The Modern Corruption of Separating Church from State

American Thinker ^ | 1 May, 2025 | Susan Quinn

[MtnClimber]

From the outset of forming our country, our Founders were determined to keep religion as a foundational element, given that many people had left their homes in Britain to be able to practice their religions as they chose. The goal was not for the government to reject faith, but for it to be prevented from dictating doctrine.

But over the years, the Left has distorted the meaning of “separation of church and state” (a phrase that’s not written into the Constitution) and now the country feels obligated to ban religion from every nook and cranny. How did a country founded in part by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment find itself dominated by secularism?

The Danbury Baptist Association was one of the first organizations in 1802 to ask Thomas Jefferson about the protections of their religious practice. Here, in part, is Jefferson’s reply:

‘I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State,’ Jefferson said.

The metaphor of a ‘wall of separation’ was not intended to say that religion should not influence opinion on government issues. Rather, it was used to affirm free religious practice for citizens.

The First Amendment was written to ensure that Congress would not create legislation beyond civil matters, again prohibiting the creation of a state religion:

The First Amendment prevents congress from creating or establishing a religion, and thereby prevents the power of the government from expanding beyond civil matters. The First Amendment also protects people’s right to worship however they choose, or to not worship at all. Protecting people’s right to decide what is right for themselves without government interference

[skinny old man]

Well said.Most who flaunt separation never go to church or believe...

[DiogenesLamp]

This was caused by a failure of the religious institutions, not a hostile, secular government.

I am interested in hearing your explanation for this claim. The government became hostile to religion in 1948, thanks to Roosevelt appointed wacko judges.

At the time of the founding, some states still had official state religions, so the notion that there could be no religion in state governments was absolutely wrong.

[Carry_Okie]

Over 50% of the population of this country is at least sympathetic to Muslims over Christians.

Primarily due to the ignorance of both the secular and Christian cohorts.

[freepersup]

The National Day of Prayer is being celebrated at this exact moment at the Rose Garden.

https://americasvoice.news/

[freepersup]

And it just ended...

[Openurmind]

The problem is you can’t force Religion, you have to sell it by leading honest examples of your positive faith and morality. And currently there is just too much intolerance, hypocrisy, self righteousness, and false devotion for it to be a true positive example others would want to emulate and be part of. Or it would not have to be forced... It would go viral on it’s own if it is true.

[Carry_Okie]

The problem is you can’t force Religion, you have to sell it by leading honest examples of your positive faith and morality. And currently there is just too much intolerance, hypocrisy, self righteousness, and false devotion for it to be a true positive example others would want to emulate and be part of. Or it would not have to be forced... It would go viral on it’s own if it is true.

There is a difference between love found in a walk with G_d and the impressed conditioning of prayer 5X/day.

[Alberta's Child]

In what ways is the government "hostile" to religion today? There are very few that come to mind.

Religious liberty cases, in fact, are among those rare instances where the religious party in the dispute consistently wins an 8-1 or 9-0 ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The most contentious cases in my lifetime have been those involving "religious" organizations that do business with the government. One notable case on the current Supreme Court docket, for example, is Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission. It centers around a question about whether a religious group can be barred from a specific tax exemption if it fails to meet a state's legal qualifications for a "religious" organization. My issue here is that Catholic Charities should not be considered a "religious" organization by any objective measure because it wouldn't exist without government funding.

The same issue comes up when the government allegedly demonstrates "hostility" to religious groups by denying them the right to serve as adoption agencies if they don't buy into Sodomite values such as same-sex couple adoptions, "gender affirmation health care," etc. The reality is that any religious organization can facilitate adoptions however it damn well pleases. They've been doing this sort of thing long before the United States even existed. But these religious groups end up being shut down because they rely on government funding for their adoption services ... which goes back to my original point that they aren't religious groups if they've sold out to the government in the first place.

[sauropod]

Bkmk

[DiogenesLamp]

In what ways is the government "hostile" to religion today? There are very few that come to mind.

