Posted on 05/02/2025 10:44:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Sometimes, a phrase takes on a life of its own and becomes so rhetorically powerful that it can be deployed almost mindlessly, without real consideration of its original meaning. “Separation of church and state” is one such phrase.
Consider a couple of examples.
In 2011, middle-schooler Brian Hickman auditioned to dance to a contemporary Christian song for his public school’s talent show. Days later, Brian’s mom was told by the school principal that the “separation of church and state” prohibited her son from performing to the song.
Three years later, a Colorado high school student named Chase was told by an administrator that his Christian prayer meeting, held during a free period, would have to stop due to the “separation of church and state.”
These two stories bear several obvious and striking similarities. But here’s one more: Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit in both of these instances. And in both Brian’s case and Chase’s, the school backed down.
The appeals to the “separation of church and state” did not hold up. And for good reason: while the term may be a convenient rhetorical tool, it does not represent any real constitutional doctrine. And now, it’s at issue in yet another ADF case, Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond.
The phrase “separation of church and state” is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. The term has been based on the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, but those clauses merely state that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The phrase “separation of church and state” rather originates in a letter sent by President Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptists in Connecticut. The Danbury Baptist Association, a group of 26 churches in the state, had written to Jefferson to congratulate him on his election and convey their concern that Connecticut’s system of government (in which the Congregational Church was the official or “established” denomination) had led to their ill treatment.
In their letter, the Baptists affirm their belief in religious liberty—“That Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals”—and express their dismay that they enjoy this freedom only as “favors granted” rather than as an inalienable right.
Replying to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson agrees that “religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God.” Further, the president notes that the language of the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses build a “wall of separation between Church & State.”
This context clarifies that Jefferson was speaking of protecting religious exercise from an overbearing government. His response to the Danbury Baptists was a reassurance that the United States Congress would not impede their free exercise of religion.
Unfortunately, the promise of religious freedom shared by both Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists has not always been realized in American history. Indeed, Jefferson’s figure of speech has been distorted and wrenched from its original context.
In the 1971 case Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court created a way to evaluate whether government actions violated the Establishment Clause. Under Lemon, a law had to pass a three-part test to avoid violating the establishment clause:
For decades, the Court used this vague, one-size-fits-all standard before finally abandoning it in the 2022 case Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. In that case, the Court declared that it would now look to “historical practices and understandings” to determine whether a government’s actions violate the Establishment Clause.
While the Kennedy case restored a proper understanding of the Establishment Clause, a series of other cases clarified the scope of the Free Exercise Clause.
The 2017 case Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer centered on a Missouri state program that provided grants for playground resurfacing. Trinity Lutheran Church applied for a grant to resurface the playground of the church’s preschool. But the state denied the grant—simply because the preschool was operated by a religious organization.
Represented by ADF, Trinity Lutheran challenged Missouri’s decision and took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the state’s exclusion of churches from the program violated the Free Exercise Clause.
Three years after Trinity Lutheran, the Court heard Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, another case that involved public programs in the context of education. A Montana Supreme Court decision had invalidated a state tax credit program because families might use that money for tuition at a religious school. The Supreme Court reversed that ruling.
Carson v. Makin, the third case in this “trilogy,” also involved a state educational program. The state of Maine operates a tuition assistance program in certain areas that helps families pay for tuition “at the public school or the approved private school of the parent’s choice.” But there was a catch: “sectarian” (i.e., religious) schools were not eligible. The Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that the “nonsectarian” requirement in Maine’s tuition assistance program violated the Free Exercise Clause.
This term, the Supreme Court is hearing another case involving education that could have far-reaching implications for religious freedom. In Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, ADF is defending the charter school board’s decision to approve an application for a virtual Catholic charter school called St. Isidore of Seville. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued the board for that decision despite the Supreme Court precedent outlined above.
In Oklahoma, private organizations may partner with a sponsor and apply to operate charter schools in the state. The Statewide Charter School Board may then approve the application. That’s exactly what happened when two Catholic dioceses, the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa, applied to establish St. Isidore.
There was just one problem. The Oklahoma Charter Schools Act stipulates that schools must be “nonsectarian.” In other words, religious organizations need not apply. That violates the First Amendment. As we’ve seen, the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that government actors cannot exclude religious organizations from otherwise available public benefits simply because they are religious. So the board properly refused to enforce that nonsectarian provision of the law and approved St. Isidore’s application.
Contrary to what many believe, the “separation of church and state” isn’t a constitutional principle. Rather, it’s a misnomer rooted in a historical misunderstanding and subsequent jurisprudence. While the church and the state are separate institutions, our Constitution does not demand that our governments have no engagement with religious groups. In fact, our nation’s history shows that the opposite is true: when governments work together with religious organizations, they can accomplish much good.
That is the promise of religious charter schools such as St. Isidore—such schools give parents more affordable, high-quality options for their children’s education. This year, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to affirm the constitutionality of the charter school board’s decision. Oklahoma should be able to choose the best schools for its charter-school program, and more choices in education will benefit parents and children alike.
No Church of Rome. No Church of England. No state-sanctioned church.
