We hear all the time that there must be separation of church and state. There is a particularly big hue and cry from people who want to eliminate all vestiges of religion from the public square. But the way these people use this term is a subterfuge. It doesn’t mean what they say it means. And that is not all. The fact of the matter is, the idea of removing religion from the public square is impossible. What is being advocated by the use of this phrase is not really the removal of religion from the public square. Rather, it is the exchange of one set of religious values for another.
The True Meaning of “Separation of Church and State”
Contrary to the assertion of the anti-Christian zealots who are trying to push Christians out of the public square, the concept of “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. In fact, it is not in the law in any place in the U.S. The term itself was the offshoot of a phrase Thomas Jefferson used in a letter he wrote in 1801 to the Danbury Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut. Jefferson was, in this letter, responding to a communication from the Association expressing concern that religious freedom was not adequately protected in their state constitution.
The reason for the concern of the Danbury Baptists was that it was not uncommon during that period of history for there to be an official state sponsored church. This was the tradition which existed in Europe, and many of the settlers from Europe were satisfied to bring that tradition to a new American government. The Connecticut Baptists did not want the government to have any influence over the free exercise of religion, so they petitioned Jefferson to make sure freedom of religion was protected. As we know, this protection was inserted into the U.S. Constitution in the 1st Amendment.
What modern secularists have tried to do is take the concept and turn it on its head. The law was designed to keep government from prescribing religious practice for the citizenry, not to keep citizens from expressing their faith in the public square.
The ideas which have led to the effort to reverse the American approach originated in Europe. This concept emerged initially in France and Spain as their Constitutions favored a “secularist” approach which viewed the concept of “separation” as being a way to keep religious notions from influencing the operation of the state. As such, secular (atheistic) beliefs became dominant. This point of view was picked up by American secularists who have been working to insert this interpretation into American law.
The bottom line is, the concept of “separation of church and state” does not mean what modern secularists claim – and it has no place in American law. In fact, what they deem it to mean is a literal impossibility. In their effort to try and scrub religious values from American society, they are not working to keep the state from establishing a state church. That is not even in the conversation. What they are trying to do is prevent Christian values from having any place in the development and implementation of laws. In its place, they want to substitute a different set of values. This is a very different thing than what the 1st Amendment even addressed.
The Concept of “Separation of Faith and State”
What the secularists are really proposing is not the separation of church and state, but the separation of faith and state – to a degree. Actually the only faith they want to separate from the state is the Christian faith. As it turns out, it is the values of the Christian faith which formed the basis for American society at its founding. Such concepts as the rule of law, freedom of conscience, the value of life, free enterprise, ethical behavior, and private ownership of property are all values which emerged from the teachings of the Christian faith. When secularists put forth their version of separation, what they really mean is they want to replace those Christian values with relativism in law, political correctness, a low value of life, economic redistribution, ethics based on relativism, and public ownership of property. What is not said is that this point of view is just as much based on a faith foundation as the one they are trying to replace.
The truth is, the values of the secularists are not “non-religious.” They emerge directly out of a naturalistic worldview – which is a faith position. There is no empirical basis for secular values. As such, they represent a religious point of view. The question then becomes, “Why should the values of a secular religion replace the values of a theistic one?”
At this point, we must point out that no one is talking about creating a theocracy. I don’t know of anyone who wants to take a sectarian set of rules and make them the law of the land. That would, by default, create a state church – the very thing the founders were determined to prevent. The real issue at hand revolves around which set of values will hold prominence in the public square.
By their unthoughtful assertions, many people seem to believe that it is possible for there to be a values free public sector. But that is simply not true. There will be some set of values which dominate society. And whatever that set of values turns out to be, they will be based on a faith foundation. Individuals don’t check their personal beliefs and morality at the door when they enter public service. They bring them in and act in their public life based on those beliefs. If they believe in a high value of life, they work to promote that. If they believe in a low value of life, they work to promote that point of view. If they believe in free enterprise, they actively advance policies which promote free enterprise. If they believe in economic redistribution, they work toward that goal. And the list could go on. The point is, no matter what “beliefs” people bring to the table, they work to promote those “beliefs.” In other words, they live out their faith life in their public service. It is impossible for human beings to do otherwise.
