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.

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html