The whole issue is in one paragraph. The establishment clause, no official state religion, and the free exercise clause, no state banishment of any religion.
Alberta's Child said:
Please cite any references you have to the word “Christian” in the Constitution or in any other of this nation’s founding documents.
There are two in the US Constitution.
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
And this:
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names
The Declaration of Independence says this:
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...
And this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
And this:
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
And this:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies,...
The Articles of Confederation say this:
Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America ...
And this:
And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union,...
And this:
In Witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands, in Congress. Done at Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, the ninth Day of July, in the Year of our Lord one Thousand seven Hundred and Seventy eight, and in the third year of the Independence of America.
And if I got into the various state's constitutions, and other official documents of the time, we would have more examples than we have time to look at.
.
.
.
Alberta's Child said:
The idea that U.S. law favors “the Christian religion” is absurd.
To the contrary. It is absurd to believe otherwise. 20th century court decisions have painted a very false picture of how the early government was constituted. It was *VERY* religious.
Here is an example from the 1860s.
.
.
Alberta's Child said:
There are dozens of major Christian denominations, and it would be a travesty to select one and make it the official state religion.
Now this part is correct, and you have hit the nail precisely on the head for what the founders meant by their references to no religious tests for office, and so forth.
But we are led to believe this is because of a general eschewing of religion from government, but this is not at all the intent in 1787.
The intent was to prevent doctrine disputes between government officials and the various states where different denominations were dominant.
The Virginians were Anglican, the Marylanders were Catholic, the Massachusetians were Puritans, and the Pennsylvanians were Quakers.
If you allowed religious tests or had religious requirements for office, you would quickly blow apart your coalition of states. They wanted to avoid that, but they never intended to go so far as to excise religion from government.
They all believed the nation was Christian, and that it would always remain so. They had no thought of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists or any of the other religions they regarded as pagan.
No. All religions were never intended to be seen as equal in the eyes of the US Government. It was designed and intended to be overtly Christian, though non-denominational.
I thought about saying something but didn’t want things to degenerate too much as there were over 100 of us waiting to vote.
Thanks for all that. The thing is, there are almost 50,000 Protestant denominations and 25 Catholic ones. So whom do you choose?
The Anglican founders knew better than anyone that this country couldn’t have any serious religious influence in our government. They had just carried out a revolution against a government whose king was also supposed to be the leader of their Christian church.
Those who are not mentally retarded, or purposely retarded; know what it means. Government cannot force a religion upon its citizens, they are free to do worship what or what they want; or choose not to. And no retards, having a prayer before a public meeting isn’t forcing a religion upon you.
That’s it. Nothing else. No other retardation needed. Simple. Easy. Even a leftist or an atheist can understand that.
Add to this the Article VI protection that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" and it's clear that there was no "wall of separation" in the Constitution intended to prevent the government from treating religious organizations differently from any other entities, or exluding them from the public square.
-PJ
Great, thanks for posting that!
I thought I made it clear. You don't choose a denomination. The whole point was to be non-denominational.
Granted. There are those denominations that put in their two cents worth on the subject and all are wrong.
I usually get the response of "Those examples of "Our Lord" which appear in legal documents for most of this nation's history, don't really mean anything. They are just a convention that was common place at the time."
How did using "Our Lord" become a "common convention"?
Because every European country, and America, was very religious in that era, and they meant those words to reflect that Christ was "Our Lord". They were so religious they were silly about it, but they were also deadly serious.
The Anglican founders knew better than anyone that this country couldn’t have any serious religious influence in our government.
I don't know where you get that from. They were all very religious.
What they knew was that they could not show favoritism to the various flavors of Christian doctrine that existed in the various states, or states that had a different prominent denomination would refuse to remain in the Union. As I said, people took their religion very seriously back then.
The framers are using the term "religion" to mean "denomination" as we use the term today. They wanted no denominational conflicts because the nation could not survive religious disputes if they got started.
But this is a very different thing from understanding them to mean that they would accept Islam, or Buddhism as equal in the eyes of the government. Other than Jefferson, it is likely the rest never gave other religions any thought at all.
Trouble is, nobody actually goes to the original source. Without that, the question cannot be answered “What Does ‘Separation of Church and State’ Really Mean?”.
Thomas Jefferson? No, not Jefferson. This blog posting failed on that as well. The concept of separation as we understand it is of Puritan origin, it comes from Roger Williams.
You may notice that not one person in this discussion has even mentioned Roger Williams. That’s because progressives won - they control our history. They have for nearly a century and the progressive control of U.S. history has no end in sight.
No Puritan created a system of destroying Christianity. Knowing that this is where the idea originally comes from puts many progressive memes and progressive mythology to bed.
I would recommend the book "Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States", a book we are updating for the 21st century into an audio book format for easier consumption and increased convenience.
At over 800 hefty pages, the footnotes are what you need to quickly dispatch this question. The audio book version will be indispensable when it is finally finished.
Well, thats some horse crap.
It is also unconstitutional. Everyone pays the tax, or no one pays the tax.
Alaska tried to do a tax on tourists a long time ago, and it failed the constitutional test for that reason.
These muzzies can pound sand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.