(Post 2 of 5)
(Originally published on TheScoop2017.wordpress.com, March 2017)
This post is a continuation of Religious Freedom: Brief history of church state debate. Please refer to that post to understand how the founders interpreted this discussion. In this post, we will look at the two different positions taken for and against a strict separation of church and state.
Two Views
Proponents of a traditional interpretation of the religion clauses are referred to in the Boisi paper as “Accommodationists,” who want religious groups to, in general, be protected from discrimination by government. A “neutral” position wants to see the government not taking any position on religion in any way. Those who strongly support the neutral position are called “Separationists,” because they want to see government completely separate from any religious symbolism and rhetoric, “even if doing so favors non-religion over religion,” (12).
Accommodationists
Those who the Boise Paper calls the “Accommodationists” claim the drafters of the Constitution never intended for God to be removed from public discourse, but only that the federal government not create a federal religion or favor one religion over another, and that the federal government was not to interfere with a citizen’s exercise of his religious convictions.
Bill Flax, in his article “The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State,” echoes an accommodationist sentiment stating that those involved in writing the Constitution fully intended to have religion play a major role in government. To support his claim, he cites the preamble of the 1786 Virginia Freedom of Religion Act, which states the “Author of our Religion gave us our ‘free will,’” and that God “chose not to propagate it by coercion.” He claims this legislation did not intend to strip religion out of government because it also “provided stiff penalties for conducting business on the Sabbath,” (Flax). Flax also notes that the Constitution did not ban the use of religious symbols on public property. Early Congress allowed and supported biblical imagery in many federal buildings, as well as hosting church services in some. Further, the day after passing the First Amendment, the new Congress, most of whom were the signers of the Constitution, signed into law a national day of prayer and thanksgiving. Flax states, “It reflects incredible arrogance to reconfigure the Bill of Rights in prohibiting religious displays on public grounds.” Flax believes that even though the founders realized the new nation was comprised of many different faiths and beliefs, they would have been appalled at the thought of eradicating the “very foundations of America’s heritage,” (Flax).
Flax argues that fighting and gaining independence from England gained the people the right to express themselves freely, not to abandon “America’s historical cultural moorings.” Flax says, “Our forbearers embraced tradition and left local autonomy largely intact.” Since the beginning, the public institutions were clearly Christian, and “(f)ew Americans would have tolerated a coercive central government infringing on their rights to post religious symbols on local schools, courts or anywhere else, throwing away the very freedoms that they had just fought to gain.” Flax reasoned that religion was important, even to non-Christian colonists, because it was enmeshed with the whole of culture. The founders knew that Americans needed to be moral, and biblical morality was the foundation that stabilized self-government. Flax uses The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 to support his position, which states: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” The Boise Paper quotes George Washington as a prime example of this belief, stating: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports” for “it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible,” (7). According to ChristianAnswers.net, “the founders did not include the First Amendment in the Constitution to disallow Christianity from influencing state-established institutions; on the contrary, the fathers expected our nation to be (on the whole) Christian, and our government to reflect that bias,” (Summit).
Separationists
On the other side of this debate are those the Boisi Paper calls “Separationists” who believe the original intent of the Constitution was to allow a strict separation between church and state.
Garrett Epps puts forth the separationist view in his article “Constitutional Myth #4: The Constitution Doesn’t Separate Church and State,” claiming his opponents twist the framers intentions when they say the “establishment of religion” was not meant to completely separate church from state but only to keep a specific denomination of the Christian church from becoming the sanctioned church above others, and that the founders expected prayer, encouragement in faith in general, religious monuments, etc. to remain a part of government. In his argument, he comments on the skepticism of Thomas Jefferson, quoting “…reason and scientific observation (should be a) means of discovering the nature of Providence,” (Epps). He mentions Jefferson editing out of a New Testament all references of a divine origin; his and others’ negative attitudes towards the clergy; and supposing the clergy would persecute deists (those who believe in a God by evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation, (Dictionary.reference.com)). Adams is further quoted to comment how each group would persecute the other – Christians, Deists, and Atheists – if powers were not balanced, and that Adams, in a treaty that Congress approved, wrote to a Muslim country saying that the United States “is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,” (Epps). Epps further notes James Madison saying that just as God established Christianity and excluded all other religions, God may just as easily establish one sect of Christianity over another. Epps’s point was that Madison did not think it was a good idea to blend Christianity into the law of our nation. Epps believes, that because of these views, the Constitution omits any reference to God. Further, Epps claims, that although the terminology ‘separation of church and state’ is not in the verbiage of the Constitution, the idea is in Article VI, which states that elected officials will not have to take any religious test to hold public office. He points out that the wording in the Establishment Clause says ‘religion’ not ‘church,’ and therefore, the government was not supposed to make any faith, Christian or not, the official faith. Since government and elected officials were not allowed to support a faith, he concludes the separation principle was intended.
Epps claims the separation idea was “deeply rooted in American religious history,” evidenced by the correspondence between Roger Williams and Thomas Jefferson. Epps also cites James Madison writing that past examples show political leaders are not competent judges of religious truth, and that if religion is used to drive “civil policy,” it perverts society’s way to salvation (Epps).
