The Myth of
the Separation of Church and State

Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today
people cry, "Separation of Church and State".  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 reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
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.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/7/05 10:41:30 AM