How Christians Should Respond
So the bottom line is, “separation of church and state,” as promoted by secularists, is a bogus argument. No one is proposing that the government establish a state church.” Additionally, the argument that promoting Christian values (not sectarian rules) in the public square is wrong because if entangles church and state is also bogus. Promoting Christian values in the public square no more a violation of the “separation of church and state” than promoting secular values.
Since some set of values will dominate culture, the real question at hand is, “Which values should that be?” Should it be values which promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or values which promote death, bondage and public ownership of property?
In the end, the citizenry must make that decision. But the decision should not be made based on the use of oppressive laws to push one set of values out of the public square. It should be made in an environment where the majority is able to truly express its will.
In modern American culture, every effort is being made to portray Christian values as “religious” and secular values as “neutral.” That is simply not true. They are both faith based values systems. So, how should Christians respond to this situation? Let’s look at several suggestions.
1. Understand the Playing Field
First, we cannot push back against that which we do not understand. The first thing Christians must do is to make an effort to truly understand the faith nature of secularism and expose the deception. A secular approach to operating government is simply not value neutral. It expresses a particular value system which is based on a faith foundation. With this understanding, it becomes possible to expose the hypocrisy of those who say they are trying to keep “religion” out of the public square. Until this is made plain, it will be very difficult to push back.
2. Remember we are Stewards of God
In American culture, the rulers of the land are the citizens. The representatives we elect and those who work in other areas of government are not our rulers. Rather, they are our proxies. As individual Christians, we are responsible before God to accept our stewardship responsibility in the political arena. And that stewardship responsibility is to manage those who represent us. We are responsible before God to do what we can to promote his will and his ways in our culture. An important part of that is to influence the political system.
3. Act as God Leads
The work of a steward involves acting. Different people are called by God to do that in different ways, but we all have some responsibility in that arena. We must discern God’s leading on how to act, then do the work. At the very least, every Christian citizen should vote. In the system of government God has placed us in, that is the very least we can do. But there are many other possibilities, as well. Some will be led to make this a full-time enterprise by, for instance, running for office, promoting policy in some particular area, working in the government bureaucracy, or promoting the election of particular candidates. Others may feel led to do some of these things part time or to act completely as civilians. This work can be done by petitioning one’s representatives, diligently praying for elected officials, or directly engaging them with the gospel. Every believer needs to discern God’s leading and act.
Contrary to the beliefs of some Christians, separation of church and state is not a legitimate point of view when it is used to advocate the expulsion of Christian values from public life. In fact, it is totally illegitimate and Christians should push back against that thinking. First, they should do it by simply educating those who are misinformed about the meaning of the idea of “separation of church and state.” But there is something even more important that needs to be expressed. God really is an objectively real person who can be known in an objectively real personal relationship. Believers need to take every opportunity, even when educating people, to share Christ with those who don’t understand because they don’t know him.
© 2015 Freddy Davis
This article reflects profound misunderstandings of the constitutional separation of church and state. It is right though in two respects.
First, the constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not remove religion from the public square–far from it. It is important to distinguish between the “public square” and “government” and between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. 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. The Amendment 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, they effectively are the government and thus generally 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. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
Second, the constitutional principle does not remove religion from political or policy dialogue. Confusion understandably arises because the constitutional principle is sometimes equated with a widely supported political doctrine that commonly goes by the same name and generally calls for political dialogue to be conducted on grounds other than religion. The underlying reasons for that political doctrine are many, but three primary ones are that (1) it facilitates discussion amongst people of all beliefs by predicating discussion on grounds accessible to all and (2) it avoids, in some measure at least, putting our respective religious beliefs directly “in play” in the political arena, so we’re not put in the position of directly disputing or criticizing each other’s religious beliefs in order to address a political issue and (3) since the government cannot under the Constitution make laws or decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion, it makes little sense to urge the government to do just that. This political doctrine, of course, is not “law” (unlike the constitutional separation of church and state, which is), but rather is a societal norm concerning how we can best conduct political dialogue in a religiously diverse society. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the doctrine is a good idea or not and whether or how it should influence us in particular circumstances.
