In the wake of the Senatorial debate in Delaware, I have read some interesting discussions on the idea of Separation of Church and State, clearly spawned by the interesting comments Christine O'Donnell made about the Constitution, much to the astonishment of her opponent Chris Coons. Many people online - some defending O'Donnell, others just enjoying calling other people stupid - have argued that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution, but first appeared in a letter Jefferson wrote later in life, so O'Donnell was actually correct to question the statement that the Separation of Church and state is in the Constitution. Her doubtful remarks were not the result of mastering the ability to argue semantics, however, but were instead the unfortunate result of her deep lack of understanding about the Constitution and other important aspects of life on this planet.
People who have been insisting that O'Donnell was correct have focused on Coons' response to her questioning. Cleary caught off guard, Coons cited the beginning of the First Amendment as the location of Separation of Church and State, "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion," which is followed by "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I will admit up front that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution; however, the argument against this concept being in the Constitution is one based upon semantics.
First, we have the Establishment Clause - Congress (The State) shall make no laws respecting (giving favor, precedence, etc.) an establishment of religion (Church is an establishment of religion). That gives us "The State shall make no laws favoring a Church." While the Constitution says religion because the intent was to cover any religion, the use of the word "Church" is more relevant in the debate in America, considering over 80% of Americans identify themselves as some denomination of Christianity, around 12% are unaffiliated (including agnostic and atheist), and the remaining 8 or so percent identify themselves as some other type of religion, which is why that word is most commonly used in the debate.
Next, we have the Free Exercise Clause - Congress (The State) shall make no laws prohibiting the free exercise thereof (against going to Church)." That gives us "The State shall make no laws against going to Church."
The State can't make any laws that favor a religion, and they can't make any laws that interfere with the practice of a religion (to the extent that the rights of other citizens are not infringed). If The State allows the practice of any religion in conjunction with State business, then how can a reasonable individual be expected to believe that The State will not act in favor of that religion? A reasonable individual couldn't do that, especially given the massive amount of written history that is a testament as to what happens when Church and State get too close (RE: Henry VIII - An epic, brutal saga of what happens when Church and State get too close - you can't make up shit like that!). State business would be anything run by the State, so that includes incorporating a religious doctrine into public school curriculum - the schools get federal money, so they are subject to Congressional law. People also argued that the First Amendment does not restrict the state from establishing a religion. Same argument as before, how could a State establish a Church and not be making laws favoring that Church? That Church would use State money, and State money is appropriated through Congressional law.
To me, that sounds like Church and State shouldn't really have anything to do with each other, meaning they are separate. Jefferson certainly seemed to agree with this analysis when he stated in his 1802 letter, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Jefferson is stating that by including the words of the First Amendment, the Separation of Church and State was created by default.
Then, when you factor in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, "No State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This clause simply reinforces the idea that a person's religion should not dictate which laws he or she is subject to. Any law that favors one religion gives its practitioners more protection under the law than other religions; similarly, a law that restricts one religion gives its practitioners less protection under the law than other religions.
In summary, while the words "Separation of Church and State" do not appear in the Constitution, the concept is clearly created by the words that do appear. Jefferson's letter reaffirms the intent of the clauses, and coins a name for the concept. The Supreme Court has also shown that it agrees with this interpretation by repeatedly upholding that the Constitution mandates the Separation of Church and State. It is one thing to argue against the concept of Separation of Church and State, but it is quite another to be unable (or unwilling) to recognize that the language in the First Amendment clearly expresses the intention of keeping Church and State apart from one another. I certainly hope that Coons' lead continues into the voting booth in a few weeks.
