The Establishment Clause

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson sent a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in response to a query from that body. In the following Library of Congress transcript, Jefferson's spelling and punctuation have been retained as well as the bracketed material which ultimately he deleted before sending.
---------
Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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 & State.

[Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.]

Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
----------

An anonymous writer claims that Jefferson's remarks echo those of Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist church in America, who wrote in 1644 of the need for "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." Whatever the case, Jefferson's expression of "a wall of separation between church and state" led to the shorthand phrase "Separation of church and state."

Although the phrase does not appear in our Constitution, the idea it embodies is a governing principle of our culture. The phrase represents the essentialized meaning of the opening passage of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." This is known as the Establishment Clause.

From the beginning of our nation, Americans recognized the principle of separation of church and state as a safeguard against religious intolerance and protection of one's right to choose to believe, or not. Our courts followed suit.

In its 1879 Reynolds v. United States decision, the court allowed that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment."

In the Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1, 8 decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote: "When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some."

Another court stated that "A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws, which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches."

Because of the many different religions and the many different convictions of atheists and agnostics that comprise our American culture, the separation of state and church assures that no one elected to office can lawfully impose his particular views as "the state religion." To further deflect such a danger, Article VI of the Constitution specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Today, however, some commentators question the validity of the separation of church and state, claiming "It's not in the Constitution; so, we can disregard it." But a brief look at man's history underscores the need for such a separation.

The first forms of governments among men---Sumer and Ancient Egypt (c. 5000 BCE)---were both centralized authorities, in which the ruler held both powers of king and priest. The Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt, for instance, claimed they were the embodiment of "god-kings," or "priest-kings." They held both titles absolutely, sometimes appointing a priest class to perform various tasks, but always retaining the prerogative of supreme authority over men's beliefs and actions.

For millennium nothing changed---except in Ancient Athens. Pericles (c. 495 - 425 BCE), for example, was an elected ruler whose leadership did not usurp that of Athenian priests. But in all other nation-states around the world and throughout time, absolute authority over both secular and religions affairs remained exclusively in the hands of the ruler.

For instance, during the Roman Empire, (c. 31 BCE - c. 284/313 AD) emperors were treated as divinities and some declared themselves gods. During the Medieval period (c. 313 AD to c.1265 AD) the church dominated both secular and religious affairs. Even the great, enlightened Elizabeth I (1533-1603)---alone among monarchs finally to break with the Pope---while granting wider freedom to her subjects nonetheless retained absolute control of her powers which included being the spiritual head of the Church of England.

Cromwell (1599-1658) justified his religious intolerance, the use of force, massacres and cruelty as necessary to hold together the body politic. Louis 14th (1638-1715) the "Sun King," imposed religious uniformity, persecuted the Huguenots and revoked the Edict of Nantes, which led to the exodus of many Protestant merchants and skilled artisans, accelerating economic decline. Napoleon crowned himself at his coronation (1804), thereby declaring that as emperor of France he was to be considered supreme ruler over both secular and religious affairs.

Similarly, the Emperors of Japan and China were considered direct descendents of the Gods, thus empowered as divine ruler on earth, supreme over all men's actions and beliefs. The sheiks, caliphs, and ayatollahs of Arabia, India and Asia were no different.

And so it went. With few exceptions, leaders claimed total authority over both religious and secular affairs---most clearly exemplified by "the divine right of kings" and "the infallibility of the Pope." The result was fines, imprisonment, torture and/or death levied on any that dared oppose the ruler's edicts and beliefs. The Inquisition was only one expression of such crimes against the mind of man. The slaughter and mayhem of the Crusades was another. The arbitrary beheading, dismemberment, disfigurement and proscribed suicides of dissenters or the disrespectful, was characteristic of the rulers of Africa, India and Asia.

Then came the United States of America, an extraordinary achievement that broke with all precedent and stunned the world with its Declaration of Independence and its Constitution, which are the fountainhead of the wealth that cascaded from the minds and efforts of free men.

The Declaration of Independence identified man's individual rights. The Bill of Rights---the first ten Amendments of the Constitution---secured those rights in specific actions. But it was the formulation of the Establishment Clause that addressed the difficult and complex issue of protecting man's convictions and beliefs without intruding upon his right to believe as he chose, or not. The governing principle of "a wall between church and state" was a stroke of genius that protected the American citizen from the deadly juggernaut of combined political and religious power.

