There has been a flurry of notice in the media about an exchange in a recent debate between Delaware senatorial candidates Christine O’Donnell and Chris Coons over the concept of the “separation of church and state” and the actual wording of the first amendment which provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
Although unfortunately presented inarticulately, Ms. O’Donnell is correct that “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. This phrase comes from a a letter written by Thomas Jefferson more than a decade after the first amendment was adopted, and has become attached to an incorrect interpretation of the Establishment clause. The sole purpose of the Establishment clause was to prohibit the federal government from preferring one faith as a national religion. It was not intended to prohibit non-discriminatory government recognition of religious faith. Indeed, the same first Congress that approved the first amendment also voted for chaplains for the military and Congress, national days of thanksgiving, authorized the use of federal funds in the territories for educational institutions to promote “religion, morality, and knowledge,” and required that federal judges declare ”so help me God” as part of their oaths of office.
So where does this idea that the Establishment clause requires some kind of absolute division between religious faith and government come from? It arose later in the 1800s as part of the vicious anti-Catholic bigotry which unhappily dominated American politics after large numbers of Catholics began to immigrate to the United States. The concept was only read into the first amendment in 1947 by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, a former Ku Klux Klansman.
Just prior to the exchange about the first amendment, Mr. Coons was lecturing Ms. O’Donnell about how we must adhere to the interpretations of the justices of the Supreme Court. However, the misconstrual of the first amendment by 20th century Supreme Courts to incorporate the bigoted 19th century anti-Catholic concept of “separation of church and state” is an unconstitutional exercise of judicial overreach, and believers in the integrity of the Constitution quite justifiably object to that line of jurisprudence. Not only has it led many uninformed Americans to think that the phrase “separation of church and state” actually appears in the Constitution, but it has led others like Mr. Coons to embrace a secular hostility to religion in the public sphere.
Today, even pro-separationists acknowledge that the “separation of church and state” interpretation of the Establishment clause has produced a jurisprudence which is incoherent. We need to amend the first amendment to restore the original meaning of its establishment clause, which is non-preference among denominations, not secular hostility to faith in general. Chapter 8 of Timely Renewed explores this issue in more detail, and proposes specific wording for such an amendment.
Christine O’Donnell and the Separation of Church and State
There has been a flurry of notice in the media about an exchange in a recent debate between Delaware senatorial candidates Christine O’Donnell and Chris Coons over the concept of the “separation of church and state” and the actual wording of the first amendment which provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
Although unfortunately presented inarticulately, Ms. O’Donnell is correct that “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. This phrase comes from a a letter written by Thomas Jefferson more than a decade after the first amendment was adopted, and has become attached to an incorrect interpretation of the Establishment clause. The sole purpose of the Establishment clause was to prohibit the federal government from preferring one faith as a national religion. It was not intended to prohibit non-discriminatory government recognition of religious faith. Indeed, the same first Congress that approved the first amendment also voted for chaplains for the military and Congress, national days of thanksgiving, authorized the use of federal funds in the territories for educational institutions to promote “religion, morality, and knowledge,” and required that federal judges declare ”so help me God” as part of their oaths of office.
So where does this idea that the Establishment clause requires some kind of absolute division between religious faith and government come from? It arose later in the 1800s as part of the vicious anti-Catholic bigotry which unhappily dominated American politics after large numbers of Catholics began to immigrate to the United States. The concept was only read into the first amendment in 1947 by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, a former Ku Klux Klansman.
Just prior to the exchange about the first amendment, Mr. Coons was lecturing Ms. O’Donnell about how we must adhere to the interpretations of the justices of the Supreme Court. However, the misconstrual of the first amendment by 20th century Supreme Courts to incorporate the bigoted 19th century anti-Catholic concept of “separation of church and state” is an unconstitutional exercise of judicial overreach, and believers in the integrity of the Constitution quite justifiably object to that line of jurisprudence. Not only has it led many uninformed Americans to think that the phrase “separation of church and state” actually appears in the Constitution, but it has led others like Mr. Coons to embrace a secular hostility to religion in the public sphere.
Today, even pro-separationists acknowledge that the “separation of church and state” interpretation of the Establishment clause has produced a jurisprudence which is incoherent. We need to amend the first amendment to restore the original meaning of its establishment clause, which is non-preference among denominations, not secular hostility to faith in general. Chapter 8 of Timely Renewed explores this issue in more detail, and proposes specific wording for such an amendment.