What Does ‘Separation of Church and State’ Really Mean?

Alliance Defending Freedom ^ | 05/02/2025 | Andrea Dill

[kaktuskid]

No Church of Rome. No Church of England. No state-sanctioned church.

[Rowdyone]

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.

[DiogenesLamp]

I got into a discussion on this point the other day. Since I went to the trouble of looking up some information, I think it would be appropriate for me to share it with anyone interested in this topic.

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.

[ken in texas]

I thought about saying something but didn’t want things to degenerate too much as there were over 100 of us waiting to vote.

[SkyDancer]

Thanks for all that. The thing is, there are almost 50,000 Protestant denominations and 25 Catholic ones. So whom do you choose?

[Alberta's Child]

Are the historic “Christian” influences in the U.S. truly religious, or were they just common conventions at the time? Even Jewish and Chinese people are writing “2025” on their checks these days. :-P

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.

[vpintheak]

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.

[Political Junkie Too]

All the first amendment protections of individual rights in the first amendment should be taken together as reinforcements of the same concept. Regarding religion:

• "abridging the freedom of speech" quite literally meant speech as far as crowds of people could hear you. It's the proverbial person standing on a soapbox in the town square shouting his opinions to others. It's also the preacher sermoning from the pulpit of his church or the proselytizer standing on a street corner.

• "the right of the people to peaceably assemble" means literally to stand together to hear a speaker speak. During colonial British rule, a group of people seen together in public would be suspected of being conspirators against the Crown. Free speech does no good if the People aren't allowed to congregate to hear you. This includes hearing religious speech.

• "freedom of the press" meant the right of anyone to publish. Spoken word only traveled as far as one could hear it. Printing one's thoughts and distributing them across the colonies extended the reach of thought, and therefore, its influence. This includes printing Bibles and other religious tomes.

• "the freedom to worship" combines the above three, publishing the tenets of a religion, gathering in common prayer, and speaking about one's beliefs to others.

• "the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances" meant using the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly to call out when the federal government exceeded its Constitutional authority. Appealing to the government for religious needs is included, such as applying for grants.

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

[Inyo-Mono]

Great, thanks for posting that!

[DiogenesLamp]

Thanks for all that. The thing is, there are almost 50,000 Protestant denominations and 25 Catholic ones. So whom do you choose?

I thought I made it clear. You don't choose a denomination. The whole point was to be non-denominational.

[SkyDancer]

Granted. There are those denominations that put in their two cents worth on the subject and all are wrong.

[DiogenesLamp]

Are the historic “Christian” influences in the U.S. truly religious, or were they just common conventions at the time?

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.

[MacNaughton]

So far, no comments on this thread about what is happening east of Plano, TX, at the EPIC. From what I have read the Muslims intend to implement Sharia law over the community there and levy a jizya (tax) on the infidels that choose to live there.

[ProgressingAmerica]

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.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"Are the historic “Christian” influences in the U.S. truly religious, or were they just common conventions at the time?"

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.

[vpintheak]

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.