This reminds me of that scene in "Pirates of the Caribbean" where the British Captain says "You are the worst pirate I have ever heard of." To which Captain Jack Sparrow replies "So you have heard of me?"

So you have some examples of government hostility to religion that come to mind?

Well, banning prayer in schools is a particularly obvious one. There is that banning of the Ten Commandments on public property. There have been so many court cases where Judges try to inhibit the government from any involvement in religion that it's hard to understand why you would need some examples.

...which goes back to my original point that they aren't religious groups if they've sold out to the government in the first place.

Well I agree, but this isn't the sort of examples that come to my mind when I ponder government hostility to religion.

I wasn't old enough to have experienced Teacher led prayer in public schools, but I think it was the right of states to allow this if they wanted it, and I think it was beneficial for society when they did this.

I think throwing it out was a terrible, and unlawful decision based on nonsense interpretations of Constitutional law through the unforeseen consequences of the 14th amendment.

[Alberta's Child]

1. I’m posting as someone who doesn’t believe public schools should even exist, so any discussion about prayer in schools is pretty much an academic exercise as far as I’m concerned.

2. I’m 100% certain that anyone clamoring for prayer in public schools these days would change their tune very quickly the first time a story is posted here on FR involving a Muslim teacher leading the class in prayer.

[DiogenesLamp]

1. I’m posting as someone who doesn’t believe public schools should even exist, so any discussion about prayer in schools is pretty much an academic exercise as far as I’m concerned.

How would it work without public funding for schools?

2. I’m 100% certain that anyone clamoring for prayer in public schools these days would change their tune very quickly the first time a story is posted here on FR involving a Muslim teacher leading the class in prayer.

This is the argument I really want to have. On what possible basis could anyone claim that a Muslim religion should be allowed in publicly funded schools in the United States?

There is no twist of the law that should allow that to happen. The nation was founded as a Christian nation, and the constitution favors the Christian religion.

[Alberta's Child]

How would it work without public funding for schools?

Make parents responsible for educating their own children. If they want to send the kids to a formal school, they can pay the cost of the school themselves.

There is no twist of the law that should allow that to happen. The nation was founded as a Christian nation, and the constitution favors the Christian religion.

Please cite any references you have to the word “Christian” in the Constitution or in any other of this nation’s founding documents.

The idea that U.S. law favors “the Christian religion” is absurd. There are dozens of major Christian denominations, and it would be a travesty to select one and make it the official state religion. This country was founded by men who were adamant about leaving that nonsense behind in England.

[DiogenesLamp]

Make parents responsible for educating their own children. If they want to send the kids to a formal school, they can pay the cost of the school themselves.

You see no larger synergistic benefit from educating everyone?

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.

.

.

.

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.

.

.

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.

This country was founded by men who were adamant about leaving that nonsense behind in England.

You should read some Samuel Adams. You would get a very different view. For that matter, James Otis and Benjamin Franklin would also give you some good views of that era.

[Alberta's Child]

Sorry I missed this post yesterday!

You see no larger synergistic benefit from educating everyone?

I have no idea what this even means.

[DiogenesLamp]

I have no idea what this even means.

Synergy means adding up to greater than the sum of its parts.

Educating just a segment of the population (middle class) will help the success of those people in their life (in theory) and leave the poor class at more of a disadvantage than they would otherwise be.

By educating the poor classes, it should, (in theory) boost their productivity, and by such an amount as benefits the entire country at large.

The synergy part is that it benefits the nation's productivity to an extent greater than it costs. (in theory)

Now while this was likely the case in the past, it is not so obviously the case now, due to the radically increased costs of education as a consequence from Federal government involvement in it.

I have no rock solid position on the idea that the government should not be involved in education, but my understanding of the situation is that it has long been believed since at least the founding era, that a better educated populace better serves the interests of the nation as a whole.

And the benefits may manifest in ways that are not easily correlated to a dollar amount.

I am open to evidence showing government (State Government) involvement in education is a mistake, or that it is a benefit of greater value than its cost.

But I lean towards it being a benefit rather than a detriment.