Myth: The Founders Established A Wall of Separation Between Church and State

excerpt from the book Five Lies of the Century pp. 15-30 | 1995 | David T. Moore

[Sir Gawain]

MYTH: THE FOUNDING FATHERS ESTABLISHED A WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE

The founding fathers were certainly men of faith, and it was their intention to establish a nation built upon the principles of Christianity. American statesman Patrick Henry said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not to be religionist but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ."² Granted, by today's standards, Henry's words are narrow and offensive, but to ignore or deny them is censorship of history. Ambassador to France Benjamin Franklin wrote, "He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of Christianity will change the face of the world."³ Indeed they did--and there is much evidence to combat any myth to the contrary.

Evidence from presidents and statesmen

On April 30, 1789, George Washington took the presidential oath of office and delivered America's first inaugural address, acknowledging God as the reason for America's birth:

It would be improper to omit, in this fisrt official act, my fervent supplication to that Almighty Being....No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some providential agency....We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven cannot be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.⁴

Our second president, John Adams, once told Thomas Jefferson,

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were....the general principles of Christianity....I will avow that I believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.⁵

John Quincy Adams, sixth president of the United States, summarized American history: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government and the principles of Christianity."⁶ Adams's statement is diametrically opposed to the separation myth.

Noah Webster claimed,

The religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is the genuine Christianity, and to this [Christianity] we owe our free Constitution of government.⁷

Those are not the words of some wing-nut fundamentalist. Webster literally wrote the English dictionary, and he used words as precisely as a surgeon uses a scapel. His words cannot be redifined to say anything less than the Christian origin of the Constitution.

Evidence in the Supreme Court

When James Wilson was unanimously confirmed as George Washington's appointment to the Supreme Court, he said, "Christianity is part of the common-law."⁸ "Common-law" referred to the basis on which all other laws were built and reflected the posture of the Supreme Court for decades. In the case of Runkel v. Winemiller in 1796, just twenty years after the Declaration of Independence and nine years after adopting the Constitution, the supreme court of Maryland ruled, "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing and are equally entitled to protection in their liberty."

This case is crucial because it makes two issues very clear. First, it illustrates the real meaning behind the First Amendment: Each Christian denomination was placed upon an equal footing. Notice it didn't say all religions were equal in America, but that all denominations of Christians were equal. The intention behind the First Amendment was to prevent one denomination from becoming the national church. Everyone understood that; most could remember what it was like to live under the oppressive Church of England. This was one of the primary motivations for leaving England. But and "equal footing" had nothing to do with a wall of separation.

The second issue is quite a bombshell. The truth about the First Amendment is that it was adopted to prevent any one denomination from infringing upon another but was never intended to be hostile toward Christianity or designed to exclude Christianity from political life. The Supreme Court affirmed Christianity as the established religion. Following the case, there was no public outcry, no suits by the ACLU, and no conflict with the Constitution. While the separation of church and state might well be entrenched in the political thinking of today, it was absolutely foreign to both the founding fathers and the Supreme Court prior to 1947.

Nearly 120 years after the birth of our nation, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the fact that America was a Christian nation. In the case of Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) the unanimous decision stated:

Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teaching of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian....This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation...we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth....These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.⁹

Following the Court's statement that America was a Christian nation, three pages were devoted to eighty-seven authoritative citations. From the commission of Christopher Columbus onward, the Court built and airtight case for its proposition that America is a Christian nation. That's why Congress saw no conflict when it spent federal money to support ministers and missionaries for over one hundred years. Nor was there a conflict with appointing chaplains to the Senate, the House, or the armed forces. They saw no problem with Washington's being sworn into office with his hand on the Bible opened to Deuteronomy 6. That's also why the very same Congress that gave us the Constitution decided that President Washington's inauguration would conclude with a church service at Saint Paul's Chapel, led by the chaplains of Congress. The same Congress that approved a national day of prayer and thanksgiving, "whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly implore His protection and favor."¹⁰

Evidence in other political, educational, and spiritual arenas

The spirit of Christianity continued to engulf the American political arena well into the next century. Alexis de Tocqueville's classic text on early America's political institutions says, "The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other."¹¹

