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. First Amendment – The Bill of Rights
The So-called “Wall of Separation”
On Wednesday, June 26, 2002, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit shocked the nation with a 2-1 decision banning the Pledge of Allegiance on the grounds that it improperly endorses religion. Since that time, this decision has become the rallying cry for athiests across the country and made Michael Newdow, the plaintiff in the case, a subject of both jeers and cheers.
During his many interviews, Mr. Newdow has consistently used the cliche, “wall of separation,” first coined by Thomas Jefferson, as his reason for pushing for the ban, as well as a revision of all currency and other materials in the United States which endorses religion of any kind. But does the First Amendment truly require the government to actively sterilize all its institutions and render them faith free?
Where did the whole “wall of separation” debate begin in the first place, and why has this phrase become the mantra of athiests and secularists? I think it best to begin at the beginning.
The History Behind The Debate
We are not, as you might have thought, going to begin with Thomas Jefferson, the one who first used this expression in a letter to the Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut during the first year of his Presidency. Instead, it is necessary to start far earlier than that… about 165 years before. It was in the early 1600s that European settlers began –first as a trickle, then as a flood– to emigrate to the new world. Many of those who made the journey came seeking a very fundamental right; the freedom to worship as they saw fit.
In other words, the earliest settlers of what would one day become the United States of America came here to secure the freedom of worship. Christians were tired of state-sponsored religions, such as the Anglican Church in England, limiting their ability to worship in the manner of their choosing.
It was this philosophy, freedom of religion, which became one of the first and most enduring traditions of the early colonies and, later, the United States of America. It is this philosophy which continues to endure today.
It is a tradition that is so ingrained in our culture that, despite the loss of thousands of innocent American lives on 9/11 from an attack by radical Islamists, the citizens of this nation made every effort to prevent violence against American Muslims and the maligning of the religion of Islam. Our profound reverence for the freedom of religion and worship has endured in the hearts of Americans for close to 400 years! It is our oldest societal institution.
Which is why in 1787, when the Constitutional Convention began in Philadelphia, the framers had no intention of giving the new federal government control over religious expression. Unfortunately, this is exactly what some have come to believe, which plays perfectly into the hands of secularists.
Why would the framers of the Constitution, all of whom believed that religious freedom is a sacred, God-given right, create a government that had the ability to control when, where, and how they expressed their faith in God? On the face of it, this is an utterly ludicrous thing to believe; one which can only be held if you ignore all the facts of history, our culture, and the traditions of this nation.
So, again, where does the phrase, wall of separation enter into the picture, and in what context was this phrase used? It all started back in 1802 when the Baptist Association in Danbury Connecticut wrote a letter to a their newly-elected President, Thomas Jefferson, whom they knew to be an Anti-Federalist, as well as one who had championed the rights of Baptists in his home state of Virginia, expressing their concern over the First Amendment phrase regarding freedom of religion.
The members of the Baptist Association were worried that the First Amendment actually gave the Federal government jurisdiction over religion in the US. Why did they worry over this issue? Because the members of the association knew, even in that day, that the First Amendment clause on religion could be interpreted in two ways:
1) The federal government, by writing this clause, allows religious freedom to exist, the implication of which is that, what has been allowed can also be dis-allowed.
2) The federal government declared an official “hands-off” policy (sort of a non-interference or restraining order clause) regarding the ability of Congress to promote or limit religious expression in the United States.
The members of the Baptist Association were worried that the very problem we are seeing today, that of a full-scale assault against religious freedom, might occur based on the way this clause is interpreted. So they wisely wrote to President Jefferson, knowing that he was sympathetic to their cause, and asked for clarification. Jefferson, understanding fully their concern, sought to assuage their fears regarding this clause.
Here is a bit of the dialogue between the Baptist Association and Thomas Jefferson, starting with an excerpt from the letter written by the Baptist Association:
Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty. That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals. That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions. That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor… It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government and Religion should reproach their fellow men, should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law and good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
The argument from the Baptist Association was this: Freedom of religion is a natural right, given to us by God, and not subject to endorsement or regulation on the part of any person or government. The members were worried that the First Amendment was a way of gaining power over people by asserting its right to curtail the free expression of religion on the part of the populace. Unfortunately, their fear is being realized today.
