The Founding Fathers Opposed the Separation of Church and State
84A Case Against the Separation of Church and State
The phrase “separation of church and state” is often mentioned with reverence as a foundational American principle. It seems strange to me why it’s seldom challenged.
It seems odd that so many consider the churches influence in public life to be a threat and why this is a bad thing? So where did this idea come from? Some know it was Thomas Jefferson who first coined this phrase in a letter to the Danbury Connecticut Baptist association. The letter was written in response to Baptists concern that the Congregationist’s of New England would attempt to establish a national Christian denomination.
Jefferson’s Actions as President
Jefferson assured the Baptist’s that the federal government (congress) had no jurisdiction over the affairs of religion, which was left to the individual states, almost, all of which had a state sponsored Christian denomination. At the time, Americans we’re quite familiar with what a nationally established religion was and were opposed to it. An established religion was a Christian denomination that was financed by the national government and had privileges not available to other denominations. This was the case in England with the Anglican Church, which was the primary reason settlers came to America to begin with.
Years following the Danbury Baptists letter, Jefferson regularly attended church services held at the capitol building with government paid chaplains. He also arranged for similar services to be conducted in the treasury and war offices of the executive branch. Jefferson used federal money to build churches and hire missionaries to promote Christianity among the Indians. He also felt that the bible should be the primary text used in public schools and used federal money to fund Christian schools.
A Christian Nation
You don’t have to search hard to find clear evidence for America’s Christian roots. If fact the evidence is so vast that even our dumbed down liberally educated generation is capable of understanding it, that is if you read original sources, free of liberal spin.
Jefferson was quoted as saying “The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society, He (God) has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.” Jefferson says here that “We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus”, I thought the founding fathers were a bunch of Godless Deist’s?
George Washington said this in his farewell address “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
I suppose George didn’t get the memo about separation of church and state because these are original source quotations!
Fisher Ames, author of the first amendment of the bill of rights wrote an article in 1801 expressing his concern that by adding so many textbooks in schools that the Bible would lose its preeminence in the classroom.
Multitudes of original quotes expressing similar sentiments can be found for almost every Founding Father.
The Wall of Separation of Church and State
If this information is correct, and it is, the separation of church and state as understood today is a total fraud. What else could a reasonable person conclude? It seems obvious that Founding Fathers vision is completely opposite to that of the ACLU or the liberal courts. The founders would certainly not support firing school teachers for leaving bibles on their desks, or prevent the Boy Scouts from using government owned buildings or push to have “In God we Trust” removed from our currency. We can thank the ACLU and other liberals for this assault on our American culture.
Jefferson’s Wall of separation was only intended to keep the federal government from meddling in church affairs and certainly not to prevent religion (specifically Christianity), from influencing the government and society.
So where did this modern version of “The Wall of Separation of church and state” come about? There is a long history, much of which was motivated by protestant fears of Catholic influence on our schools and society. In 1947 the case of Everson v. Board of Education the court extended separation of church and state to state and local governments not just the federal branch. Even the separation intended at the federal level, could be more accurately described a single sided wall only intended to prevent the government from imposing a state sponsored denomination.
So where did this modern “wall of separation” idea originate?
Nazi Germany and The Soviet Union
Professor John Conway noted in his book “The Nazi persecution of the Churches 1933-45”, that the Nazi party realized that the only remaining institution that blocked their agenda was the church, so the Nazi’s came up with slogans such as “Politics do not belong in the Church” and that “The Church must be separate from the State.” The former Soviet Union had a similar policy that supposedly allowed freedom of conscience but religious views in public were forbidden. The policy promoted by the ACLU and liberal courts has many similarities with the policies of these and other totalitarian regimes and certainly have nothing in common with the view of our nation’s founders.
Conclusion
Our founders were very aware that Christianity was the foundation of the country and that without the sanction and support of the state our republic would eventually collapse. They understood that the source of our inalienable rights was God himself not the government and that to deny those rights would be to risk His wrath.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (4)
- Funny
- Awesome (4)
- Beautiful
- Interesting (2)
CommentsLoading...
