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.
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Be careful when you want to use tax dollars to fund religious charter schools.
There are religions out there that preach their superiority over America’s constitution, and that killing infidel are justified. ( You know what religion(s) I mean ).
**
Another constitutional issue coming up for a hearing soon. “Birthright Citizenship” and the Amicus Curiae | by Joseph DeMaio: https://www.thepostemail.com/2025/05/02/birthright-citizenship-and-the-amicus-curiae/ #DonaldTrump #BirthrightCitizenship #SCOTUS #solicitorgeneral #DOJ #AttorneyGeneral #DonaldTrumpJr
Article 52 [Religion]
(1) Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.
(2) In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.
-Constitution of the USSR
A reprint of that letter would be great to post on those liberal sites (those of you who are brave enough to visit them) whenever they come up with that nonsense about this.
It is simple:
When the constitution was written, all countries had
State religion.
Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist, Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, ...
The non-state religions were tolerated at the best, taxed, discriminated, persecuted or illegal, in most cases.
All what the founders wanted is, that there would not be State religion in the US!
Very radical concept in late 18th century!
Good post!
The time has come for separation of school and state.
Yeah.
Like the Marxists.
And the Sodomites.
There should be a wall of separation between schools and state.
In the US we said you need not hide your religion, as long as you are not violating the laws of the land, (murder, rape, banditry) you may wear it on your sleeve if you like or if you don't. Wear your yamaka, rosary or kara.
It means the state can’t run the church.
To me, it simply means the government can’t name a national religion. They can’t dictate everyone will be Catholic or Baptist etc. it doesn’t mean we can’t have religion, just that it can’t be mandated.
Some years back our local polling place was held in a church just up the road. While standing in line I overheard a woman get quite vocal about how voting should not be allowed in churches because we're supposed to have "separation of church and state".
It means that we have choice....the government makes its rules...the churches make their rules.
It can be separation of the church from the state OR the separation of the state from the church ... by which I mean that one must be able to take first place in the loyalties and devotions of the people.
The question is where does the people’s rights and obligations lay: if the people are free in their conscience then they have they right to regulate their government accordingly ... and this is the construction of the 1st Amendment.
But if the government commands the primary loyalty of the people then they are not ultimately free but are bound to observe certain things as “private” and not to intrude on the “public”.
Ultimately the freedom of people vs the freedom of the government.
The idea of a mutual separation, of the “and”, is an abuse at this time in the hands of those who wish the to subject us.
Then there is that entire Climate cO2 cult thing……
With this thread, hopefully the FACTS will finally sink in. :-)
Well I’d keep on saying that that’s not in our Constitution. If it is, show it to me, otherwise I’ll take it you never took civics or American history - then too, where are you from? Are you a citizen?
I’ve got to get a copy of that letter to keep with me.
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.