Charlotte, great post. This is something that I have been thinking about for awhile now, but I will have to disagree with you in some ways. First the point needs to be made that the consitution when refering to religion, it is refering to Protestant Christianity. The founding fathers were escaping from religious persicution not from another religion, but another form of Chrisitanity. They did not invision the day when Budist and Muslims would even be in the equation. Now to my argument. It seems that most people state the phrase "seperation of church and state" meaning that the "church" should stay out of the "state", ie public schools, etc. If we look back at history though, most of the first public schools were all religious in nature. Each state basically had a state religion and therefore all state schools and universities were religious institutions. These state religions were just different forms of protestant chrisitianity, not really differnt religions, ie.. Calvinist, Quaker, Episopalon. So as people changed from one denomination to the other it became important that the state not put all of its weight behind one denomination so this kind of overarching christian religious ideal came to pass that didn't get to much into specifics. The reason for this is that in Eurpoe where these people came from the State Religions were the only religions. If you changed denominations then you were persecuted. These facts impress upon me that the state was not seperated from religion, but the people wanted a check in place to keep the state from mandating a relgion. Therefore I feel that if their is any "sepration of church and state", it was in fact to keep the "state" out of "religion" and not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteThose are some valid points, Michael. I still think the founding fathers used the term "religion" to purposefully be all-encompassing. Islam had been all over Europe for several hundred years by the time America was founded, so I think the founding fathers could see a day when other religions were in the picture. But, you are absolutely correct to say that the reason the founding fathers felt the need to include the language of the First Amendment was because they had witnessed/experienced persecution against Protestant Christians by other Christians.
ReplyDeleteThe other point you make is also valid. I will accept that the language does seem to indicate the intention is to keep the State from interfering with the Church, not specifically to keep the Church from the State; however, I don't see how you can keep the State out of the Church if you allow religious doctrine to be incorporated into State business. Anybody who receives federal money is subject to Congressional Law, which means that the State will be influencing the religion to at least some degree. So, while the framers likely did intend to keep the US government from interfering with religion, I believe that can only truly happen if religion also stays out of government.
When you say "allow religious doctrine to be incorporated into State business", what exactly do you mean? I would cottend that saying a prayer in school or to start a government meeting would not be allowing religious doctrine to be incorporated into State business. It seems that many times these days people get offended with such displays and rush to claim seperation of Church and State. Saying a prayer is far different then the State mandating a religion or the church advocating governemnt policy. I think I have shown in the past that the State has funded and supported religious enterprises. Where do we draw the line?
ReplyDeleteAlso pardon any spelling and grammatical errors. We had some of the same English teachers so you can judge for yourself how they did.
In the context of this argument, when someone says a prayer, they are saying a prayer to the Christian God, thanking God for what he has given them, and asking for him to continue his patronage. Stating that there is one God is a religious doctrine - even stating that there are many gods is a religious doctrine. Think about it, what is the fundamental concept of the Christianity? That God exists, and is the one true God (or, to be literal, the three true Gods). All teachings in the religion are ultimately based on this concept. Saying a prayer in school or at the start of a government meeting is in essence making the statement that the business following the prayer is being conducted in the name of the Christian God - they are stating that they are incorporating a religious doctrine, to act in the name of God. A moment of silence, however, is an opportunity for those who would like to pray to their god(s) may do so, and those that aren't religious don't have to do anything.
ReplyDeleteIf you are asking me where to draw the line, I think that the line should be drawn at any display of religion related to State business, including Nativity Scenes on lawns and Ten Commandments hung in courthouses. I also do not believe that "Under God" should be included in the Pledge of Allegiance or on the dollar bill, but taking it out would not be feasible. It would just be ridiculous to change the wording of the Pledge, and it does not make fiscal sense to replace all of the dollar bills out there. The line has to be clearly drawn, though, or else it gets blurred, which leads to trouble. I tend to be very black-and-white, all-or-nothing, so I think that line should be drawn at any display that has the intention of being religious. I do not, however, think that would apply to crosses placed on the side of the road for slain state troopers, as was a recent issue. The intention of the crosses is to remember the individuals who were killed, not to promote a religious doctrine. Unless the family of one of the state troopers objects, I think it should be allowed. I don't think, however, that a legitimate argument can be made that saying a prayer or hanging the Ten Commandments is not intentionally promoting a religious doctrine.