Amen to that and the Nazi's also loved the idea!
Looking forward to reading more of your articles as your writing is thought provoking!
wba@108yahoo.com, Interesting and quite thought provoking! AS you well stated: "Our founders were very aware that Christianity was the foundation of the country and that without the sanction and support of the state our republic would eventually collapse. They understood that the source of our inalienable rights was God himself not the government and that to deny those rights would be to risk His wrath." Amen! Thank you for sharing, Peace & Blessings!
DeBorrah K. Ogans--- Thank you for your gracious comments! Yes, I believe that God is intimately involved in the affairs of men and the nations of the world. I don't see another nation in history where Christ and Christianity played such a central role.
Thank you for publishing this terrific Hub! You are spot on with your ideas and you expressed them with clarity and concision.
I was recently given a college American History textbook. In the section on the Constitutional Convention the textbook mentions how important "separation of church and state" was to the Founding Fathers a dozen times. But a quick read of the Federalist Papers shows it is NEVER mentioned. This textbook deliberately falsifies history to advance the agenda of Secular Humanism.
James A Watkins--- Thanx for your comments, I'm surely going to read the Federalist papers when I get a chance! These people have convinced themselves of this deception, that the founders intended to separate Christianity from the government and society. Isn't it strange how such intelligent people can be so wrong,it says in proverbs 14:6 NIV "The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to the discerning." When someone rejects the fear of the Lord, he has no foundation to build on, to gain wisdom.
All the writers of the constitution wanted was to assure that there would be not state church such as England had.This was somewhat for practical reasons as different colonies had different religions. Also the states were free to have established churches if they so chose. much of the constitution was only binding on the federal government.
Very, very well written and TRUE! I am looking forward in reading more of your Hubs. Your a blessing to me!!! Voted-Up!
dahoglund - That's a good point that much of the Constitution was only binding on the federal government because most of the governing was to be closer to the people. The goal being that the people we're to be self-governing. The state governments had so much more power then than now, each state was almost like a separate country except for their common goals of freedom, and to some degree advancing the Gospel.
drpastorcarlotta- Thank you so much for saying my article was well written! I wish more folks would realize the truth about this issue, this misunderstanding has damaged this nation more than we know. I hope I do get the chance to write more articles soon. Your a blessing to me also!!!
Your ruminations about Jefferson only touch on his real attitude toward Christianity. He also re-wrote the new testament, leaving out all the miracles that are attributed to it and stripping it down simply to its moral guidance. Your quotes all specifically refer to the moral teachings of Christ, and not any theology that would be associated with him.
As is so common in missives like this one, you take your obligatory pot shot at the ACLU, but fail to mention they have defended children who have been harrassed or forbidden to read their bibles in the public schools, protecting their freedom of religion.
Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans and atheists are your fellow citizens in this, the land of the free. Separation is not a phrase that is quoted, but rather an idea embedded in the first amendment that embraces each of our endeavors to discern the truth.
Washington attended an Episcopal church, but would always leave the service prior to the breaking of the bread, refusing to take communion.
Jefferson didn't write his gospel for the benefit of the native americans. He wrote it to preserve what he felt was valid and in fact transcendent about the teachings of Christ, and to eliminate that he found to be simple mythology.
The ACLU has simply made it their job to defend people's freedoms, even the freedoms of those we find despicable. It can be a thankless job, like when they defend the KKK's right of assembly for instance.
It escapes me why someone needs the governments help to stand strong in their own faith. All we should ask of government is the freedom to follow our understanding of God without help or hinderance from the state. How our present day version of mammon being adorned ironically with a confession to the Lord helps the real pursuit of Christ's message truly escapes me.
thebrucebeat-- Thank you for your thoughtful insights, into this complex subject. My understanding was that Jefferson cut out the references to miracles in the a bible given to the Indians for the purpose of emphasizing christian principles and not for the purpose of discrediting the supernatural.