The separation of church and state was so foreign to the roots of America that Congress even approved a special printing of the Bible for use in public schools. In 1781, a publisher petitioned Congress for permission to print Bibles. Congress not only approved his request but issued this statement in 1782: "The Congress of the United States approves and recommends to the people, the Holy Bible...for use in schools."¹² Interestingly enough, that statement isn't included within the NEA policy handbook. When the congressional recommendation was challenged, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, "Why not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the schools? Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?"¹³

The founding fathers saw such a blend of Christianity and civil government that most expected officeholders to be Christians. While denominational affiliation didn't matter, a belief in God and the Bible was paramount. Nine of the thirteen colonies had written constitutions. Many of them required officeholders to sign a declaration that amounted to a statement of faith. The Delaware Constitution of 1776 is a perfect example:

Everyone appointed to public office must say: "I do profess faith in God the Father, and in the Lord Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration."¹⁴

Many theological seminaries couldn't say that today. I'm not suggesting that we return to such a standard, but the Delaware Constitution blows away the separation myth and illustrates the Christian bias of the founding fathers.

Statements about elected officials and citizens

John Jay, the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and one of the three men most responsible for the Constitution, said, "Providence [God] has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."¹⁵ That's pretty radical. Roger Sherman, the only founding father to sign all four of America's major documents, totally agreed with Jay when he wrote, "The right to hold office was to be extended to persons of any Christian denomination."¹⁶ While the remarks are shocking by modern standards, the comments simply reflect the common political sentiment of that day.

Even as late as 1931, the Court continued to affirm America as a Christian nation. In the U.S v. Macintosh, the Court ruled, "We are a Christian people, according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God." In addition to being a "Christian people," the Court asserted that obedience to the will of God was duty of American citizens. No wonder de Tocqeville wrote what he did about Americans combining the notions of Christianity and liberty so intimately that it was impossible to make them conceive of the one without the other. De Tocqueville's testimony is priceless because he was an unbiased eyewitness to what was actually occurring in early America.

IS AMERICA GOING THROUGH "RELIGIOUS CLEANSING"?

It's amazing that the Supreme Court cases Holy Trinity v. United States and U.S. v. Macintosh don't appear in a single law text being used today. It certainly isn't because the cases weren't important. In the 1991 case Chapman v. United States, Justice John Paul Stevens quoted Holy Trinity as controlling precedent. If the case is still controlling precedent, then why has it (and its eighty-seven authoritative statements about America's being a Christian nation) been extracted from law books? And why are the faith-affirming quotes of the founding fathers removed from public-school history books? Furthermore, why do the history books say nothing of a Christian nation governed by Christian principles? And if the founding fathers were Christians who intended to establish a Christian land, governed by Christian principles, how was that dream uprooted? And why do 67 percent of Americans believe that the separation of church and state is part of the First Amendment?

A simple case of censorship

The founders' words and the court cases just cited fly in the face of the separation myth. Given the contemporary court's secular bias, they would be very embarrassing. Politically correct humanists are determined to further the separation myth in the hope that every hint of religion will be removed from public life. The primary objective is nothing less than religious cleansing.

Knowledge of the founding fathers' faith and their intention to establish a Christian nation has been a long-standing part of our American heritage. Even the modern-day liberal Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas confessed, "We are a religious people, and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."¹⁷ More direct still were the words of Chief Justice Earl Warren. Certainly not known for a conservative bent, Warren told Time:

I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing the Good Book and the Spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses....Whether we look to the First Charter of Virginia, or to the Charter of New England, or to the Charter of Massachusetts Bay, or the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. The same object is present; a Christian land governed by Christian principles. I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it; freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under the law, and the reservation of powers to the people. I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country.¹⁸

How could a contemporary Supreme Court justice utter words so contrary to the current Court's position? The answer is that Warren made his statements in 1954. Justice Warren was educated within a system that had not yet rewritten a secular, sanitized version of American history. He was historically accurate but politically incorrect. His words were also prophetic: "I like also to believe that as long as we do so [live in the spirit of a Christian land governed by Christian principles], no great harm can come to our country."

