(Post 1 of 5)
While the discussion of religious freedom may be water under the bridge, this and the following four posts give an overview of how our country came to allow only one narrow ideology to be taught to public school students.
Violation of Church and State or Violation of Free Speech?
In Badger Catholic, v. Walsh, (2010), the University of Wisconsin denied Badger Catholic, a Catholic student organization on the University of Wisconsin campus, access to student fees and facilities that they granted other student groups, because the fees in question related to prayer, proselytizing, or religious instruction. The University believed that by allowing fees to be disbursed for such activities, they would be violating the separation of church and state, expressed in the First Amendment (Eastbrook). The University of Wisconsin is not alone in this approach. Georgia Tech and Penn State, among others, have also been to court, but school policies were found to not violate the separation of church and state but to violate the free speech of religious students, (SpeakUp). These cases are examples of the struggle in the United States to form a strict separation between church and state and tested our interpretation of the First Amendment’s religion clauses.
The debate was not limited to academia but had far-reaching tendrils in all aspects of government. Did the founders of religious freedom intend for all references of God be removed from the public square, or did they intend for our country to remain fairly religious? Has the First Amendment been redefined as some claim? Or should there be a stronger divide between religion and government? Whose philosophy should be at the foundation of education, at legislation? And what exactly is meant by religion anyway?
This post is the first in a series which presents an overview of the history of religious freedom. Future posts provide an understanding of the parties involved on both sides of the debate, followed by a closer look at each of these parties, and concluding with a look at how a strict separation looks today.
Let’s start at the beginning and understand the views of those who drafted our Constitution.
Views of the Founding Fathers
According to the Boisi Center Papers on Religion in the United States, four main views were prevalent among those who drafted of the Constitution:
- The Puritans thought both church and state were sanctioned by God, but for different roles. Therefore, each should be different, but still “close and compact,” so they could help each other;
- Civic republicans thought that a government of the people was easily corrupted. Since strategies requiring force or fear did not work to maintain peace, government needed to rely on its citizens to be virtuous on their own. The best way to meet this goal was through religion;
- Evangelicals fought for religious disestablishment by pointing out that in order for faith to be sincere, it needed to be discovered by the individual and be voluntary, not coerced by the government; and
- Those with a liberal enlightenment philosophy looked at the role of reason in various areas of human existence as a main reason to separate church out of state, and that the role of religion is to save souls and the role of government is to “secure the things that can be enjoyed on earth…” (5-9)
Though religious freedom was not addressed in the new Constitution, the issue was the first order of business for the first Congress.
Religious Clauses Defined
Religious freedom in the United States hinges on a mere 16 words found in the First Amendment, which states in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (Bill of Rights, Amendment I) The first section of this phrase is referred to as the Establishment Clause, “no law respecting an establishment of religion….” This prohibits Congress from establishing a national church or religion, or excessively involving itself in religion, especially to the benefit of one religion over another. The second section of this phrase is referred to as the Free Exercise Clause, “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise (of religion).” This prohibits Congress from making laws that interfere with one’s religious beliefs and opinions (13). After much debate, the founders agreed that the Federal government should not interject itself into the local doctrines of faith or meddle with state’s religious establishments. According to the Boisi paper, the Constitution, including the First Amendment, left religious issues up to each individual state (10).
The Fourteenth Amendment Impact
The religious clauses protected religious freedom from Federal government intrusion only. The states retained authority over its citizenry and several retained state churches for years to come, with Massachusetts being the last to end its support in 1833. Not until after the Civil War though were these guarantees applied to every branch of government in every state, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868.
The Fourteenth Amendment made citizenship a federal statute that carried all rights and privileges guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, stating, “states cannot take privileges away that are guaranteed by Federal law, nor deprive of life, liberty, property, without due process of law, or deny equal protection,” (10). State constitutions were now trumped by the Federal Constitution. It wasn’t until the 1940’s, however, that religious freedoms under the First Amendment began to be applied to the states, and the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ began widespread use.
Origins of ‘Separation of Church and State’ Phrase
Garrett Epps, in “Constitutional Myth #4: The Constitution Doesn’t Separate Church and State,” credits the term “separation of church and state” originally to Roger Williams, founder of the first Baptist congregation, who wrote to Thomas Jefferson that the church needed protection from political leaders since politics can corrupt the church. The view Williams had, according to Epps, was that the Jewish nation in the Old Testament and the Christian church in the New Testament were to keep themselves separate from the world, or the “garden of the church” would become infected by the “wilderness of the world,” and therefore, God would remove his favor leaving the church to become like the world.
Bill Flax, in his article “The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State” writes that Supreme Court judge Hugo Black referred to the term ‘separation of church and state’ in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education when he said, “The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state’…that wall must be kept high and impregnable,” (Flax), thus, according to FirstAmendmentCenter.org, creating a link between Jefferson’s wall of separation concept and the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (Frequently Asked Questions – Religion). According to Flax, this link started to shift the separation concept from protecting religion from government, to protecting government from religion.
Possible Consequence of Amendment 14
Further, Flax claims that the distinction the founders gave between the federal government’s non-intrusion into religious affairs, and the states maintaining exclusive rights over their own religious affairs, was possibly intended as a checks and balance established by the founders similar to the checks and balance of powers embedded in the structure of the federal branches of government. If that is the case, the Fourteenth Amendment, then, eliminated that checks and balance.
Next, Post 2 – Two Views Surfaced, Separationists and Accomodationists
Also in this series:
Post 3: Religious Freedom: the voice behind strict separation
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/>.
(Originally published on TheScoop2017.wordpress.com, March 2017)