What Is Meant By Church And State Separation

Bookmark this page and share it with others! (Or press Ctrl/D on Firefox)

There seems to be much confusion about a clause in the First Amendment. It is a misconception about a phrase in the Constitution that actually is not there. That phrase is "separation of church and state."

If you don't believe me, look for yourself. Read the entire document of the US Constitution and you will not see the phrase "separation of church and state." It is not there at all!

It was based upon that phrase in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists within his state of Virginia that were being persecuted by the Congregationalist. The idea that the state cannot influence the activities of the church is the point of the letter which was the basis for the First Amendment. It did not even remotely allude to a notion that religious freedom was curtailed at the doors of the government.

This phrase is what overly sensitive atheists used as a rallying call to remove anything that remotely says religion out of any body of the government including schools, courts, and offices of the government. Upon that was built a notion that religion has no place in any territory supported by a common tax fund.

Before you get the wrong idea, I am not some right wing Christian fundamentalist. I do not belong to any religious faith nor do I believe in the tenants of any faith. This has more to do with the principles of what the First Amendment actually says.

Okay, Poindexter, what does the First Amendment say?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The remainder of that Amendment has to do with freedoms of speech, press, assembly and petition. Note, there is nothing in that phrase pertaining to religious freedom that says "separation of church and state."

What it says is Congress shall not make a law which will establish a certain practice of religion. Congress also shall not prohibit your right to practice your religion freely. Or to put it simply, when it comes to matters of religion (or faith, spritituality, or lack thereof), Congress (or the governmental branches that make, enforce or interpret law) cannot force a religion for the people nor can they prevent one from following their religion (or faith, spritituality, or lack thereof). In other words, they cannot enforce or prevent a belief on anyone, that is up to each individual.

Here is where I go to the politically incorrect statements.

Why on earth is the issue such a hot topic? Atheists, particularly Ms. Murray-Ohair, felt offended that everywhere she turned in government offices and in schools a Christian agenda seemed to be thrust into her face. Many atheists and those of a nonChristian faith agreed. By far and large, the Christian faith seemed to be everywhere.

With the time the issue was challenged, I would be inclined to agree with her. It was not right that a Jewish kid, atheist kid, Buddhist kid or whatever would have to be forced to participate in the daily school prayer. It was a governmental source imposing a ritual of Christian faith on all of the students. That was clearly against the Constitution.

Why should someone of a nonChristian faith be made to swear upon the Bible in a court of law to prove they are telling the truth when they do not hold such a book as sacred as the Christian? Why should any member of a government office be held up for a morning prayer and Bible sermon if they do not follow such a faith?

Here is where the politically correct movement starts to get loud. In order to not offend everyone, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. Thus anything remotely connected to religion was thrown out of every government office, including the ones that do not create, enforce or interpret the law. This extreme is also against the Constitution.

While the government (Congress) cannot impose religion upon people, it also cannot prohibiting the free exercise thereof. By preventing those who happen to work, learn or use any government facility to exercise their freedom to exercise tenants of their faith, they have crushed the civil rights of those who practice any form of religion.

By taking religion out of the government altogether, look at the freedom of religion (and freedom of expression) that has been banned:

• A person who works in a government office is discouraged from decorating their personal cubicles with religious icons or decorations.
• Workers in a government building cannot put up Christmas decorations.
• Group prayer is strongly discouraged on the property of the school.

While it may seem a minor thing for one to give up if they do not belong to such a faith, it is still crossing the line. If we look the other way while someone else's rights are being violated, we open the door so that everyone's rights will be violated.

Most government offices have rules and regulations, but it cannot create or enforce a law that is unConstitutional on its workers or visitors. They know they cannot force anyone to say a prayer or decorate a building for a religious holiday, but to not allow individuals the freedom to do so on government property is also anti-Constitutional.

We all pay tax dollars to support the property used for government buildings and have the same rights of expressions. Just as an atheist would have the same right to use government property with art that is considered offensive to the theist, so a theist has the same right to use government property with art considered religious.

Government property is not private property subjected to the same rules as private property. Government property is available for the public, taxpayers to use. Certain areas might be off limits to the general population, but by and large most of it by rights belong to everyone. We can freely assemble there. We can protest there. We can collect petitions there. We have the freedom of speech on government property.

If we do not allow those who work in or use government property to exercise their freedoms, we are violating their civil rights. Just because it is made available to everyone who wants to use it does not mean you are forced to participate. I say, bring back freedom of religion without forcing upon those who wish to not participate.

Back to the politics section

Back to the religion section