A radical turn in the courts

In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court made a 180-degree turn. Without citing a single precedent, and ignoring 175 years of historically consistent rulings, the Court claimed, "The wall of separation between church and state must be kept high and impregnable" (Everson v. Board of Education). This was a totally new approach for the Court and a radical departure from the past. With that single decision, the myth of separation between church and state was born. That explains why the phrase "separation of church and state" didn't appear in the World Book Encyclopedia until 1967. The wall is a myth. It was not established by the founders, nor was it part of our national heritage.

The fanatical nature of the Court's decision is obvious when set within the context of the 1940s. Just three years earlier, the National Education Association had published a series of sixteen "Personal Growth Leaflets" to help public-school students become "familiar with our great literary heritage." The back of the booklet read, "It is important that people who are to live together and work together happily shall have a common mind--a common body of appreciations and ideals to animate and inspire them."¹⁹ The NEA's selections for inspiring American students is extraordinary: the Lord's Prayer; the poem "Father in Heaven, We Thank Thee"; another poem that introduced the concept of daily prayers; a thanksgiving poem that admonished kids to "thank the One who gave all the good things that we have." If there was a distinctive "wall of separation" between church and state, why didn't the National Education Association (of all organizations) know about it in 1944? The wall is a myth.

For fifteen years the Court's decision had little impact upon judicial decisions but instead quietly cultivated a whole new thought system. In 1962, the seeds of the Everson case burst into full bloom and became controlling precedent for Engle v. Vitale--the case that removed prayer in public education by ruling voluntary and denominationally neutral prayer unconstitutional. The actual prayer was rather benign: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee and we beg thy blessings upon us and our parents, our teachers, and our country." Tragically, Engle v. Vitale started a domino effect of court rulings that removed our religious heritage from the public arena, especially from education.

In the 1963 decision of Abington v. Schempp, the Court removed Bible reading from public education. The Court's justification? "If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be and have been psychologically harmful to a child." Simply amazing. Suddenly, the best- selling book of all time and the most quoted source by the founding fathers was unconstitutional and psychologically harmful. The honorable court certainly didn't share the religious values of the founders nor the sustainers of the Republic. Abraham Lincoln said, "But for the Bible we would not know right from wrong." Exactly. One of the reasons we have lost our moral bearings is that the objective values of right and wrong have been removed from chilren's education.

In 1965, the Court ruled that religious speech among students was unconstitutional (Stein v. Oshinsky). While freedom of speech is still guaranteed for pornographers and political dissidents, one topic is taboo on the campus: religion. Stein v. Oshinsky made it unconstitutional for a student to pray aloud over a meal. In 1992, the Court carried its censorship into the college classroom by ordering a professor to stop discussing Christianity. In the outlandish ruling for DeSpain v. DeKalb County Community School District (1967), the Court declared the following kindergarten nursery rhyme unconstitutional: "We thank you for the flowers so sweet; We thank you for the food we eat; We thank you for the birds that sing; We thank you for everything." The Court's logic baffles common sense. Although the word God was not contained in this nursery rhyme, the Court argued that if someone were to hear it, it might cause them to think of God and was therefore unconstitutional.

In 1969, it became unconstitutional to erect a war memorial in the shape of a cross (Lowe v. City of Eugene, 1969). The Court carried that same religious bigotry into a 1994 case in which a cross in a San Diego park had to be removed. In 1976, it became unconstitutional for a board of education to use or refer to the word God in any official writings (State of Ohio v. Whisner). In 1979, it became unconstitutional for a kindergarten class to ask whose birthday was being celebrated in a Christmas assembly (Florey v. Sioux Falls School District).

By 1980 this incredibly twisted approach made it unconstitutional to post the Ten Commandments on school walls. According to Stone v. Graham, "If posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps venerate and obey the commandments; this is not a permissable objective." James Madison, the man most responsible for the U.S. Constitution said "[We] have staked the future of all of our political Constitutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."²⁰ Once again, the honorable Court is completely out of step with the founding fathers. Madison was absolutely right--the pathetic condition of our culture reflects the inability of individuals to control themselves. While the Ten Commandments hang above the chief justice of the Supreme Court, they are hypocritically censored from the halls of our schools. George Washington said that apart from religion, there can be no morality. We have removed religion from the public arena--and internal self-restraint has gone with it.

