Separation of Church and State:
A Most Important Decision
By Gerald A. Larue
Emeritus Professor
of Biblical History and Archaeology
University of
Southern California
________________________________________________________
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .
These words, which were ratified in December, 1791, form the opening of the
Federal Constitution's first Amendment, and comprise what is known as the
"establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause." The
language reflects the founding fathers' deep concerns for individual liberty—a
concern that grew out of awareness of English and European edicts that often had
imposed on the general populace religious beliefs and morality that had to be
adhered to on pain of punishment. The commitments to freedom, which were to
become part of the development of what was, for Europeans, "the new
world," were not won easily.
The study of American history makes it clear that those who came from Europe
did not come religiously unencumbered. Nor did they always bring with them a
religious tolerance that would admit the validity of other similar, but
different, faith systems. If, perhaps, those whose religious history included
memories of persecution under tyrannical state-endorsed religious systems
entertained some interest in supporting the formation of a governing system
whereby no single religion could ever ally itself with government to enforce any
single dogma, that concern was seldom evident.
Madison’s Concern
The importance of the separation of church and state became clear to James
Madison who has often been called, "Father of the Constitution." In
June, 1785, Madison opposed a bill sponsored by Patrick Henry that would have
placed a tax on all Virginians for the nondiscriminatory support of
religion—that is, each taxpayer might designate the church to which his tax
money would go. The taxes of the nonreligious would be used to support secular
education. Madison's broadside, titled "Memorial and Remonstrance Against
Religious Assessments," was published in Alexandria and quickly spread. He
wrote, in part:
Religion can be directed only by reason and
conviction, not by force or violence. The religion, then, of every man, must be
left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every
man to exercise it as these may dictate. In matters of religion no man's right
is abridged by the institution of civil society; and religion is wholly exempt
from its cognizance . . .
Who does not see that the same authority which
can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish,
with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other
sects? That the same authority that can call for each citizen to contribute
three pence only of his property for the support of only one establishment, may
force him to conform to any other establishment, in all cases whatsoever?
If "all men by nature are equally free and
independent," they are to be considered as retaining an "equal right
to free exercise of religion, according to dictates of conscience." While
we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe, the
religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal
freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has
convinced us...
Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical
establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have
had contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal
establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or
less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility
in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution. Enquire of the
teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest
lustre; those of every sect point to the ages prior to incorporation with civil
policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive state, in which its teachers
depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks; many of them predict its
downfall...
What influences, in fact, have ecclesiastical
establishments had on civil society? In some instances they have been seen to
erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of civil authority; in many instances
they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance
have they been seen the guardians of liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to
subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient
auxiliaries. A just government instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs
them not.
Religious Liberty and Free Society
It was out of a combination of deism and reason that recognition of the
importance of a free society was to emerge—a society composed of a free people
who could not be compelled to accept or to live by any given set of religious
beliefs. According to historian Henry Steele Commager, the decision was
"perhaps the most important decision reached in the New World. Everywhere
in the western world of the eighteenth century, church and state were one; and
everywhere the state maintained the established church and tried to force
conformity to its dogma." As a consequence of that decision, Commager
notes: "Thus the United States took the lead among the nations of the earth
in the establishment of religious freedom. That is one reason America has never
had any religious wars or religious persecutions."
The Amendment provides for freedom from any religion as well as freedom of
religion. This means that Americans are free to belong to the religious
organization of their choice, thereby rejecting the claims of any other faith
system. Simultaneously, they are free from the need to accept another's beliefs.
At the same time, they are free to create new religions, thereby rejecting all
other established religions. They are also free to choose not to belong to or
believe in any religion. No matter what the choice, each and every American
maintains full status as a citizen. These rights have been widely recognized and
acclaimed, not only by those in the legal profession, but also by Protestant
and, on occasion, Roman Catholic churches.
For example, the American Baptist Churches have had a long history supporting
individual human rights. In a Policy Statement on Human Rights adopted by the
General Board of the American Baptist Churches in December, 1976, it was stated
that:
Baptist history is rooted in concern for
conscience and freedom for persons to believe, to choose, to live unregimented,
whether by religious dogma and institution or by social and political
structures. John Bunyan in prison and Roger Williams driven from Massachusetts,
reflect commitment to these ideas, as did Martin Luther King, in his witness to
human dignity and the rights of minority groups. Resolutions by the American
Baptist Churches over the years have particularly sought to reflect the
denomination's basic principles of freedom of thought and belief, the right of
dissent, and the responsibility to speak prophetically to church and society and
support human dignity and social justice.
As the report continues, the first statement relates to freedom of and
freedom from religion:
As American Baptists we declare the following
rights to be basic human rights, and we will support programs and measures to
assure these rights:
1.
The right of every person to choose a religion freely, to maintain religious
belief or unbelief without coercion; the right for communities of faith to meet
together to engage in public worship, to witness publicly to others, to speak
prophetically from religious conviction to government and society, to live out
religious beliefs, and to be free from governmental intrusion, coercion, and
control in the free exercise of conscience and religion . . .
