Separation of Church and State

I was watching a program recently that really opened my eyes. Now, I love history, but it's been awhile since I actually studied the Constitution of the United States, or it's Amendments. What I learned during the program told me alot that I didn't know. This is the full text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Did you notice that there is nothing even related to the phrase "Separation of Church and State"? Did you notice that the First Amendment actually states that Congress will make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion? Or the right for others to peacably assemble (even in a religious setting)?

So where did that term come from? It actually came from Thomas Jefferson while he was President of the United States on January 1, 1802. This was about 11 years after the Bill of Rights was signed into law and ratified by majority vote! Now before you think that Jefferson was all for what we now think of when we think of separation of Church and State, let me correct you. Here is the text of the letter that he sent to the Danbury Baptist Association:

The Draft and Recently Discovered Text
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 & 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 & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & 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 and 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 eternal 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,

[Jefferson first wrote: "confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine and that." These lines he crossed out and then wrote: "concurring with"; having crossed out these two words, he wrote: "Adhering to this great act of national legislation in behalf of the rights of conscience"; next he crossed out these words and wrote: "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights 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 & the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Archive location: The Historical Documents Archive (emphasis mine)

In this letter, he is actually addressing the fact that he does not act out his faith while he is in office, as did (and does) the Monarchy of England. He also goes on to state (although he crossed it out, obviously not being able to see the future) that no person holding the same position would ever pass an Executive Order that would infringe upon another's religious rights. He was stating that he believed Christianity, and religion in general, restored natural rights to man, and that those same natural rights could not, by nature, be in opposition to social duties.

So where does that leave us? It leave us with the knowledge that Separation of Church and State has become the exact opposite of what it was intended to be! The government has no right, under the First Amendment to censor our religious observance in any way. Not even in our public schools or public school functions. Unfortunately for all of us, the Supreme Court has, numerous times, translated these words to mean something that they didn't. How is it then, that a "silent" congressman (he was that at the time that the Bill of Rights was ratified) could have been called the father of the current Separation of Church and State issue?!

A Whig wrote this to the Philadelphia Independent Gazatteer on November 1, 1787:

“The more I reflect upon the history of mankind, the more I am disposed to think that it is our duty to secure the essential rights of the people, by every precaution; for not an avenue has been left unguarded, through which oppression could possibly enter in any government; without some enemy of the public peace and happiness improving the opportunity to break in upon the liberties of the people; and none have been more frequently successful in the attempt, than those who have covered their ambitious designs under the garb of a fiery zeal for religious orthodoxy. What has happened in other countries and in other ages may very possibly happen again in our own country, and for aught we know, before the present generation quits the stage of life. We ought therefore in a bill of rights to secure, in the first place, by the most express stipulations, the sacred rights of conscience. Has this been done in the constitution, which is now proposed for the consideration of the people of the country? — Not a word on this subject has been mentioned in any part of it; but we are left in this important article, as well as many others, entirely to the mercy of our future rulers.”

Indeed, it seems we've been left at the "mercy of future rulers", even with the Bill of Rights. I hope you've enjoyed the history lesson. Pray for our leaders today, that they will learn that the original Bill of Rights does NOT allow for suppression of religious thought and exercise. That Christianity should at the very least be given the same role as the other "minority" religions in this country. That Christianity and it's tenets should be taught right alongside Muslim and Hindu, etc. tenets, for their historical importance, if for no other reason. Blessings to you all!