Arguments over separation of Church and State still rage. Are they legitimate?
Trailing behind my suit clad, Bible touting husband, I walked into a government funded facility, juggling a cassette tape, cassette player and hymnbook. We were en route to the nursing home dining room where we would lead a Good Friday service for the residents. Neither of us gave any thought to the fact that we were blatantly proclaiming Jesus Christ to the people within that building.
Why should we? We didn’t ask to come there; they invited us. We were delighted to bring a Good Friday service to those who could not leave the confines of the facility to attend the community service later that evening. Nursing homes often hold worship services and bible studies, either led by an outside group or one the residents themselves. Activity directors are more than happy to schedule them and promote them. One of the first things I noticed on the monthly calendar attached to the closet door of my mother’s room at the rehab facility was the number of religious activities.
Why should this surprise any of us?
Here’s why. As much federal money pours into the coffers of nursing homes in the form of Medicare as it does into our public schools. Yet any time someone wants to hold as a much as a Baccalaureate service or prayer group on the school lawn, you can bet someone will cry foul and hold up the barrier of separation of Church and State.
It’s the same in the prisons. Maybe a little more resistance, but for the most part, Chuck Colson’s group, Prison Fellowship and other groups have no restrictions leading bible studies and church services. The only places anyone has an issue with this is in our schools and our judicial and legislative lawns.
For the moment, let’s table the obvious fact that separation of Church and State isn’t even part of the Constitution. Let’s also not deal with the fact that Thomas Jefferson intended that the State keep its fingers out of the Church, not the other way around as it has become today. My point is the inconsistency.
Why are schools targeted and not nursing homes? Could it be that enemies of the cross recognize the power of the Message to change lives, that they fear our young people might actually buy into this Jesus-thing? Because the minds of children are fertile ground, those who oppose God’s truth would rather sow the lies of evolution, promiscuity, and self empowerment? That they leave prisons and nursing homes alone because they see those people as harmless? Let ’em have their Jesus – gives them something to do and who knows, might do them some good.
I don’t know about you, but when I realized this inconsistency, I got cold shivers. It makes it even more clear to me how much the very lives of our children are a battlefront, that these little ones are being used as pawns in the War against the Word of God. The issue is not separation of Church and State. The issue is Jesus.
What can we do?
The next time someone tells you that you can’t plan a bible study at a school because of separation of Church and State, be bold. Be creative. You can:
- Share this blog with that individual, pointing out these societal inconsistencies. Many times, local school districts, terrified of civil lawsuits, don’t really know the law and don’t realize the complainers don’t have a leg to stand on. So many of the prohibitions against Baccalaureate services and prayer groups are based on hearsay.
- Sink your efforts into places where the gospel message is tolerated and even welcomed. After all, God’s transforming power can infuse the hearts and minds of the elderly and imprisoned. You never know who might also be listening – prison guards, caregivers, or other workers. If the prisons and nursing homes are still open, let’s pour our efforts into those places. Look for creative ways to share the gospel message unshackled. For example, instead of demanding your rights to say a prayer at graduation ceremonies, hold your Baccalaureate service at a local church or a parking lot across the street from the school. Serve pizza.
- If you can’t go to the children, take the children with you to the places where Jesus is welcome. That’s what my husband did. He took our eight year old daughter every Thursday to our local nursing home. Katherine’s job was to help the people find the page numbers in the hymnbook. It was there that Katherine fell in love with older people and in love with Jesus.
You don’t have to buy into the separation of Church and State lingo. It’s all a flux. If it were really true in the way it is interpreted today, there would be many more restrictions across the governmental board. But Satan’s lies, no matter how they are dressed, are never true.
Of course so-called separation of church and state doesn’t apply, these are adults who they can no longer indoctrinate to their way of thinking. Children, on the other hand, are extremely impressionable so they push the separation when it comes to children.
Exactly. Yet so many Christians have naively bought into the argument that we have to keep God and government separate, not realizing this is just a ruse of the enemy to keep the Gospel away from those who will respond most easily. No more, people! Let’s laugh at Satan’s antics and find other ways to win the children!
The government wants to mold children’s minds and that’s the reason for the push against Christ in schools. It could be one reason we have more incarcerated than ever before. I am a Prison Ministry Fellowship member myself, trained to go into the prisons. If only someone had been able to help them when they were young. But the government penal system is so ingrained into our economy — big money maker. Follow the money. It’s not only about spirituality, but economy and money, I think. There are so many issues here! Too many to include in a reply. (And I’m rambling so I’ll shut up now.) Great post!