In other respects, the article largely reflects misunderstandings of the constitutional principle. Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The principle thus rests on more than just the First Amendment.
To the extent that some would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a reading or even misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, noting the expressed understanding of Madison perhaps even more than Jefferson, and only after concluding its analysis and stating its conclusion did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion. The notion, often heard, that the Court rested its decision solely or largely on that letter is a red herring.
The primary purpose of the First Amendment religion clauses is neither to protect religion nor government from one another, but rather to protect individuals’ religious freedom. The free-exercise clause does this directly by constraining the government from prohibiting individuals from freely exercising their religions. The establishment clause does this indirectly by constraining government from promoting or otherwise taking steps to establish any religion, thus assuring that individuals are free to exercise their religions without fearing the government will favor the religions of others and thus disfavor theirs.
Some who nonetheless would like to use government to promote their religion have argued that the First Amendment works only in one direction–to protect religion from government, but not the other way around. This, they suppose, would leave them free to insinuate their religion into government and thereby effectively establish it as the nation’s religion. To the extent that the First Amendment prevents that, it can be understood in that respect at least to have the effect of protecting government from religion. Indeed, the notion of a one directional wall is self-contradictory: If any church is allowed to so influence and control government and thereby achieve a favored or established status, all individuals are at risk of their religions falling into disfavor with government and facing discriminatory treatment. One of the primary aims of the First Amendment is to prevent just that.
The article also seems to equate secularism with atheism and object that it amounts to forcing atheism on everyone. Nonsense. First, secularism is not atheism; just look it up. Second, as secularism refers to the idea of keeping government and religion separate, it is oxymoronic to treat secularism itself as a religion. Doing so would seem to render the very concept of secularism an impossibility–since keeping government and (real) religion separate would itself be deemed a religion in which the government is somehow joined. I’m picturing a dog chasing its tail.
Moreover, it should not be supposed that the government, by remaining separate from and neutral toward religions, somehow thereby favors atheism over theism. There is a difference between the government (1) remaining neutral in matters of religion and leaving individuals free to choose, exercise, and express their religious views without government intrusion and (2) taking sides in matters of religion and promoting one view (whether theism [in one, any, or all its various forms], atheism, or whatever) to the detriment of others. It is one thing for the government to endorse the idea that god(s) exist or, alternatively, endorse the idea that god(s) do not exist; it is quite another for the government to take no position on the matter and respect the right of each individual to freely decide for himself.
If merely by remaining separate from and neutral toward religion, the government is deemed to promote atheism, which the article likens to a religion, then even the limited concept of the First Amendment that some advocate–i.e., restraining the government from favoring one religion over another–is rendered impossible, since not favoring any (i.e., secularism, deemed atheism) is itself but another religion that the government would then be favoring. Now, I’m picturing a collision of matter and anti-matter.
Doug,
You have written a very lawyerly article here, but I am not sure that much of what you have written corresponds with the point I was making in the article. Perhaps you would care to clarify some of your meaning.
First of all, you don’t seem to be aware of the way many, particularly Atheist, organizations are twisting the concept of the 1st Amendment to make it about values rather than about the establishment and free exercise of religion. The way this is being treated (and, indeed, the way many court rulings are going) is that expression which uses Christian concepts is deemed religious and thus kicked out of the public square, while expressions (values) which represent naturalistic beliefs are deemed neutral. Take for instance the movement to remove postings of the 10 Commandments from public buildings (among other things). My point is that there is no such thing as neutral when it comes to values. If you dismiss one set of values, something goes in its place – which is a different set of values and just as “religious”.
I also made a point of making a distinction between sectarian beliefs and values.
Since I made those distinctions, I don’t see where you think my assessment was incorrect.
I guess one thing I need for you to define is your meaning of the word “church.” It seems to me that you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth. You acknowledge the concept of freedom of religion and free exercise, yet you somehow think that when Christian values are shut out of the public square it is okay because the government has to be neutral. Neutral about what? Nowhere that I know of is any church or set of Christians advocating for the government to favor one church or religion over another.