Accommodationists misunderstood
Bill Sugg, who writes for ChristianAnswers.net, finds it troubling that there are many like Epps, who misrepresent those with an accommodationist perspective. They suggest that those who hold a theistic belief are trying to make Christianity the religion of the United States. This is far from the truth. As Suggs writes, the confusion seems to lie in the moral challenges facing us like abortion and gay rights. Some think supporting a traditional Christian view is akin to establishing a religion. No one on the accommodationist side supports the idea of a federal or state supported religion. Rather, simply, that the founders intended to avoid having a specific religion be dominant, while still maintaining references to God and the Bible. Today, separationists are confusing religion with moral convictions, says Sugg.
According to an article on ChristianAnswers.net, even though the establishment clause separates church from state, “Individual citizens are free to bring their religious convictions into the public arena” (Noebel, et. al.). We all have biases from which we make moral and legal judgments. It is impossible for a person, religious or not, to not be affected by their belief when they are engaged in public service.
According to Flax, “Establishment has been redefined. Limitations on government have been altered into restrictions on religious expression….”
My thoughts
Could the founders have intended for there to be a generally accepted belief in God and have this belief be represented in government in a general way as the accommodationists argue? It certainly seems that if government buildings were decorated with Biblical texts and other symbolisms, they were not saying that God had no part. On the other hand, could the Founders have also recognized that by declaring a particular religion the religion would exclude other religions and set up one religion to dictate their dogma to all other groups? Could they have left religion out of the Constitution in an effort to balance all religious views to keep various beliefs from dominating the government? The Separationists take this concept to an extreme saying they do not think the Founders intended for any religious beliefs, including the belief in a God, to be included in any way in government. It seems to me that there is not a strong enough case to say the Founders intended for God to be excluded from the public governance all together like the separation of church and state declares. It also seems, from the Boisi Papers, that the drafters of the Constitution thought religion should help government, essentially to build moral and ethical responsibilities within the population. The fact that religion was not stated specifically within the Constitution leads me to believe they wanted individual religious beliefs to be separated, but because they, for the most part, believed in God, never intended for God to be excluded from the interactions of the government altogether.
Also curious is the first order of Congress establishing the freedom of religion clauses in the First Amendment. This tells me that they felt the Constitution, as drafted, was incomplete in guaranteeing the rights of the citizenry, and therefore wanted to make sure the government didn’t overstep its bounds and interfere with the freedoms included in the First Amendment, including freedom of religion. So they proceeded to further clarify the boundaries between the government and religion. The government was to not make any one religion the national religion. This satisfied the concern the government would go too far toward any one religion and thus force a doctrine onto the people. They also prohibited the government from interfering in the free exercise of religion, also satisfying those concerned the government may impose sanctions on religious expression. The First Amendment freedom of religion clauses therefore protects religion from government intrusion while also protecting the government from religious exclusivity. Nowhere do the clauses suggest the government should not include any reference to God.
The confusion comes in when you have some in the population who do not believe in God and view any reference to God as a religious expression. However, does the fact there are no references to God declare no religion the law of the land? Does this strict separation constitute a worldview that is equally as valid as a worldview referencing a god?
Next, post 3 – a closer look at those calling for a strict separation
Also in this series:
Post 4: Religious Freedom: religion (re)defined
Post 5: Religious Freedom: societal consequence of silencing beliefs
Works Cited
The Boisi Center Papers On Religion in the United States, Separation of Church and State. Publication. Boston College, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.bc.edu/>.
Easterbrook, Chief Judge. “Badger Catholic v. Walsh, 7th Circuit Opinion.” Alliance Defending Freedom Media. Alliance Defending Freedom, 01 Sept. 2010. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.adfmedia.org/>.
Edwords, Fred. “What Is Humanism.” Americanhumanist.org. American Humanist Association, 2008. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://americanhumanist.org/>.
Epps, Garrett. “Constitutional Myth #4: The Constitution Doesn’t Separate Church and State.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.theatlantic.com/>.
Flax, Bill. “The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State.” Editorial. Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 09 July 2011. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.forbes.com/>.
“Frequently Asked Questions — Religion: The First Amendment Says Nothing about ‘separation of Church and State’ …Is It Really Part of the Law?” First Amendment Center. Vanderbilt University and the Newseum, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/>.
“Frequently Asked Questions — Religion: Has the Supreme Court Defined ‘Religion’?” First Amendment Center. Vanderbilt University and the Newseum, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/>.
“Student Story, Ruth Malhotra and Orit Sklar, Georgia Tech’s Speech Code Declared Unconstitutional.” Speak Up :. Alliance Defending Freedom, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.speakupmovement.org/StudentStories/Details/23219>.
Noebel, David A., J.F. Baldwin, and Kevin Bywater. “Is the Religion of Secular Humanism Being Taught in Public School Classrooms?” Christiananswers.net. Christian Answers Network, 1999. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://christiananswers.net/>. Adapted from Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism, Summit Ministries
” Our Mission, Our History, Our Victories, and Why We Care pages.” Americans United. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.au.org/>.