Surely Jefferson' theology was unorthodox but my understanding is that he believed in an active God. Deists generally believe in an inactive or a watchmaker type God who is uninvolved in the affairs of men.
I admittedly haven't done much research on the ACLU and at rare times they do defend worthy causes but on a whole they seem to have a pretty bad track record. For instance they have been a major force behind removing religious influences from the public square including making sure the Boy scouts were prevented access to public buildings, forcing the removal of crosses for war veterans from public lands and the even trying to remove in God we trust of our currency.
thebrucebeat--Thanx again for your well informed but I believe somewhat misguided commentary. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on Jefferson and the ACLU. Here are some credible links for those who desire further study on Jefferson's Bible or his religious views
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?
On this link look under the section on Deism and the founders.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?
The Heritage foundation and the renew America website are both additional good resources.
For those interested in the ACLU here are some links
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kareiva/060423
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kareiva/060808
Heritage.org also has very credible and well documented info on the ACLU.
While I agree that America has always been accepting and tolerant of those of all faiths, the founding Fathers clearly founded America on Christianity and Christian principles. This is evident in the vast majority of the words and actions of the founders.
The reason this issue is important is that it is foundational in understanding the basis for our laws and Constitution. We need to decide if America's vision was a secular Humanist one or a Christian one? Our assumptions about crucial issues depend on our foundations.
The founders made it clear that America could not survive without a Christian foundation that had the encouragement of the state. George Washington made this clear in his 1797 farewell address: “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle…Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
My other article: "The Truth about America's founding" addresses these issues in greater detail.
Thank God, we live in a society that is NOT controlled by any organized religion. To have this crap crammed down our throats as a decree, would certainly be a crime against humanity. We already have enough bigotry and hatred in our society. We certainly do not need to have a government spewing the same bigoted hypocrisy as the churches do. The government already oversteps its bounds in trying to mandate morality. This is NOT a governmental responsibility.
d.william-- I don't believe that the founders ever intended to control society with organized religion they merely believed that our nation would fail without a christian peoples. They believed also that Christianity in general must have the encouragement of the state. To use coercion to promote Christianity would have been opposed by the founders because that was the type of religious oppression that existed in England, which was one of their main reasons for leaving. Forcing a person to accept Jesus would also be contrary to the true principles of Christianity because God desires that we are free to choose to have a relationship with Him.
Removing the Christian influence from America will not prevent bigotry and hatred it will increase it, the nations that have removed God from the public square have not fared well. Some examples are many communist nations such as China and the former Soviet Union. Atheistic governments have murdered an estimated 100 million people in the last hundred years.
You say the church is spewing bigoted hypocrisy, if your referring to the Gospel you would have to accuse Jesus Himself of being a bigot because He claimed to be the only way to God.
You mentioned that the government has no business mandating morally but is this true? Much of Our Constitution and laws originate in what is referred to as common law which has always had its roots in Christianity. The law against murder, stealing and rape are also biblical commands.
Your are correct to an extent. Perhaps we have different views on what represents Christianity and what represents God. If you look at the news as regularly as i do (both sides, not just the biased views of Fox news) you may notice that most of the spewing of hatred being done around this country is by the "christian" community.
There is never any question as to whether there is a God or not. The question is toward the validity of those claims in the bible that Jesus was the only true God. If you studied the history of 'religions' as much as i have, you cannot help but question the validity of all of them.
Everything that is written in the bible was an interpretation of someone's version of what happened from 33B.C. to the year Zero. And these accounts were reduced to writing between 200 and 300 years A.D. Constantine the Great was the originator of the bible, not Jesus. The Christian argument that God inspired the bible is true, only to the extent that God inspires the writings of all authors. It is that portion of God that lives within each of us that gives us the intelligence to think, reason, read, write and conclude what is truth, logic and reality for ourselves, and realizing that when we reach these conclusions, they are in reference to ourselves only, without the right to try and force them on other people.
