Wednesday, October 22, 2008

The Separation Myth

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This opening section of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution stands to this day as one of the most highly contested laws in our nation’s history, but does it imply the “separation of church and state” as so many in our country currently believe? The answer to that question is yes, but not for the expected reasons. To better understand the concept of “separation of church and state,” the origin of the phrase must be looked into. At our nation’s inception, our founders held a great fear of the nation reverting to the styles of government that were popular in that day’s Europe, which had been deemed undesirable for the highly independent American mentality. These unfavorable styles of government held a common denominator: in all of 18th century Europe, the institution of state churches was present, with the state religion determined by the governing body (usually a monarch). In fact, these state churches had been an integral reason for the migration of many of the colonists who had settled America in the first place. Seeing the people’s desire for religious freedom without government interference, certain founders such as Thomas Jefferson responded to the concerns of the nation in earnest. In his answer to a letter from a troubled Baptist congregation in Connecticut, Jefferson assuaged the Baptists’ notion that the religious freedom of the people would become abridged by a mandated state church. It was in this letter that Jefferson stated that “the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions…” and that a “wall of separation between church and state” had been built in their protection. Clearly, from the background information given above, the phrase “separation of church and state” means none other than the fact that our government is not allowed to mandate a certain faith; it does not imply that religion is something that should not influence the moral governing and lawmaking of the United States. Jefferson’s true intentions for “separation of church and state” can be realized through his actions as President of the United States. Jefferson supported legislation that called for the provision of chaplains for military units and that encouraged soldiers to attend religious services as well as supporting funding to build a church and provide a priest for a group of Native Americans. On top of all of this, Jefferson authored legislation that called for the punishment of Sabbath-breakers. If the phrase “separation of church and state” was truly meant to create the United States as a secular nation, then why did its original author not support that goal himself? It is not that Jefferson desired a secular government that was clearly devoid of religious influence (he, in fact, did the opposite), what Jefferson and the other founders clearly expressed a desire for was a government influenced by the morals of religion where no one was obligated to adhere to a specific government sect. A secular government was not the founders’ agenda, but is now propagated as though it was by many ignorant Americans, including those who claim to be highly educated. Because of this, many Americans believe the incorrect, rather than understanding the intent of the founders and the laws that they created. -reagan 08

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

As we have discussed ideology in class, and how it influences so many state related things, it is hard to believe that there will ever be a true seperation of church and state. I understand what the intent of our father's was, but don't we need at least some form of culture or religion to help us govern in a way that isn't totally void of morals and emotion? I think it unreasonable to re'coin all of our money to in order to please those peeved by the inscription "In God we Trust." I know that it can be done without "church" persay, but why fight it so much when the system that we have has a little of its indirect involvement and is still miraculously regarded as "working."

Anonymous said...

I really don;t understand why people spend so much energy fighting over small technicalities like a motto on a coin whrn there are more important problems. Really, the word God on your quarter is hindering or discriminating your alternate beliefs? People need to get over it, if it's not hurting you stop whining!

Anonymous said...

Apparently, neither of these commenters read my article. Ace1453 makes it out that I have defined "separation of church and state" as such ignorant un-American organizations like the ACLU have. Once again, for the thousandth time, "separation" was meant to prevent the takeover of state churches, NOT to prevent religion from influencing politics. My point was that the founders DID want a government where religion had some influence, because that is how they governed in our nation's early history.