What "Wall of Separation"?

My friend Dran graciously invited me to join a book club. The book she has chosen for our group to read is The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian. Even though I have already read the book, I thought it would be interesting to share thoughts, opinions and concerns that are raised in the book with other women. We had our first meeting last night and I was pleased to meet all of the wonderful ladies! They come from interesting and diverse backgrounds, and we had a spirited discussion about the first two chapters. Dran, if you are reading this you did a great job as facilitator of our group!

Since I have covered the first chapter quite extensively in the past on this blog, I will just focus in on the second chapter, The Myth of Church-State Separation.

One of the questions that each member of the group is to consider after reading our chapter assignment is, "What did you learn from reading the chapter that you did not know before?"

Surprisingly, a few of the women admitted that they did not know that the phrase, "separation of church and state" does not actually exist anywhere in the Constitution!

Kupelian writes:

"The section of the Constitution that deals with religion is the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights - the first sixteen words of it, anyway.

There's the establishment clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") and the free exercise clause ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof").

The establishment clause - that's the one today's courts almost always focus on - simply prohibits the federal government from "establishing" a national church or from interfering with the established churches in the states! (Remember, several states already had state-supported "establishments of religion.")

Possibly you wonder whether the issue is really this cut-and-dried. After all, for the last half-century, judicial activists on the Supreme Court and lower courts, ACLU lawyers, the press, and the secular culture in general have embraced "the constitutional separation of church and state" as though it actually existed somewhere in the Constitution. Of course, none of these words - "separation," "church," or "state" - are in the First Amendment."

The author continues to explain how the wording of the establishment clause came about. There were several revisions over the course of four months until both the House and Senate agreed with the one that is now law.

During our discussion, Dran brought up many important points. The first one included a portion of a commentary written in 1811 by Supreme Court justice Joseph Story:

"The real object of the [First Amendment] was, not ot countenance, much less to advance Hahometanism [Islam], or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exlude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiatical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government."

Note that Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist came to the same conclusion as Story:

"It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the ahouse in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion."

Kupelian humorously states:

"Oh, by the way, as if to thumb its nose through time at the ACLU two centuries later, the very day after the House of Representatives adopted the First Amendmen'ts religion clauses, Rep. Elias Boudinot proposed a resolution asking President George Washingto to issue a national Thanksgiving Day Proclamation.

Boudinot said he "could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice, in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings he had poured down upon them."

On September 25, 1789, Boudinot's resolution passed, and within two weeks Washington responded with the following proclamation. Read it carefully:

General Thanksgiving
By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America
A PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington


[Source: The Massachusetts Centinel, Wednesday, October 14, 1789]

These inspiring words from the father of our country would no doubt have inspired a lawsuit threat from the ACLU (and the likes of Nancy Pelosi!) had the group been around then!

Now to the part that I learned from reading the chapter that I did not know before.

I always thought that Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase "separation of church and state." I knew that it was taken from a letter that was, ironically, intended to reassure the Danbury Baptists that the new federal government would not endanger the free expression of their religion. But what I found out was that Jefferson borrowed the metaphor from the sermon, "The Garden and the Wilderness," which was very familiar to Baptists of the time. As Jim Henderson, senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, explains it:

"That sermon, rendered by Roger Williams (the founder of the Rhode Island Plantation colony, and a Baptist), depicted the church as a garden, the world as a wilderness, and the wall as a device of the Creator's invention that protected the garden from being overrun by the wilderness. Williams explained that from time to time, for the purpose of disciplining sin in the church, "it hath pleased" the Almighty to break down the wall.

Thomas Jefferson, ever the politician, knew when he communicated with the Baptists that "The Garden and The Wilderness" was well known and widely read nearly two generations later. He appealed to them in the terms of their own great man's idiom."

Wow! There you have it! The wall of separation was meant to protect "the garden" of the church from being overrun by "the wilderness" of government. No wonder Chief Justice Rehnquist has said, "The metaphor of a 'wall of separation' is bad history and worse law. It has made a positive chaos out of court rulings. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned." In other words, it's a lie.