Great feedback! Thanks, Karla. Who’s next?
Great post, Karen. Many of us have been fighting this battle most of our lives. Sadly, for decades, children in government schools have not been taught so much about the Christian origins of our nation. A walk around our nation’s capitol and one will see the inscriptions on almost all the monuments and the state buildings that still broadcasts God’s truth.
1. Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
That the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who once mistakenly supposed they were there and, upon learning of their error, fancy they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). Indeed, he understood the original Constitution–without the First Amendment–to separate religion and government. He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
2. There is a critical difference between a public (government run) school and a private nursing home. It is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. (Students also are free to exercise and express their religious views–in a time, manner, and place that does not interfere with school programs and activities.) If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
Thank you for your articulate, thoughtful response, Doug. I especially appreciate that you did not attack me personally for my stance. That is the essence of the First Amendment – the freedom of speech that we enjoy in this country, that we should be able to express a counter opinion without being attacked or belittled by those with an opposing view.
We are becoming further and further removed from the context of the Constitution. It’s easy to forget why our founding fathers broke away from Great Britain. There, the government and the church were so tightly intertwined, it was hard to know where one ended and the other began. Our forefathers wanted to create a system where people were free to worship God apart from government interference. Unfortunately, as time has passed, some have reversed the Constitutional intent to mean that religion shouldn’t interfere in government or government funded entities.
I would disagree with you on one other point – we do not have government schools. Schools are – or at least should be – run by local school boards, not the federal government. This another one of our founding principles that government should be in the hands of the local people.
One final question- why do you think bible studies and worship services are allowed in prisons? Wouldn’t they come under separation of Church and state?
The constitutional separation of church and state does not prevent citizens from making decisions based on principles derived from their religions. Moreover, the religious beliefs of government officials naturally may inform their decisions on policies. The principle, in this context, merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion; in other words, the predominant purpose and primary effect must be nonreligious or secular in nature. A decision coinciding with religious views is not invalid for that reason as long as it has a secular purpose and effect.
Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://divinity.wfu.edu/uploads/2011/09/divinity-law-statement.pdf
Confusion understandably arises because the constitutional principle is sometimes equated with a widely supported political doctrine that goes by the same name and generally calls for political dialogue to be conducted on grounds other than religion. The underlying reasons for that political doctrine are many, but three primary ones are that (1) it facilitates discussion amongst people of all beliefs by predicating discussion on grounds accessible to all and (2) it avoids, in some measure at least, putting our respective religious beliefs directly “in play” in the political arena, so we’re not put in the position of directly disputing or criticizing each other’s religious beliefs in order to address a political issue and (3) since the government cannot make laws or decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion, it makes little sense to urge the government to do just that. This political doctrine, of course, is not “law” (unlike the constitutional separation of church and state, which is), but rather is a societal norm concerning how we can best conduct political dialogue in a religiously diverse society. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the doctrine is a good idea or not and whether or how it should influence us in particular circumstances.
While the First Amendment limited only the federal government as you note, the Constitution was later amended to protect from infringement by states and their political subdivisions the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process, and equal protection of the laws. The courts naturally have looked to the Bill of Rights for the important rights thus protected by the 14th Amendment and have ruled that it effectively extends the First Amendment’s guarantees vis a vis the federal government to the states and their subdivisions–hence the law does reach the city councils and public school teachers. While the founders drafted the First Amendment to constrain the federal government, they certainly understood that later amendments could extend the Bill of Rights’ constraints to state and local governments.
It is instructive to recall that the Constitution’s separation of church and state reflected, at the federal level, a “disestablishment” political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the 1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term “antidisestablishmentarianism,” which amused some of us as kids.) It is worth noting, as well, that this disestablishment movement was linked to another movement, the Great Awakening. The people of the time saw separation of church and state as a boon, not a burden, to religion.
This sentiment was recorded by a famous observer of the American experiment: “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).
You raise an interesting question about prisons. I have not specifically researched that question, so don’t know for certain. I suspect, though, that the pertinent difference between schools and prisons is that prisoners cannot leave and the entirety of their daily life is controlled by the government, and thus the only way they can exercise their religious liberty, apart from individual prayer and such, is if the government affords them some means of doing so. Much the same consideration applies to military service. The justification for the government providing chaplains to troops is that the government has taken troops away from their communities (including churches and such) and put them on ships and in places where the only way they have access to chaplains is if the government provides them. The same sorts of considerations obviously don’t apply to public schools. Even there, though, students retain the freedom to exercise and express their religious views, as long as they do so in a time, manner, and place that does not interfere with school programs and activities.