kiwi: “It won't protect you, for instance, from a government that forces people to lockdown (closing churches but keeping bottle stores open) over a disease which is killed less than one percent of the population.”

How many people does a disease have to kill to get your attention? During the Influenza Epidemic after WWI, many parts of the US ordered people to wear masks and strictly enforced that order. It isn’t unprecedented.

Dale · May 27, 2024

There is a surprisingly persistent effort to get government entangled with religion. I live in Florida, so Ron DeSantis is the Governor. A couple of times a month I get an email from Governor Ron DeSantis’ Faith and Community Initiative. The headings mention his wife, First Lady Casey DeSantis as well. These emails are signed by the Governor’s Liaison for Faith and Community, which has an office in the Executive Office of the Governor.

I’m not sure what the Faith and Community Initiative is supposed to accomplish, besides getting the churches on the side of the Governor. I don’t know of anything positive that the Faith and Community Initiative has done except make general announcements.

I got on the email list for this when I was the President of a local organization. I’m sure I will keep getting these emails.

Ignatius the Kiwi · May 27, 2024

Dale said:
Kiwi: “I've heard arguments that the constitution is not as Godless as the OP might like it to be, but if it is, it is not worth defending.”

I am not advocating a Godless society. Look at it this way. In the late Roman Empire, after Constantine, the writing of Origen were controversial. Bishops went to the secular authorities and there were platoons of soldiers marching on monasteries and throwing out monks who were studying Origen. That is exactly what we do not need.

The United Kingdom has a state church but as a whole, the country is less religious than the US. I am not seeing any advantage to a state church.

Kiwi: “… the US constitution won't protect you from anything.”

On whether the Constitution protects us, try this. The Constitution is like a road sign that says,

“STOP! YOU ARE ABOUT TO GO OVER A CLIFF!”

That doesn’t guarantee that no one will ever crash through the sign and go over the cliff, but you have been warned.

Kiwi: “It won't protect you, for instance, from a government that forces people to lockdown (closing churches but keeping bottle stores open) over a disease which is killed less than one percent of the population.”

How many people does a disease have to kill to get your attention? During the Influenza Epidemic after WWI, many parts of the US ordered people to wear masks and strictly enforced that order. It isn’t unprecedented.

Just so we're clear. You would have preferred Paganism dominate the Empire and Christianization not happen?

Ignatius the Kiwi · May 27, 2024

Dale said:
I am not advocating a Godless society. Look at it this way. In the late Roman Empire, after Constantine, the writing of Origen were controversial. Bishops went to the secular authorities and there were platoons of soldiers marching on monasteries and throwing out monks who were studying Origen. That is exactly what we do not need.

No society is completely free with what it allows to influence people. Censorship and restricting ideas form the basis of the education of a society. You for instance might be in favour of the complete removal of religious education from public schools, but a more Christian society would be in favour of this because it would reinforce Christianity as the social and cultural norm.

Dale said:
The United Kingdom has a state church but as a whole, the country is less religious than the US. I am not seeing any advantage to a state church.

A state Church is only the inevitable outcome of a religious society. Of course you need more, you need the religion reinforced in education, law and custom. We see at the moment secularism is reinforced and that Christians like you wish to undermine Christianity in the public space.

Dale said:
Kiwi: “… the US constitution won't protect you from anything.”

On whether the Constitution protects us, try this. The Constitution is like a road sign that says,

The Constitution is a piece of paper. It can't protect you. Its not a magic document.

Dale said:
“STOP! YOU ARE ABOUT TO GO OVER A CLIFF!”

That doesn’t guarantee that no one will ever crash through the sign and go over the cliff, but you have been warned.

If you mean by going over a cliff rejecting Americanism as a solution for Christianity in society, then sure. I'm already off that cliff.

Dale said:
Kiwi: “It won't protect you, for instance, from a government that forces people to lockdown (closing churches but keeping bottle stores open) over a disease which is killed less than one percent of the population.”

How many people does a disease have to kill to get your attention? During the Influenza Epidemic after WWI, many parts of the US ordered people to wear masks and strictly enforced that order. It isn’t unprecedented.

More than 1 percent of the population. But hey I guess you'll let government do whatever it wants so long as it's done for secular reasons.

lifepsyop · May 28, 2024

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Just so we're clear. You would have preferred Paganism dominate the Empire and Christianization not happen?

This seems to be something that pro-secular/liberal Christians do not like to talk about too much. We would know nothing about Christ if not for 1000 years of Christendom, i.e. a Christian kingdom. Yet according to Protestant American mythology, the holy spirit was not really allowed to flourish until the rise of post-Enlightenment individualistic evangelism.

Yet we see the fruit of modern Evangelism... a society dominated by blasphemy, abortion, p0rn0graphy, homosexuality, emasculation of men and destruction of families, etc. to name a few...

On one hand the modern Evangelical says "Yes, it's so sad the world is fallen, etc." and on the other hand they passionately support the revolutionary liberal system that gives rise to these structures of sin, immediately going on the attack when they hear phrases like "Christian nationalism"...

There are two faiths at work here. One is a faith in Jesus. One is a Hegelian, revolutionary faith in "Liberty" with expressions like "The Free World" and "Sacred Democracy"....

Separation of Church and State – Answering Critics

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

How to Respond to “Separation of Church and State”​

Senior Veteran

Dissident

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dissident

Active Member

Episcopalian

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Dissident

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Dissident

Dissident

Regular Member

Similar threads

How to Respond to “Separation of Church and State”