Thomas Jefferson’s reply back to the Baptist Association was designed to calm their fears in relation to any desire on the part of the federal government to “make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.” Here is a bit of his reply:
I contemplate with solemn reverence the act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make ‘no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
As an Anti-Federalist, as well as a contemporary American, Jefferson agreed wholeheartedly with the members of the Baptist Association. Nor was this Jefferson’s final statement regarding this issue. Jefferson made many statements regarding the role of the First Amendment. Here are a few examples, as summarized by David Barton in his article, The Separation of Church and State, with links to a few of the original documents available online with the Library of Congress:
[N]o power (emphasis mine) over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798.
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805.
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. (emphasis mine) Letter to Samuel Miller, 1808.
In light of these statements, made both before as well as after Jefferson’s use of the phrase wall of separation in 1802, to what conclusions should we come? In answering this question, I want to highlight the especially-telling quote, taken from Jefferson’s letter to Samuel Miller, where he asserts that the power of the federal government is “interdicted,” that is, “prohibited and/or placed under a legal sanction” (Webster’s defined), by the First Amendment.
When you examine the First Amendment clause in light of this comment, you must conclude that the First Amendment was meant to insure that the federal government would remain passive on the issue of religious freedoms. In other words, it prevents the government from taking action against the free exercise of religion. The federal government, then, has no ability to enforce a “no religion zone” on federal and state facilities, public areas, or on any institution which accepts government support. It is a total and permanent restraining order against the federal government, barring it from the creation of regulations that might interfere with the free expression of religion by any citizen of this country.
Just as a restraining order prevents one individual or group from taking action against another individual or group, the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause prevents legislators from taking action against individuals or groups seeking to express their religious beliefs. In addition, this clause is extremely broad in scope; it does not specify certain places or times in which we can or cannot exercise this freedom.
The First Amendment is a broad, ongoing prohibition and barrs congress from promoting and/or interfering with religious expression. This is exactly what Jefferson meant when he coined the phrase, “wall of separation between church and state,” an assertion which is borne out by the additional statements made by Jefferson. Based on the evidence, which is freely available to anyone who chooses to examine the issue, this assertion could be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt in a court of law.
Back To The Future
How ironic, then, that the very phrase meant by Jefferson to permanently settle this issue has been reinterpreted by secularists, determined to remove religious expression from public life, to mean its exact opposite. It is a reinterpretation whose meaning has been so effectively promulgated by the mainstream media that now, whenever the average person hears this phrase, they immediately identify its meaning as a mandate for the federal government to place limits on religious expression in order to protect others who do not hold to the same faith (or any faith at all, for that matter).
Now, while the thought of a more openly religious society might sound repugnant to some, they should look upon this as a necessary evil. After all, if secularists succeed in changing the meaning of the First Amendment to marginalize religious freedoms, then assaults on the other, equally important, parts of this Amendment (the freedom of the press and of assembly) can’t be far behind. This is a threat that we must take seriously.
The Danger of Interpreting the First Amendment
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.
Take a good look, not just at the content of this amendment, but also at the way it is written. Notice that the entire amendment is one sentence. What does this tell you about the intent of the authors? Hopefully you will see the inescapable link made by the framers between the freedom of religion, press, and assembly. The First Amendment is one sentence for two main reasons: 1) It was meant to be all-encompassing and generic and to serve as a broad prohibition against federal interference with these freedoms and, 2) The amendment was designed to prevent the federal government from regulating any kind of expression, be it religious, personal, or corporate. In other words, the First Amendment was designed to guarantee that individuals could express their religious beliefs freely, or assemble freely in support or protest, and express their thoughts, ideas, and opinions freely in the press.
So, when people such as Mr. Newdow work to remove the freedom of religious expression from public life, they are also, whether they know it or not, actively damaging our freedom of assembly and freedom of the press. Make no mistake; if you reinterpret one part of the First Amendment, you reinterpret it all. In the end, the First Amendment is all about, and only about, our right to express ourselves.
Take it from one who grew up on the water. If you punch one hole in a boat, at best, the boat will never sail properly again and, at worst, the whole boat will sink. Should we really sink the whole boat just because we don’t like one of its parts?
That is exactly what Mr. Newdow and many others are seeking to do. In their thoughtless, short-sighted desire to save us, and themselves, from our “ignorant superstitions,” they would structurally damage the First Amendment, and, with it, some of our nation’s most dearly held beliefs and traditions.Powered by Sidelines