Make Schools Christian Again
A podcast to the American church for the exiles in public education.
Make Schools Christian Again
#8: Separation Misinterpreted: How Courts Reversed the Founders' Vision
We examine David Barton's book "Separation of Church and State: What the Founders Meant," uncovering how Jefferson's famous phrase was intended to protect religious expression rather than restrict it.
• "Separation of church and state" appears in no founding document, but originated in Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists
• Jefferson's "wall of separation" was meant to prevent government interference with religious expression
• For 150 years, courts interpreted the phrase consistently with Jefferson's intent
• The 1947 Everson v. Board of Education ruling reinterpreted the phrase to remove religion from public life
• By 1962, the Court redefined "church" to mean any public religious activity, not just a federal denomination
• Modern rulings have led to decisions like prohibiting the Ten Commandments in schools because students might obey "don't steal"
• The Founders specifically warned against removing religious influences from public life
Welcome back to the Make Schools Christian Again podcast. In this short episode we're looking at David Barton's book Separation of Church and State what the Founders Meant. He begins on page 5.
Speaker 1:Many citizens believe that the phrase separation of church and state is language found in our governing documents. It is not Concerning religion. The Constitution, specifically the First Amendment to the Constitution, states only that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The words separation, church or state are not found in the First Amendment, the Constitution or in any other founding document. Yet even after learning that the phrase is not part of the Constitution, many citizens nevertheless persist. Well, even though the words aren't there. Isn't that what the First Amendment really means? That the phrase is not part of the Constitution? Many citizens nevertheless persist well, even though the words aren't there. Isn't that what the First Amendment really means? Wasn't that the intent of those who framed that amendment? The answer to that question is no. That was not their intent, at least not in the way that we have come to know separation of church and state today. And what evidence proves this? Well, the founders' own writings, as well as the official documents surrounding the framing of the First Amendment. So if the phrase separation of church and state appears in no official founding document, then what is the source of that phrase and how did it become so closely associated with the First Amendment?
Speaker 1:On October 7, 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, connecticut, sent a letter to President Thomas Jefferson expressing their concern that protection for religion had been written into the laws and constitutions, believing strongly that freedom of religion was an inalienable right given by God. The fact that it appeared in civil documents suggested that the government viewed it as a government-granted rather than a God-granted right. Apprehensive that the government might someday wrongly believe that it did have the power to regulate public religious activities, the Danbury Baptists communicated their anxiety to President Jefferson On January 1st 1802, jefferson responded to their letter. He understood their concerns and agreed with them that man accounted only to God and not to government for his faith and religious practice. Jefferson emphasized to the Danbury Baptists that none of man's natural ie inalienable rights, including the right to exercise one's faith publicly, would ever place him in a situation where the government would interfere with his religious expressions. He assured them that, because of the wall of separation, they need not fear government interference with religious expressions. Quote In his letter, jefferson made clear that the wall of separation was erected not to limit public religious expressions but rather to provide security against governmental interference with those expressions, whether private or public. On numerous other occasions, jefferson repeatedly affirmed that the sole purpose of the first amendment was to ensure that the federal government could not interfere with public religious expressions.
Speaker 1:Later, courts occasionally cited Jefferson's separation letter in their rulings. For example, in the 1878 case Reynolds v United States, the Supreme Court quoted heavily from Jefferson's letter, noting with approbation Jefferson's view that the federal government was not to interfere with religious expressions or values except in a very narrow category. After summarizing Jefferson's letter, the court concluded the rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere with religion only when its principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. And this is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the state. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere religious opinion, but was left free to reach religious actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. And since the federal government was only to inhibit religious expressions that were subversive of good order or broke out into overt acts against peace and good order. That court and other courts, including in Commonwealth v Nesbitt and Lindenmuller v the People, provided examples of the types of religious acts into which the government did have legitimate reason to intrude, acts such as concubinage, polygamy etc. But in traditional religious practices, whether public prayer, the use of the scriptures etc. The government was never to interfere. This was the clearly understood meaning of Jefferson's separation letter and the manner in which it was applied for a century and a half.
Speaker 1:However, a reversal occurred in 1947 in Everson v Board of Education, when the Supreme Court for the first time interpreted the separation phrase as requiring the federal government to remove religious expressions from the public arena. That is, it interpreted the First Amendment not as a limitation on government interference, but rather as a limitation on religious expressions and principles. That court, unlike previous ones, did not reprint Jefferson's letter a very short letter but cited only eight words from the letter a wall of separation between church and state. Furthermore, the court did not give the context of the phrase or Jefferson's numerous other statements on the subject. In fact, it didn't even mention that previous Supreme Courts had used Jefferson's letter to preserve religious principles in public society rather than remove them. In short, that 1947 court was the first to divorce Jefferson's metaphor from its context and then apply it in a manner exactly opposite to Jefferson's clearly articulated intent.
Speaker 1:Fifteen years after redefining Jefferson's phrase in the 1962 decision Engel v Vitale, the court began redefining individual words within that phrase. For example, the court determined that church would no longer mean a federal denomination, as had been its meaning for the previous two centuries, but that church would now mean a public religious activity. Therefore, separation of church and state no longer meant that the federal government, ie the state, could not establish a federal denomination, ie a church, but it now meant that public religious expressions, ie the new church, must be kept separate from the public square, ie the new state. This change in definition has resulted in one absurd ruling after another. For example, in Stone v Graham, the Supreme Court ruled that, because of the new separation of church and state, it was unconstitutional for a student at school to continue, even voluntarily, to see a copy of the Ten Commandments. The court explained If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey the commandments. This is not a permissible objective, according to the court, if students, even voluntarily, were to look at a copy of the Ten Commandments, they might respect and even obey teachings such as do not steal. That would be unconstitutional.
Speaker 1:This bizarre logic is reflective of far too many of the court's religious decisions handed down since 1962, including its 1963 Abington v Shemp decision. In that case, the court reversed more than two centuries of precedent, including its own previous rulings ordering that the Bible and its teachings no longer be permitted in public education. Why education? Why, according to the court, if portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be, and had been, psychologically harmful to the students. What an amazing pronouncement. The scriptures can cause psychological damage. That is, exposing students to biblical teachings such as the Golden Rule, the Beatitudes and the Good Samaritan can cause lasting brain damage. The Founding Fathers had specifically forewarned of the adverse effects of excluding religious influences from the public arena. Recall Declaration signer Benjamin Rush, bill of Rights signer John Adams and Speaker of the House Robert Winthrop had specifically warned that if the public teaching of the Bible were restricted, crime and violent behavior would escalate. It is therefore not surprising that there had been measurable societal changes in the wake of the court's ruling.