You also don’t seem to realize that the particular value set that the law is built upon is decidedly Christian. The very idea of the rule of law, freedom of conscience, the inviolability of life, private ownership of property, and many others are specifically Christian notions. If you change the foundation you change the very nature of the law itself. No other value system specifically promotes those values. So if a different value system is substituted for what the founders set up, you end up with those things going away (which, by the way, is what we see happening right before our very eyes as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are being eroded).
As for secularism, it is the belief that religion should not be a part of the affairs of state. If you define “religion” as somehow sectarian, then I agree completely. But that is not what is happening. Values (more specifically Christian values) are being defined as religion, while Atheistic values are being defined as neutral. The truth is, there is no such thing as neutral when it comes to values.
I look forward to your clarifications.
Blessings,
Freddy
The constitutional separation of church and state does not prevent citizens from making decisions based on principles and values derived from their religions. Moreover, the religious beliefs of government officials naturally may inform their decisions on policies. The principle, in this context, merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion; in other words, the predominant purpose and primary effect must be nonreligious or secular in nature. A decision coinciding with religious views is not invalid for that reason as long as it has a secular purpose and effect. (Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. It covers this and more. I commend it to you. http://divinity.wfu.edu/religion-and-public-affairs/joint-statement/)
Perhaps the most obvious illustration is the law prohibiting murder. Lots of nonreligious reasons—moral, pragmatic, social, psychological, etc.—underlie that law. That it also corresponds to the religious teachings of Christianity (and lots of other religions) does not render the law’s predominant purpose and primary effect to be to advance religion.
I agree with what I take to be your overarching thesis that the founders would not establish a government that is inherently at odds with their religious convictions, which were largely Christian in nature. Moreover, given the republican nature of our government, I think it is only natural and expected that the laws enacted by our government–in both the founders’ time and today–largely reflect Christianity’s dominant influence in our society.
That said, there is no reason to suppose that Christianity or theism is an inherent aspect of our constitutional government. Indeed, any such claim is antithetical to the constitutional principle against government establishment of religion and inconsistent with the Christian principle that people cannot be coerced to believe but rather must come to God voluntarily. By founding a secular government and assuring it would remain separate, in some measure at least, from religion, the founders basically established government neutrality in matters of religion, allowing individuals to freely choose and exercise their religions and thus allowing Christianity (and other religions) to flourish or founder as they will. (Adam Smith’s explanation of the marketplace of ideas was influential at the time of the founding.) As noted above, it is to be expected that the values and views of the people, shaped in part by their religions, will be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires or calls for this; it is simply a natural outgrowth of the people’s expression of political will in a republican government. To the extent that the people’s values and views change over time, it is to be expected that those changes will come to be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent this; indeed, just the opposite–the Constitution establishes a government designed to be responsive to the political will of the people. It is conceivable, therefore, that if Christianity’s influence in our society wanes relative to other influences, that may lead to changes in our laws. Nothing in the Constitution would prevent that–and moreover the establishment clause would preclude Christians from using the government to somehow “lock in” (aka establish) Christianity in an effort to stave off such an eventuality.
For the most part, I think you have simply put what I said in the article in other words. It is important to note, though, that it is Christian values which provide for that kind of approach to government. If the government had been based on naturalistic values, the very idea of freedom of religion (in fact, freedom of almost everything) would not have been in play. Under that circumstance, rules come from the hand of those who can muster the power to do their will.
One of the big problems we see emerging in our day is that Christian theistic beliefs are being set aside and in its place is one in which the rule of law is not as important. How many times are we seeing judges (and even our president) making up their own law and imposing it on the nation in opposition to what is actually in law. That approach comes from a worldview platform based on Naturalism. So, I have to disagree with you on that one. The beliefs of Christian Theism are an inherent part of our system of government and when you use a different set of values you end up with an entirely different form of government.
We do all this discussion about church and state. We are doing what the people in Alexandra Egypt did when the Muslims attacked. we are discussing and talking about religions place in society while the Muslims here in this country are busy importing more and having large families, working for a day soon when they can force their control on us.. Add it up. 4 wives with 9 children each equals 36 new muslims and our christian wives get mad if they are asked to have more then 2!
So your solution is to dismiss the discussion concerning reasons we see problems and to do what? Do you not realize that if we don’t repair the underlying problems in the nation’s fabric that no solution will ever emerge?