Home > America > The Myth of Separation of Church and State

The Myth of Separation of Church and State

The Myth of Separation of Church and State

Dr. Mike Johnston, Editor

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance (Psalms 33:12) 

The notion of a separation of church and state is not constitutional nor is it Biblical. Anyone that has studied God’s dealings with Israel in the Old Testament knows full well that God cursed His people when her kings were living apart from Him.

American History As It Was

America has not always been the swill of pluralism it is today. You might be surprised by just how deep our religious roots go as a Christian nation.

The Discovery of America (1492): The fact that Christopher Columbus was a Spirit-filled Christian is well founded. Secular historian August J. Kling documented that all of Columbus’ sailing journals and most of his private letters give evidence of his Biblical knowledge and his devout love for Jesus Christ. Concerning the discovery of America Columbus wrote: “It was the Lord who put into my mind (I could feel His hand upon me) to sail from here to the Indies.”

The First Colonial Grant (1584): Granted to Sir Walter Raleigh, authorizing him to establish government and statutes for the proposed colony in America with the following stipulation. It read: “…they be not against the true Christian faith…”

Virginia’s Charter (1606) was granted for “propagating (the) Christian religion…” The first act at Jamestown (1607) was to erect a cross and hold a prayer meeting. (Believe it or not, a school was recently forbidden from showing a film depicting this Jamestown Prayer Meeting because it violated the separation of church and state). God help us!

The Mayflower Compact (1620), attributes “… the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith…”

The Massachusetts Charter (1629): “obedience of the onlie true God and Savior of mankinde, and the Christian fayth.” (their spelling has been kept- J ). Puritan New England formed Christian Government based on Scripture! They built churches, and started schools using the New England Primer and Bay Psalm Book (both saturated with Scripture), to teach their children the Bible and Christian values.

The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1638-39): This was the foundation for their government. It reads: “…and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union…there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God…to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess…which is practiced amongst us.”

The New England Confederation (1643): “to advance the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Did you know that all of the 50 State Charters contain religious language?)

The Charter of Rhode Island (1683): “We submit our persons, lives, and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords…”

Just eighteen years after landing, Christians built an Ivy League School to train pastors and missionaries to evangelize the Atlantic seaboard.

Harvard (1638) was founded in Massachusetts by the Puritans. In their “Rules and Precepts” (1646) they adopted the enrollment requirement: “Every one shall consider the main end of his life and studies to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life…” Is it any wonder that 52% of 17th century graduates became ministers of the Gospel? Godless liberals have killed this school!

Yale (1701), Princeton (1746), and  Dartmouth (1754) were all founded to train pastors and missionaries to propagate the Gospel of Jesus Christ! Visit any of these campuses today and you’ll see first hand the cancer of liberalism eating its way across America. May God grant us repentance before it’s too late!

The Declaration of Independence (1776) was based upon Judeo- Christian principles (faith in a living Creator and necessity of law for depraved man). Two-thirds of its signers were members of established churches. When it was approved, the religious composition of America was 98% Protestant Christian; 1.8% Catholic, and .2 of 1% Jewish– not very secular, is it!

The Northwest Ordinance (1787) was in force until a Constitution could be ratified. It required every state entering the union to teach Christianity and morality in their schools.

The Delegates to the Constitutional Convention (1787) were brilliant statesmen that would not have adopted any document restricting the faith they held so dear! Article VI states that no “religious test” could be required for holding public office. Obviously, in a growing nation where many states had established State churches and required politicians to be Christian, “religious” meant something other than it does today. (Liberals loathe this, because it removes the choke hold they have on our religious freedoms). The Founding Fathers understood “religious” as pertaining to a particular denomination.

However, still foreseeing problems with government intrusion, the Bill of Rights was added to limit the power of government. The easiest way to understand the First Amendment is that it restricted congress from establishing the First “Baptist” Church of America, and then forcing membership.

Liberal Lies About the Wall of Separation

Today, liberals have advanced the mythical notion of “Separation of Church and State” to intimidate the ignorant from discussing religion. Sadly, many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: “separation”, “church”, and “state” do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment simply reads,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut.  The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion.  This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church.  Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God.  Jefferson’s letter from which the phrase “separation of church and state” was taken affirmed first amendment rights.  Jefferson wrote:

I contemplate with solemn 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 and State.  (1)

The reason Jefferson choose the expression “separation of church and state” was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member.  Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church.  He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist’s own prominent preachers.  Williams had said:

When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day.  And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world…(2)

The “wall” was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state.  The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.

The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England.  Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates.  They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience.  No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665.  Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture.  The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion.  The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs.  Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation.  They believed that God’s ways were much higher than Man’s ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society.  There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another.  Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.

Each form of government has a guiding principle:  monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear.  Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others.  The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people.  The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible.  This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960’s.  Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960).  God was seen as the author of natural law and morality.  If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base.  And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community.  The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church.  The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness an d justice so that virtue would be upheld.  Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice.  It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble — the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country’s.

Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship.  Instead, it was to be our servant.  The founding fathers believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights.  Each person should be self-governed and this is why virtue is so important.  Government was meant to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous amount of social programs.  The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as much damage.  Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the rights of the people.  The worldview at the time of the founding of our government was a view held by the Bible:  that Man’s heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so.  They firmly believed this and that’s why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  They wanted to make certain that no man could take away rights given by God.  They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness.  Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err.  Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation.  The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3)   We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas.  This is exactly what two professors did.  Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources.  The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations.  Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions.  That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible.  The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government.  If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government.  An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king…”  The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government:  judicial, legislative, and executive.  As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government.  For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people.  The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny.  The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated.  Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state?  People have read too much into the phrase “separation of church and state”, which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values.  Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality.  These standards of morality are found in the Bible.  Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?

Our Founding Fathers who formed the government also formed the educational system of the day.  John Witherspoon did not attend the Constitutional Convention although he was President of New Jersey College in 1768 (known as Princeton since 1896) and a signer of the Declaration of Independence.  His influence on the Constitution was far ranging in that he taught nine of fifty-five original delegates.  He fought firmly for religious freedom and said, “God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both.”(4)

In October 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States removed prayer from schools in a case called Engel v. Vitale.  The case said that because the U.S. Constitution prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion officials of public schools may not compose public prayer even if the prayer is denominationally neutral, and that pupils may choose to remain silent or be excused while the prayer is being recited.  For 185 years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention itself was opened with prayer.  If the founding fathers didn’t want prayer in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings?  It is sometimes said that it is permissible to pray in school as long as it is silent.  Although, “In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year old James Gierke was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time… the boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against the law.”(4)  The U.S. Supreme Court with no precedent in any court history said prayer will be removed from school.  Yet the Supreme Court in January, 1844 in a case named Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, a school was to be built in which no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever was to be allowed to even step on the property of the school.  They argued over whether a layman could teach or not, but they agreed that, “…there is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality.”  This has been the precedent throughout 185 years.  Although this case is from 1844, it illustrates the point.  The prayer in question was not even lengthy or denominationally geared.  It was this:  “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”  What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God’s protecting hand in our lives?  Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990’s — even after taking into account population growth.  The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum.  After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view.  Someone’s morality is going to be taught — but whose?  Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man’s ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth.  They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense.  That Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing.  They believe that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself.  All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history.  In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.”  The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion.  The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers.  Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools?  The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity.  This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.

1.  Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 510, January 1, 1802.

2.  John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (MI: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 243.

3.  M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, N.H.: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), p. 4-5.

4.  John Witherspoon, “Sermon on the Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men” May 17, 1776; quoted and Cited by Collins, President Witherspoon, I:197-98. [1]

On JUNE 6, 1944- the D-Day invasion of Normandy- President Franklin Roosevelt prayed:

“My fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation…

I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God, Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our republic, our religion, and our civilization…

Give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith. They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard.

For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces…

We know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph…

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom…”

FDR concluded:

“Help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice…

I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer.

As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength…and, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee…With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy…

And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil. Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen.”

The real truth: Separating Church and State

Bill Wilson 

During [Christmas], every year, we have story after story where leftist, godless groups file suits against the display of nativity scenes and other expressions of joy for the birth of Christ. We have countless other government entities banning nativity scenes. They do it in the name of “Separation of Church and State.” This is shear folly. It is based on a faulty interpretation of both the Constitution and a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in which he used the words describing the First Amendment as “building a wall of separation between Church and State. The context of the 1802 Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists Association suggests that Jefferson was “hands off” of government in religion.

The Danbury Baptists Association inquired of Jefferson if their religious rights as a minority denomination in Connecticut would be protected under the Constitution. Ephraim Robbins and Stephen S. Nelson wrote: “Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty–that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals–that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions–that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific.”

They asked, “If those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men…as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.” Jefferson responded, “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 “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Thereafter was a bracket in Jefferson’s original draft, which was deleted in the final: “[Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.]” Jefferson was clearly stating that he would not act as head of the church and Executive of the nation as in England. While not prevented by the Constitution, it was his personal prerogative to refrain from religious expression as the head of state.

The Founders knew the danger of state established religion as in England it resulted in the persecution and murder of thousands who were not part of that religion. The Constitution prohibits government from establishing religion and interfering with its free exercise—that is Jefferson’s reference to the wall of separation. Government prohibition of religious expression on public property is interference with religion. Furthermore, public property is not owned by the government, but rather by the people. The government is a steward of public property. We can see that these precepts are twisted by the fallen nature of man, especially when as Peter said in Acts 5:29, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

Advertisements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a reply (vulgarity and viciousness will not be posted)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: