By Nick Dial
A common phrase seen and heard used by protesters the last several years is “separation of church and state” This phrase has been used to protest the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, school, curriculum, nativity scenes in public, and even gay marriage. So….does separation of church and state apply to these activities and venues? This is where people must dust off that old history book to find the real intentions behind what “separation of church and state” really means.
When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution there was sound reasoning behind why they made specific reference to religion. The U.S. Colonies had lived under the thumb of King George III for some time and had grown weary of monarchy rule and the arbitrary law that came with it. Religions other than the Church of England had been suppressed for quite some time so much so, that the Puritans settled in the Americas in order to freely practice their religion. This was nothing new to the founding fathers; they knew this history as well as anyone else.
The term “separation of church and state” is not found anywhere in the US Constitution. The phrase was made popular by Thomas Jefferson when he wrote a letter defending the rights of a group of Baptists to practice their faith.
“The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as “favors granted.” (U.S. Constitution, 2010).
Since then Jefferson’s words have often been used out of context and, unfortunately, by those who misunderstand the very reasons the First Amendment addresses the issue.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states : “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” (Us constitution, 2010).
The key words regarding this issue are the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
Again, we need to look at history to understand the reasoning behind their position. We know that the Puritans came from the Old World to escape religious persecution so that they could practice their faith freely. Europe’s, and especially England’s, long history of religious oppression was the reason for inclusion of the phrase “make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Although none of Europe was particularly religiously tolerant, the oppression reached intolerable levels during the rule of King Henry VIII. In the sixteenth century, King Henry had failed to have a son born in order to retain a male heir to the throne. There had already been tension between the authorities in Rome and England for some time. King Henry went to the Pope requesting that his marriage be annulled. He was refused. He had fallen in love with a new woman, Ann Boleyn, and wished to be married to her in place of his current wife. After refusal from the Pope, the king met with his closest advisors and developed a novel idea.
“When he met with failure, Henry did what every other king would do. He fired his closest advisor. This was an important move. His closest advisor on the matter was Cardinal Wolsey, the Lord Chancellor of England. The negotiations with the papal court were largely carried out by Wolsey. When he failed, Henry dismissed and arrested him and replaced him with Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell. Both these men were sympathetic to the new ideas of Martin Luther. They gave the king some radical advice: if the pope does not grant the annulment, then split the English church off from the Roman church. Rather than the pope, the king would be the spiritual head of the English church. If the King wants an annulment, then the King can grant his own annulment” Protestant England, 2010).
Taking the advice of his advisors King Henry did just that. England broke off from Roman Catholic Church, and the Church of England was formed. King Henry was then declared head of the church and was free to annul any marriage he wished. When the Church of England was created it became the official church of the kingdom and an act against the king was viewed as an act against God. This is the very reason why the founding fathers put safeguards such as the First Amendment in place. They knew from their own history the dangers of a church being part of the government and the abuses permitted under a state religion.
The founding fathers were logical men. The point of the First Amendment was to keep any religion from becoming a state sponsored religion, not the government being supported by those of faith or any reference to faith. If their intent was to keep any reference of God or faith out of government, they would not have made such bold statements about their beliefs in God and God’s role in our granted freedoms.
In the Declaration of Independence they wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. George Washington himself called for a national day of prayer during the Revolutionary War.
The notion of keeping God or faith out of governmental matters, or public displays of faith was never the intent behind the first amendment. It was there to keep religions from being empowered by government support and turning into a tool of tyranny. Today, due to lack of understanding and revisionist history behind the First Amendment’s purpose, we see people taking things completely out of context to fit their world views. The First Amendment has nothing to do with the concept of God in school, gay marriage, abortion, or any other political issue involving religion. Being an advocate for or against such things and publicly announcing it is fine, that’s what America is all about. Before you rush out with a sign saying such things as “separation of church and state” keep one thing in mind; if you don’t learn the history behind what you are saying and its true meaning, you will accomplish nothing except making yourself look foolish.
References
Protestant england. (2010). Retrieved from
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/ENGLAND.HTM
Us constitution. (2010). Retrieved from
Keep posting stuff like this i really like it
And yet these foolish people continue to voice their misunderstandings against religion and God. They also allow Muslims to force their views and wants against Christians. They will continue until they are the majority and it’s too late. Civil war will ensue. I just hope the soldiers and law enforcement know when to disobey Shariah law when it becomes affective. You know it’s coming.
Excellent post! And to the chagrin of the left…TRUE. I lived in England for several years and the English still talk about this. Here in the U.S., it is not taught in school, and the revisionist’s have written it out of history and have perverted the Supreme Court rulings that have been handed down over time regarding the matter.
May I ask what historical context has to do with either side? We could debate all day long what the founding fathers meant with the 1st Amendment, what does that have to do with it? The same thing can be done with the right to bear arms. It’s irrelevant. Having “under God” in the pledge of allegiance is no more appropriate than having “under Buddha,” “under the Gods,” or “under the Flying Spaghetti Monster.” Historical context means nothing over 200 years later.
Let’s put it where it belongs for a moment, in today’s world. In today’s world you have nations in the middle east that have established religious belief injected into their laws. In their world, they are all “under Allah.” Given the rising population of muslim in the U.S.A., perhaps we should include “under God and Allah.” Why not? Allah means God to muslims. But I digress. People in may mid-east countries live in absolute fear of their government, mainly because of the religious fanaticism that is part and parcel with the law. This is what religion in government creates.
I’m not about to get into a debate over history. Nobody will win. Let’s talk common sense instead. ANY endorsement of religion or spiritual faith anywhere in the government or in policies is unacceptable to a free society. I have my own spiritual beliefs, but they are completely irrelevant here. I DO NOT want my government speaking for me in this matter. I happen to respect the constitution and am extremely grateful that I am able to practice my beliefs freely. I am happy and satisfied with that. Why can’t the religious right be happy with that?
Oh, and to the poster who said that revisionists have written religion out of U.S. history, you are mistaken. The religious right has written into history the notion that the founding fathers were a bunch of pious Christians trying to establish a Christian nation. Try doing some research that doesn’t come from a website with a political agenda for a change. That’s what I do. I look at my information even from sources I completely disagree with. You may learn something. “Under God” was not added to the pledge of allegiance until the Eisenhower adminstration. How does that have anything to do with the historical context of the 18th Century? The answer is, it doesn’t?
Anyway, quite a rant I put together here. I clearly disagree vehemently, but, as a former servicemember, I would still fight to the death for your right to say it.
I left a comment that was in disagreement with this article and the previous posts. It was promptly removed. I have no doubt this one will be removed in as timely a manner. This is clearly a website for sheep.
Historical context matters because many people today march around spouting things like “Separation of church and state” when addressing issues that are irrelevant to the meaning behind that statement. If your pro gay marriage, and are angry because people voted no in their region, what does “separation of church and state” have to do with it? NOTHING. The founding fathers made no attempt to hide the fact that God was a center factor in the creation of this nation. Nowhere in the article did the issue of God in pledge ever come up. That is something you brought into the debate.
People try to use the First amendment as a trumping card to outlaw or banish ANYTHING relating to religion or faith, i.e. nativity scenes during Christmas. The fact is the fist amendment has NOTHING to do with it and was written to specifically prevent a specific religion from becoming nationalized or government backed. i.e. the Church of England. Historical context has EVERYTHING to do with this debate. Our history tells us why these rules were set in place. You’re basically saying “forget the history or the reason behind the First Amendment when it was written, we have our own reasons now”. This is how people lose their roots in the first place. Its much like the kids thinking their smarter then their old outdated parents, but only later find out how naive and foolish they really were, especially when they have to go back home to rebuild their lives.
You said “ANY endorsement of religion or spiritual faith anywhere in the government or in policies is unacceptable to a free society”. This is true in terms of policy and policy being shaped around religion, but simply having God recognized by our government is not an obstacle in a free society, in fact, its a liberator. Because our founding fathers believed in a “creator” that made all men equal as per the declaration of independence, we live in a free society today. The fact they recognized freedom and happiness is a GOD given right AKA “creator” and not a product of monarchy to pass down to who ever it pleased is the very reason we are living in a free nation. You say it has no place in government? Your wrong. The acknowledgment of a higher power then mankind is what separated us from a hierarchy in the first place and stopped us from being ruled by other men. You should study the start of communism in Russia. When it was first implemented, one of the first things the government did to gain control over the people was to outcast all acknowledgment of god or faith. A soldier couldn’t even wear a cross if they desired. The reason? Faith gives people hope and will power. Once the Bolsheviks has gained power, the last thing you want is people with a desire to fight back against oppression. Like it or not, faith in God empowers the human spirit to stand tall in the face of an oppressive regime.The VERY reason your free to speak your mind is because of the beliefs our founding fathers had in a God which granted us unalienable rights, not man. Without knowing your history, you are lost. I suggest you seriously dust off a book and get back to the roots of why our nation was shaped into what it is today.
your post was never removed, they must be reviewed individually to keep foul language out. This can take some time.
And yet these foolish people continue to voice their misunderstandings against religion and God. They also allow Muslims to force their views and wants against Christians. They will continue until they are the majority and it’s too late. Civil war will ensue. I just hope the soldiers and law enforcement know when to disobey Shariah law when it becomes affective. You know it’s coming.
Keep posting stuff like this i really like it
I find it particularly problematic that you can’t seem to understand the genious behind our founding father’s intent to separate religion from state inherent in the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
There is genious in it, because our nation is much stronger for having broader perspectives of opinion than the bigotry that naturally follows from a one-world point of view. Yes, religion is a system of beliefs that are perpetuated through iconography, continuously supported through ritual ceremonies and practices, leading self-proclaimed “sheep” toward the end-of-times. I don’t believe in a man in the clouds, but I do believe in humans having the ability to find out who is for or against those who believe in the notion of God, in an instant, by judging the response using semiotic analyses intrinsic to must humans. As soon as one finds out who is for or against the notion of God, people determine if they want to associate themselves with that person or not. Thus, inherent in the decision, refining one’s worldview and perpetuating the practice of bigotry and avoiding the opinion of others, or opening themselves up to a new point of view through listening and tolerance. You decide.