“Separation of church and state.” It’s a phrase often used, often misused, and often misunderstood.
Andrew Seidel, in his book The Founding Myth, posits that our Constitution was assiduously crafted to avoid intrusion of religion into the formation of the government.
He points out that the most important of the founders — Jefferson, Adams, and Madison — were not known for outward expressions of religiosity and so were therefore unlikely to want to force religious doctrine on others, especially a newly-formed nation.
A comment by Madison in April of 1774 pretty clearly demonstrated his perspective relating to religion and governance: “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.”
John Adams, in composing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797, included in Article 11 of that document the following: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion … ”
The Separation of Church and State does not occur in the Constitution despite its premise being clearly delineated. One of the earliest records of the phrase being used occurs in Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Convention in 1802, in which he stated, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God … that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence, that act [the Constitution] of the whole American people 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.”
The word God does not appear in the Constitution. The closest reference to any deity refers to “their Creator” not specifying a Christian god or a god of any other religion. And one of the few references to religion is contained in Article VI: “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the Unites States.”
The presidential Oath of Office did not, originally, conclude with “so help me God.” The earliest suggested use of this appendage is credited to Chester Arthur, in his presidential oath in 1881.
Our pledge of allegiance, first penned in 1885 by Captain George Thacher Balch, was later revised by Baptist minister Francis Bellamy in 1892, but the words “under God” were not added until 1956, during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower.
As Seidel points out, the 1950s were a period of elevated fear and concern, a repetition of earlier periods in American history during which the public exhibited greater awareness of religion with commensurate attempts to inject it into government: the Civil War, World War I, World War II.
In the last half-century the protections maintaining the separation of church and state have been continually eroded, primarily by an increasingly conservative Supreme Court which whittles away at the norms of that separation, powered by the efforts of a multitude of groups which associate themselves with Christian Nationalism.
Most recently, on July 7th of this year, the Internal Revenue Service issued a ruling stating that churches will no longer be subject to loss of their tax-free status if they voice support for political candidates. This is a decision that will most likely be challenged in the courts. As of this date, it is unknown whether this ruling will be applied to all 501(c)(3) nonprofits.
It is not hard to visualize the difficulties that this decision raises. Not every member of a church will have the same opinion about a political candidate, and any outward support expressed by the clergy of a church could result in internal fracturing within that church. The same is true for any other tax-exempt organization when not all members can agree on the position taken by its leaders.
It is also somewhat easy to understand why the Court continues to lean toward favoritism to religion, considering that all nine justices profess some religious affiliation, with six of the nine being Catholic.
The separation of church and state is a tenuous and fragile thing. Should it ever be completely breached, the result may well be internecine warfare over which religion shall have preference.
--30--
Written by Chuck Witt, a retired architect, a former newspaper columnist, and a lifelong resident of Winchester. Cross-posted from the WinCity Voices.
Comments