The laws against murder, stealing, and rape are NOT laws against morality per se. The laws against morality are based on someone's perceived notion of what right and wrong should, or should not, be in terms of things such as birth control, abortion, a woman's right to choose (whether right or wrong in the eyes of the church), and of course the worst offense of all, laws against God's natural genetic re-configuration of the human genre, (homosexuality) that i truly believe is nature's way of attempting to control the over population of this planet to the point of destruction.
If you deny the possibility that God has the intelligence to do so, you are denying the fact that God has any superiority over man, at all.
We, as a people, cannot be so morally rigid to NOT accept what is a natural occurence in human nature, and justify the targeted hatred in the name of the Creator. God has never been at war with mankind. It is mankind that is at war with itself when trying to speak for God: "interpret" his intentions, or even presume to know what those intentions really are. Humans have absolutely NO conception of what, or how, God thinks. It is sheer arrogance to say that anyone does.
Jesus was a Gnostic, so were his apostles. This ancient religious belief teaches that we are all capable of a conscious connection between oursleves and the Creator. So, with this respect, and in this aspect, we are ALL sons and daughters of God, as interpreted by logic.
d.william--I appreciate your thoughtful study on these issues. As you probably realize, its human nature to see others faults with magnifying glasses and see your own through rose colored glasses. From my own perspective, I see the majority of hate and bigotry coming from the political left, although I will acknowledge that it exists on the right as well. There are many self-righteous bigots in churches. But on the left in my view they control the majority of the media, our educational institutions, our federal courts and our arts and entertainment industries. They routinely mock and belittle Christians and Christian values. They say things that no high profile conservative or Christian would ever get away with saying. Talk about bigotry, a school teacher who accidentally left a bible on her desk gets fired. liberal judges prevent kids from saying prayers at their own high school graduation. In the meantime rugs and private rooms are offered to Muslim students for their prayers. New age religious practices are routinely allowed in schools while Christianity is strictly censored. Our children history books have been rewritten to exclude references to Christianity. Judges have been censored, intimidated and removed for merely expressing their views on the Constitution that opposed the politically correct liberal dogma.
Conservatives and Christians are routinely called bigots just for expressing their convictions. Its not bigoted to have convictions or to believe in timeless truths. Our founding fathers believed in inalienable rights which are based on what they considered timeless and absolute truths that no legitimate government could deny.
I will concede that it makes little logical sense that with all the claims of world religions that only one is the real one. There always will be a measure of faith involved,but not blind faith. There is a mountain of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Bible scholars claim there is more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus they for proof that Napoleon ever lived and did what he did. Ultimately God reveals Himself to those who are receptive.
There is also a mountain of evidence for the accuracy of the scriptures. Tens of thousands of non biblical sources can verify both to accuracy and dates the scriptures were written.
While I believe that you are correct that their are or may be God inspired books not included in the bible, I also believe that God protected his word and put in in the hearts of those who assembled the scriptures to choose what books belonged in them. There is much evidence for this if we are willing to seek it out.
It is my understanding that Emperor Constantine brought many of the pagans and there practices into the early church when he declared Christianity to be the religion of his empire. He most likely had to play politics with the powerful pagan leaders to institute Christianity. I'm not a fan of Constantine and am not sure he was a true Christian.
My question to you is if the scriptures are not the bases for your concept of right and wrong what is? Do you base your opinions on the sentiments of society, because as we know society has perpetrated great evil throughout history?
If what your saying is true then logically Martin Luther King's belief's are no better than Hitler's because morality is just in the eye of the beholder.
The idea that we are all sons and daughters of God is contrary to the bible as written now, unless you contend that the majority of the scriptures as written are false. To do this would require you to believe that bible scholars from the vast majority of churches are in conspiracy to deceive us or that they are all incompetent fools. I find this illogical.
Thanks for your interpretation of things that be. We are both entitled to those personal convictions regarding what is truth and what is not.
To answer you question about why, or how, i know the difference between right and wrong: It is just simply human nature, common sense, compassion toward others, and logic. It is always best to befriend than be foe. Right and Wrong, in the eyes of the law, is to protect those who cannot protect themselves against oppressors, bullies, self servers, and dictators, this is quite obvious. There is no "God"liness in knowing what is right or wrong.
Now the right or wrong of moral beliefs are another matter. These matters are strictly in the eyes, minds, and hearts of the beholders, and that is just where they should stay. Not in politics. And no judgements made. We as humans are not capable of passing judgements on others, and to assume that God wants you to do that, is certainly an affront to the Creator to whom i give honor.
Yes, i do agree that society has perpetrated many atrocities on itself. But if you look at the major wars and conflicts of the past, most were based on religious beliefs. The greatest harm was perpetrated by the radical Islam sect, radical catholics (who started christianity along with Constantine), and even on non-believers against the jewish race, to name a few.
There is no comparison of MLK to Hitler, that is not even debatable. It is a hollow analogy.
As i have stated many times, i have no interest in changing anyone's religious beliefs, but to tout the bible as the source of inspirational belief that Jesus was God, is not rational it itself.
When you take any belief, and teach it to your children, and religious leaders to their clergy, and a government to its citizens, over and over, generation after generation, it becomes inbred into the minds of people (brainwashing technique), who in turn perpetuate those beliefs to the next generation, and so on, and on, and on. It then becomes like a cancer growing throughout a society, and the ensuing conflicts within that society are just a reflection of this indoctrination. Those who do not believe the same way, are then made the enemy. This practice is not a basis for fact, but it is a fact that it exists, and it is used to promote hatred and bigotry and judgementalism (if there is such a word). Anyway you get my point.
Now, realistically, if i were to state my views openly in a crowd of christians (not all sects included), rednecks, skin heads, KKK, etc.. How long do you think i would live? These are some the peoples of violence throughout our history. Not those that are non-believers, in a bible, or any particular religion.
To bastardize all liberals, and democrats, for wanting to be free thinking, protect the welfare of the innocent, take care of the needy and the elderly, protect individual rights, freedoms, and equality for everyone, and NOT have the beliefs of others crammed down their throats, is no basis for your hatred toward them all. I would venture to say, that those attributes that you so disdain in liberals and democrats, would personify the very teachings of your Jesus and your bible.
I rest my case. And for the record, i do appreciate your ability to have a civil discussion about religion without pointing your finger (figuratively speaking) and condemning my soul to burn in hell forever. It shows that you too possess some dignity, compassion, understanding, etc.. (oddly enough those very traits you do no like in liberals.) LOL.
d.william-- Thank you for your heartfelt commentary, I'm sure my attitudes towards the liberals could be improved. I try to speak in general terms because there are so many exceptions to the stereotype's that both side inflict on the other. Your by no means the first liberal that I can respect personally but differ profoundly on political and moral issues. Thanx again
Please send this to our leaders.... Very informative
Excellent article! Your reference to the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education is a good addition to mine on this subject so added a link in mine to this one. I think this shows the infiltration of communism that have undermined the values our nation were founded on.
Ms Dee- Thank you for stopping by! I'm not a conspirisy buff but you would almost think the ACLU to be on the communists payroll. It seems common for statist's regimes to have some version of The Separation of Church and State, I guess when you make a god out of the government, you can't afford the competition.
Ha! Yes, they want the power!
Amen! I am glad you wrote this informative article. I see the phrase so misused these days and it's good that you wrote about the original use of this term. Voted up, useful awesome and interesting.
Ms Dee- Power is everything to these folks, they think its thier devine right!
prairieprincess- Thank you so much for stopping by and leaving your encouraging comments! Its great to hear from a fellow christian INFPer.-WBA
What people don't get is that the founders didn't want to be told what to do by the Church of England or anyone else. They never intended to leave God out of the mix. Great job!
WD Curry 111-It's a complete distortion of history, to suggest that the founders didn't want christianity in the public square when in fact our entire government is largely based on Christianity.-Regards- WBA
Vladimir Uhri Level 5 Commenter 16 months ago
“separation of church and state” is in Soviet Constitution not in US.