In 1985, Wallace v. Jaffree, the Supreme Court declared that any bill (even those which are constitutionally acceptable) is unconstitutional if the author of the bill had a religious activity in mind when the bill was written. With this case the Court carried the wall of separation beyond absurdity. In addition to applying to religious activities, words, and symbols, along with anything else that might cause someone to think about God, now the mythological wall may be brought to bear on an author's thoughts while penning a bill. I suppose the speculations of mind readers will soon be admissible as evidence within our insane court system.

Why did the courts make such a drastic departure from our roots? The answer is self-interest and a complete disregard for the Constitution's intent. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes illustrated his personal contempt for the original intent of the Constitution when he said, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what judges say it is."²¹ The words of Supreme Court Justice Brennan are even more toxic: "It is arrogant to use the Constitution as the founding fathers intended, it must be interpreted in light of current problems and current needs."²² Perhaps the arrogance lies not in interpreting the Constitution as the founding fathers intended but, rather, in reinterpreting the Constitution to meet one's current needs. It takes brazen audacity to ignore the intentions of the founding fathers and to turn one's back on the 175 years of stellar American history that our Constitution provided.

A WAY TO STOP OUR NATIONAL DECLINE

Today, America is unraveling because we are no longer governed by Christian principles. We were once the undisputed world leader in nearly every area of life; now we lead the world in violent crime. Our divorce rate ranks number one in the world. We lead the Western world in teenage pregnancies, and we are world leader in voluntary abortions. We are the number one consumer of illegal drugs, and we lead the industrial world in illiteracy. Meanwhile, our economy limps along, struggling to sustain the $4 trillion debt dumped upon us by unprincipled people. This is all due to the turning of our backs upon the very heritage that made us great. We have bought this lie, but at what price? The indispensible pillars of morality and religion have proved to be just that--indispensible.

While many things can be done to stop our steady decline, the most important issue is truth. The truth must be told about our nation's heritage. The lie concerning the faith of our founding fathers and the myth of separation between church and state must be corrected with historical truth. Only then will we be able to reintroduce into public affairs the Judeo-Christian ethic that made this nation great. From the schoolhouse to the White House, the principles of Christianity must once again be seen as the guiding genius behind our matchless Constitution. Once this is appreciated by the populace, the indispensible pillars of morality and religion can breathe life back into our society.

[rwfromkansas]

Yep, heaven forbid we prohibit human sacrifices. Just kidding, I know you would be in favor of keeping that outlawed because it violates the sacrificee's right to life.

But seriously, I am another person who would support a theocracy because I believe this is God's will for govt. However, he does not force this on a people either, they need to covenant together to mutually agree to lift him up even in their govt and laws. It is completely unbibilical to force a nation to do this without a covenant made by the people toward God to do so and thus, I would be against such a theocracy in America. Now, if a group in America splintered off and formed their own nation to do this, that is fine and I might just join them. I love America, but I would like to see a nation that exalts Christ in all its ways. The way Christianity used to be, there definitely could be the threat of despotism getting in, but the way things are now, I think if there were checks to keep corruption from coming, such a nation would be a light to the world and would be the first theocracy to work in teh modern age. Islamic theocracies are repressive regimes...I can't see that in a modern Christian theocracy if one would spring up. I recall a nation in Africa that recently as acknowledged itself as the one Christian nation in the world...I forgot which country it was though. It would be fascinating to compare it to Sudan.

[rwfromkansas]

Nice try. If we look at the pillar of all docs that supposedly supports separation, the Memorial and Remonstrance, it even acknowledges a belief in one true religion, Christianity.

[rwfromkansas]

You are correct that we are not a Christian nation. I grant you that.

[R. Scott]

" And yet this they do, forbidding even student-led, student-initiated prayer at high school football games."

Prayer has not been forbidden. Students and parents are welcome to have a prayer prior to entering the taxpayer supported stadium.
The last court ruling I read on this, the prayer was not forbidden - the use of public owned equipment was. Why should my tax money be used for religious purposes? Would you object to the PA system, and time allocated for the game being used to promote a pagan religion?