The Founding Fathers gave us this nation, a child of the Enlightenment, Ancient Athens surely being our grandparent. As beneficiaries of such a gift, let us not allow our nation to fall to barbarians---either foreign or domestic---by ignoring the lessons of undivided absolute power over our lives and nation.

Separating State and Church

Every human being needs a moral code in order to live. There is no choice about that. Morality is a requirement of man’s life. There is a choice of which moral code you accept. You might accept the moral code identified by a philosopher. Or you might accept the moral code of theologians. You might figure out a moral code of your own. But whatever the case, a moral code is essential to your life. And your actions will be guided by it whether you’re aware of it or not.

A moral code is more important to human beings than food and drink. Because depending on which moral code an individual chooses, it is his moral code that shapes his decision to earn food and drink, or to sacrifice for it, or to kill for it. On some level, to some extent, most Americans understand this.

But some do not. They believe that by blurring together church and state a happier and more loving culture will result, providing them with the subsistence they need. A brief glance at history proves this false.
In every culture on earth there have always been men who wanted only to produce the materials they needed in order to live, and to live peaceably in trade with their fellow men, free of coercion.

And there have always been men who wanted to rule those producers. Such men declared themselves rulers. Some sought to rule men’s actions. Eventually, these became known as the state. Some sought to rule men’s moral conscientiousness. These became known as the church.
Millenniums passed. Despite the presence of such rulers, before monotheism the vast majority of men enjoyed religious freedom. Some cultures were freer than others. People worshipped or not, as they chose.

Then in 313 AD the Emperor of Byzantine issued the Edict of Milan, making Christianity the state religion. It was a period when church and state were indistinguishable from one another. Yet, the ruler of the church squabbled with the ruler of the state. Who was more powerful? Who controlled what? Whose say-so was most important? The church wanted state power. The state wanted church power. Discord arose. Strife grew. Prosperity declined. Men began to fear for their lives.

Always mutually suspicious of one another, state and church sought ways to expand their powers. The most obvious way was to form an alliance with one another. The soldiers ordered into service by the state were commanded to kill with the religious fervor of the church. The Crusades was one result---orgies of murder, rape and mayhem that soaked the earth with human blood.

For one thousand years state and church formed and discarded alliances. Alliances to seize land or goods, to stamp out perceived threats, to slaughter heretics and infidels. They formed alliances to "rid society of witches, warlocks and gypsies," to crush the non-believer, the errant-believer and the other-believer. The Inquisition is an example. It arrested innocent individuals, interrogated and tortured them, tore them apart on the rack, imprisoned, starved and burned them at the stake.

This period is known as the Medieval Ages. It was a time of unimaginable suffering: poverty, disease, slaughter, pillage and hatred. Individual moral conscientiousness was forbidden. Men were told what they must believe. They were terrified, their spirits crushed by lurid tales of damnation if they did not believe. A rage of malice and viciousness swept men’s minds and actions. Violence grew daily among individuals and groups, seemingly without end.

Between 1267-73, the theologian Thomas Aquinas argued for a different approach. He tried to clarify the realms of faith and the realms of reason. Some seventy-five years following the completion of his masterwork, the Italian Renaissance was born. Much of the misery of the Medieval Ages was wiped away.

During the Italian Renaissance, men had a better grasp of how things could be understood and great strides were made. But they were still not free to worship as they chose. The individual continued to suffer restrictions on his own moral conscientiousness. He was crushed between his longing to know greatness on earth and his confusion over church dictates. He remained the helpless victim of church and state.

This state of affairs continued until 1690 when John Locke published his famous Essay Concerning Human Understanding and Two Treatise on Government. These works indicated a solution to the dominance of church and state over men. The British Enlightenment spilled into the New World. About a century later came the explicit statement in the U.S. Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

This statement legally separated the powers of church and state. Congress was not the church. The church was not Congress. Signed in September 1787 and ratified in June 1788, men were freed at last from the specter of state and church allied against them. They were freed from demands to believe as the church dictated. They were free to worship as they chose, or not.

This highly truncated glance back in time shows why it is essential to keep church and state separate. It demonstrates why without the separation of church and state we are all in peril, no matter what our belief or absence of same. It shows why the separation of church and state is vitally important to us all. Unless we want to return to Medieval times, we must uphold the freedom of everyone to worship as they choose, or not. Which means we must keep separate church and state.

©2008. Sylvia Bokor. All Rights Reserved.
--------------------------------------------------
Suggested reading:
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Ayn Rand, Philosophy Who Needs It