It is important to note that the Resolution recognizes the rights of persons
who endorse "unbelief" in religion as a basis for life. The rights
that the resolution claims for those who "maintain religious belief"
are the same rights afforded to those who choose not to maintain such beliefs.
On May 26, 1988, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin addressed the Center for Clinical
Medical Ethics, University of Chicago Hospital. His subject was
"Euthanasia: Ethical and Legal Challenge." He began his address as
follows:
One of the hallmarks of our democratic system of
government and our social environment here in the United States is the fact that
a plurality of views informs our public discourse regarding fundamental human
questions. At times, these views flow from religious beliefs. At other times,
they derive from philosophical or pragmatic judgments about the meaning and
purpose of life.
This pluralism is the result of the free speech
accorded by the Constitution to each citizen as well as the right both to freely
exercise one's religion and to practice no religion. (italics his). But this
constitutionally protected pluralism has not been bought at the price of
excluding religious or moral values from the public life of the nation. On the
contrary, the goal of the American system has been to provide space for moral or
religious substance in our society.
Indeed, in our pluralistic society we must
decide how those who have such beliefs or ethical principles may appropriately
participate in the development of public policy. In my view, positions that are informed by particular
religious beliefs or philosophical assumptions need to be translated into
commonly agreed upon language, arguments, and categories before they can become
the moral or ethical foundations for key public policy choices.
As one might expect, Cardinal Bernardin's guiding principles will be derived
from his Roman Catholic faith. However, the Cardinal, like those of the Baptist
faith, recognized and acknowledged the rights of others to accept no religion
and to base their guiding principles on a philosophy or on philosophies. This
idea has important overtones regarding the responsibilities of both government
and education.
"Jefferson’s Wall"
Because the government may not engage in the promotion or endorsement of any
particular belief system, it is automatically required by law to honor and
respect all of the varying forms of belief and non-belief expressed by the
people. What the First Amendment created was, in the words of Thomas Jefferson
in his letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association, "a wall of
separation between church and state." The protections of freedom guaranteed
by this wall of separation include both the individual right to free choice and
to privacy of choice. That is to say that not only is the individual free to
make a personal choice regarding belief or disbelief in any or all religions,
but that the person cannot be required to disclose that choice or have that
choice used against him or her as a basis for discrimination. We are all equal
under the law of the land, no matter in what we choose to believe or disbelieve.
This concept was reinforced in Justice Black's decision in the 1947 Everson
v. Board of Education case:
The "establishment of religion" clause
of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal
Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or
force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be
punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for
church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can
be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may
be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate
in the affairs of any religious organization or groups and vice versa. In the
words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was
intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and state."
The "wall" that was erected pertains not only to the establishment
of a religion, but also to the establishment of religious codes of morality. For
example, a given religion may believe that divorce is acceptable only on the
grounds of adultery. Civil codes cannot be limited by what that particular
religion accepts as right and proper. Civil morality must be secular morality,
which is to say that the acceptable reasons for legal divorce cannot be
restricted by what a religious group claims to be proper. Therefore legal
divorce becomes possible on other grounds ranging from incompatibility to
infidelity. Any given religious organization may have its own grounds for
acknowledging the divorce, but that policy remains within the faith system and
has no legitimacy or significance for the general populace.
Some religious groups may condemn homosexuality on the basis of an
interpretation of what is, for them, authoritative or revealed divine commands.
Other religious groups, using the same sources, may provide a different
interpretation that accepts homosexuality. For example, the Metropolitan
Community Churches are Christian churches whose membership is composed largely
of Christian homosexuals. Governments may not pass legislation based solely on
religious morality; and although legislation may be cognizant of the varying
belief systems, the legislation must embrace the social, political and personal
rights of all people, including homosexuals. In other words, civil laws that
formulate communal moral and ethical standards must be secular—not derived
solely from a religious belief system.
Teaching about Ultimate Beliefs
It is both inappropriate and illegal for any public school or any public
school teacher to propagate or to endorse in any way the concepts or dogmas
associated with any specific religion or belief system. Although the teaching
and promulgation of a particular faith system is accepted as appropriate in
educational institutions founded and funded as private religious organizations,
it is both inappropriate and illegal for any public school or any public school
teacher to propagate or to endorse in any way the concepts or dogmas associated
with any specific religion or belief system. However, in courses where teaching
about religion is authorized by the state educational system, it is proper and
it is legal to teach about religions.
Teaching about religions automatically includes recognition of the rights of
people living in a free society to choose between the various faith systems as
well as their right to reject any one or all of such faith systems. Teaching
about religions requires the recognition of the legitimacy of lives lived
according to varying belief systems as well as the legitimacy of lives committed
to a nonreligious life style. That is to say, that teaching about religions
must include teaching about the beliefs of those who reject a religion or
religions.
March 19, 2003
Instruction Systems grants the right to freely duplicate this
essay for educational purposes.