[R. Scott]

"That is rarely true of a Christian that knows he stands on the Rock that is higher than he is!"

Some "Christians" believe that either that rock is very unstable, or they fear they aren't worthy of standing on it themselves.

[Dr. Good Will Hunting]

And there is the case for private school vouchers.

[Sir Gawain]

It's too late.

[R. Scott]

"I can't see that in a modern Christian theocracy if one would spring up. "

That would depend on the founding fathers. If the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robinson were involved, it would scare the daylights out of me! From what I have heard listening to them, a new inquisition would not be far fetched.

[Dr. Good Will Hunting]

Would you object to the PA system, and time allocated for the game being used to promote a pagan religion?

They are used to promote a pagan religion.

It's called Feminism.

[Dr. Good Will Hunting]

It's too late.

Prithee, what are these strange words?

I know them not !

[Dr. Good Will Hunting]

"...a new inquisition would not be far fetched."

As opposed to the current one then?

[Sir Gawain]

My belief is that this is all helping pave the way for the anti-christ. The way I will combat it is my homeschooling or sending my kids to a Christian school. I will opt out of the Beast's school system. I don't think reversing the trend is possible.

[JoeA]

A terrific piece. Suggest you add the footnotes and submit it for publication. I for one am going to circulate it among liberals who can read just to enjoy their befuddled responses.

Brilliant!

[Sir Gawain]

Look at the source. I'm not the author.

[Dr. Good Will Hunting]

I don't think reversing the trend is possible.

With faith, all things are possible, for men of good will.

Never surrender society to evil.

All it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.

Italics off.

Bold off.

Have a nice day.

[rwfromkansas]

I am aware of that bill...in fact, it was introduced the same day his anti-sabbath breaking bill was done. I will find a link for you.

[rwfromkansas]

"In this respect, Jefferson and Madison probably erred by introducing a bill for the punishment of Sabbath breakers, which became Virginia law in 1786. This example serves only to dispel the myth that these men were strict separationists. Whether or not one keeps the Sabbath is a matter of conscience, under the guidance of family, peers, and teachers-who can influence enormously the conduct and thinking of individuals, and who have plenty of means at their disposal to deter unacceptable behavior. Similarly, most Americans today would not have wanted to live in Massachusetts, Connecticut, or New Hampshire under the Congregational Church establishment. These examples function only to illustrate that the framers intended to restrict federal and not state authority on religious matters. Jefferson was correct in his effort to disestablish the Anglican Church in Virginia on the grounds that people ought to be free to support and attend the denomination of their choosing- or not to attend at all. Church attendance should not be a government concern, but is a matter between man and Maker." http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/ff/chap23.html

"Usually omitted from the legislative histories penned by radical secularists is Madison's "Bill for Punishing Disturbers of Religious Worship and Sabbath Breakers" - especially interesting because it was presented the same day (October 31, 1785) as Madison's and Jefferson's "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom." The law providing for the punishment of Sabbath breakers included the following language: "If any person on Sunday shall himself be found laboring at his own or any other trade or calling, or shall employ the apprentices, servants or slaves in labor, or other business, except it be in the ordinary household offices of daily necessity, or other work of necessity or charity, he shall forfeit the sum of ten shillings for every such offense, deeming every apprentice, servant, or slave so employed, and every day he shall be so employed as constituting a distinct offense." Jefferson wrote many of the bills introduced by Madison, and probably drafted this one as well." http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/ff/chap22.html

Furthermore, Maryland Vs. McGowan upheld blue laws.

[rwfromkansas]

Here is what Rutgers University says about this: "As President, Jefferson parted with tradition by declining to issue religious proclamations because he considered the national government “interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.” Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Miller (Jan. 23, 1808), in Jefferson Writings, supra, at 1186. As a state legislator, however, he partook in a sweeping revision of Virginia’s laws, which included: A Bill for Punishing Disturbers of Religious Worship and Sabbath Breakers; A Bill for Appointing Days of Public Fasting and Thanksgiving; and A Bill Annulling Marriages Prohibited by the Levitical Law, and Appointing the Mode of Solemnizing Lawful Marriage. Reprinted in 2 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 555-558 (J. Boyd ed. 1950)." http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/elliott_footnotes.htm