Separation of Church and State
Many Americans are familiar with the First Amendment to our Constitution, the first portion of which guarantees religious liberty: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” What many do not know is that Baptists played an important role in ensuring the inclusion of religious freedom in our nation’s founding document. Baptists understood the scourge of religious intolerance, having experienced it in England and desiring to escape it in America. Baptist Roger Williams founded Rhode Island which was one of only two colonies (Pennsylvania was the other) that did not have an official state church when the Constitution was drafted. James Madison is the principal architect of our Constitution and the author of its First Amendment, but the original draft did not include a religious liberty clause. John Leland, a Baptist minister in Madison’s native Virginia, forced his hand.
Once the Constitution gained approval from the colonial delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, it now required popular approval in each colony. Leland urged his fellow Virginian to add a religious liberty clause:
Leland urged Madison to [include] the issue … in the U.S. Constitution, perhaps adding on a Bill of Rights as an amendment. Madison initially opposed the idea of an amendment. So Leland ran against Madison as a delegate to Virginia’s convention to ratify the constitution. With the support of Baptists throughout the state it became clear that Leland had more votes that Madison. Madison visited Leland’s farm and they thrashed out an agreement. Leland would withdraw from the race for the convention, and Madison would join Leland in calling for an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing religious liberty, free speech and a free press. On June 7, 1789, Madison submitted the first version what became the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Religious freedom was enshrined in U.S. law (see here).
Thirteen years later in 1802 another Virginian, Thomas Jefferson, wrote a reply letter to Connecticut Baptists to ensure them that he intended to promote religious freedom as he began his tenure as our third president:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ʺmake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,ʺ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State (see here).
It is from this letter that we get the oft-used phrase “Separation of Church and State.” Notice that in its original context it was a protection of the church from the state, not the other way around.
Institutions Versus Ideas
The idea dominating twentieth century religious liberty jurisprudence was a strict separation, not only of the institutions of church and state, but of religious ideas and civic life. The approach of the American Civil Liberties Union prevailed for many years in our courts, with the practical effect that any mention of religion became unconstitutional, and accommodation for equal treatment was likewise verboten. For example, for the first twelve years of our church’s existence we met in rented facilities, mostly public schools. However, the fee schedules at many of the schools charged an exorbitant premium to religious groups while offering space free of charge to others (e.g., Boy Scouts). In one school district, each Friday students received flyers advertising community events in the coming week. When our church sought to include a flyer for our kids program the district rejected it “because you’re a church and it would violate separation of church and state.” Thankfully, changes in the courts, beginning with the Reagan Administration, saw a change in constitutional interpretation such that religious ideas by themselves were no longer suspect, the First Amendment was seen as accommodating them, and the wall of separation was again viewed as a protection for the church against the coercive power of the state. We were able to appeal to these changes and gain equal treatment with secular groups.
Traditional Versus Secular Religion
Over time “Separation of Church and State” devolved into banishment of religion from the public square, prohibiting any mention of traditionally religious terms such as “God” or “Bible” or “prayer,” etc. The consequence of forbidding any vestige of traditional religion was that it left secular tenets in place, dominant, and unchallenged. Make no mistake, secular ideologies are just as committed to their version of reality, purpose, salvation, morality, etc., as any religion, sans the traditional trappings. For example, while the Bible teaches that God created the universe, The American Humanist Association has its own statement of faith, The Humanist Manifesto. The Manifesto calls itself religious, and preaches in its first three articles (of fifteen):
FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected. (see here)
Significantly, one of the signatories to this first Humanist Manifesto in 1933 was the “father of progressive education”, John Dewey. The systematic removal of all traditional religious terms results in the establishment of a secular religion, by default. The Manifesto received updates two times, in 1973 and again in 2003. The ’73 version’s first article states: “While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves” (see here).
Religion and Politics
We have an axiom saying there are two subjects you should never talk about, religion and politics. But whenever you talk about the way things ‘should’ be, and advocate a law or regulation to ensure it, you’re talking about both. The truth is, we cannot avoid religion or politics, and we should not try. As a Baptist, I’m glad that we can separate church and state, but I have no illusions that we can or should separate religious ideas from politics. If I remove my religious voice from the marketplace of ideas someone else’s religion will take its place. Better to make my voice known, listen and respect that of others, but banish neither.
Ken Brown is the pastor of Community Bible Church in Trenton, MI. We republish his article by permission.