As a result of my first posting on Separation of Church and State I was asked the question, "What does "abandoning the wall of separation between Church and state look like?", a statement made by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist. The following is my response.
••
Religious freedom, though guaranteed by our 1st Amendment, has been constantly and ruthlessly attacked for the last 50 - 70 or more years, by those who feel it their duty to wipe out all vestiges of God and Christianity from any and all areas of public property. Their battle cry is “Separation of Church and State!” Due to their diligence, a large percentage of Americans have come to believe this statement is found in the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights or some other founding document, as I mentioned in the first article. For example, a few years ago I had lunch with a high school teacher with a PhD who was absolutely shocked when I told him the phrase “Separation of Church and State” was not in our constitution, amendments, bill of Rights, etc. I finally told him to look it up for himself. I use this as an example of just how widely that phrase is incorrectly accepted as a legal statute today.
If you read Jefferson’s and the Danbury Baptist’s letter and the brief history on the website (I am not endorsing the site, only this article), you will see the context in which Jefferson used the term. As the new president, he was assuring them in regarding their great concern that the US government should not use its power to meddle in the Church’s affairs. His words in the letter: “….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 & State.” http://www.scionofzion.com/church_and_state.htm
They were well aware, as was everyone in America at that time, how government had polluted and brought corruption to the Church in Europe, using it for their own political power and control. Many of our founders saw firsthand how the king or whichever political leader was considered the head of the Church, would thereby establish the “State Church”. Many kings and queens, being devoid of the Spirit, could change the national denomination and doctrines by a whim, using the Church as a pawn and often severely persecuting anyone one who didn’t change with them or “worship” in the national Church. (Our Pilgrims, for example.)
The idea of a state church in America was abhorred and greatly objected to. A “state Church” that collected a tithe from the populous or any other politicization or control from the state, except of course when there could be criminal behavior, was odious. In other words, we did not want a National Church. (As a Scotsman I am sure you have a better understanding of this than most Americans today.)
To reiterate, Jefferson was not saying there can never be any practice or reference of religion on public property! On the contrary he was guaranteeing them that the State would NOT interfere with the affairs of the Church. Nor was he saying that the Church had no place in government. In fact Jefferson regularly attended church services in the House of Representatives. There were Christian church services held in our Capital, Supreme Court Chambers, etc. until the 1860’s or so. Jefferson also had what is known as the Jefferson Bible printed by the U.S. Congress and given to every congressman and senator for 50 years! This is only a brief synopsis of a man who coined the term “building a wall of separation between Church and state.”
This faith in God was not unique to Jefferson, but was also found in most of our nation’s founders, future presidents and government officials. What they sought to do was to eliminate dominance and favoritism of one denomination over another. However, religion was never forced on anyone, but was openly and freely offered and well respected in the land. Public schools taught the Bible and prayers were a part of public schools until 1963. I remember standing as the principal prayed over the intercom asking for God’s blessings on the students and faculty. (Schools were safe places in those days!) This is hardly an example of Separation of Church & State.
Since the earliest days of our government there has been prayer in federal and state sessions. Today we still have a chaplain of the House and the Senate that open the sessions with prayer. Our military also has staff chaplains and I must add that all over our land, from Washington D.C. to the tiniest courthouses, you will find Scripture and references to God and Christ in stone and on plaques. Hardly evidence of a history of promoting the separation of Church & State.https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
Back to your question about what does “abandoning the wall of Church & State look like?
Part 1 of my answer would be: historically there never was nor has there been a wall of separation between Church & State as currently defined until 1947. This was when A.C.L.U. lawyers, in a Supreme Court case, began twisting the phrase and continued to propagate its usage leading to Justice Rehnquist saying, “The 'wall of separation between Church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.” This statement was just that - a metaphor based on bad history and has NO historical precedent in the U.S. and should not be used in court cases.
Part 2: “Abandoning the wall…” would mean that citizens would fight any attempt by anyone, including schools, legislators, any politician, government agency or official who attempts to block, impede, remove, forbid, discriminate against or attack the freedom of religion and the expression of it in the public sphere as this right has been established by the First Amendment and historical precedent.
Fortunately today we have many lawyers and legal foundations that are doing just that. Even so, it requires an ongoing effort to work against the tide of confusion fostered by well-meaning, but misguided people and the blatant attacks of intolerant atheists who viscously oppose any vestige of Christ and His people.
Once again, thank you for your question, Martin. I hope I have answered it to some satisfaction, in this brief letter. God’s grace, Gary
(Repost from 5.12.17)
Comments
Post a Comment