Separation of Church and State: The Misleading Metaphor

In his discussion of Legal Guidelines applicable to the case before him, Judge Frank W. Wilson explained the First Amendment:

There are two clauses in the First Amendment that deal with the subject of religion. The Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof" Lay persons often refer to the first of these two clauses as requiring "Separation of Church and State" and to the second as assuring "Freedom of Religion". A more accurate summarization and abbreviation of the clauses, and that used within the legal community, is to refer to the first clause as the "Establishment Clause" and the second as the "Free Exercise Clause." 468 F. Supp. 133 at 142.

In an editorial titled "Misreading the Constitution" in the Chattanooga Times Free Press on June 9, 2004, Associate Publisher Lee Anderson writes to the point:

The most familiar expression used in attacks seeking to snuff out public expressions concerning God, prayer and the Bible is "separation of church and state." That phrase has been used so often and so authoritatively that many people do not realize that no such words were ever written into the Constitution. (They come from a personal letter by Thomas Jefferson in a quite different context.) [emphasis added]

To examine the "quite different context", we borrow from the scholarly Constitutional research of David Barton in Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution, and Religion (WallBuilder Press, 2000, 3rd edition, 3rd printing, January 2004). Chapter 3 of Barton's book is titled "The Misleading Metaphor," the expression used by Justice William Rehnquist to describe "separation of church and state," which term appears not in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or any other founding document, but in an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut.

Upon his election as President, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801. A portion of Jefferson's short and polite reply on January 1, 1802, assuring them that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the government is as follows:

Gentlemen, -- The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative 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 separation between Church and State.

Barton observes:

Very simply, the "wall" of the Danbury letter [was] not to limit religious activities in public; rather [it was] to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions. [emphasis added]

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson's intent. In fact, when Jefferson's letter was invoked by the Court (only once prior to the 1947 Everson case - the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today's Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that Court published Jefferson's full letter, and then concluded:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson's letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. [emphasis added]

That court then succinctly summarized Jefferson's intent for "separation of church and state":

[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.

Therefore, if Jefferson's letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given - as in previous years. Furthermore, that single letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. Earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson's Danbury letter for what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America's history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter -- words clearly divorced from their context - have become the sole authorization for a national judicial policy. A proper analysis of Jefferson's views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.[emphasis added]

One further note should be made about the now infamous "separation" dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase "separation of church and state." It seems logical that if this had been the intent of the Founding Fathers for the First Amendment - as is so frequently asserted - then at least one of those ninety would have mentioned that phrase; none did.

It disturbs us, therefore, that words framed to describe a "wall" to keep the government's hands off of personal expressions of convictions and beliefs has been turned on its head now to be invoked for the exact opposite intent, i.e., to keep the individual from being able to express his beliefs in public.

Any contemporary American has the right to hold and express a personal belief in the "separation of church and state." Even certain modern courts have done so. It cannot be stated with historical accuracy, however, that our Founding Fathers, the framers of the U. S. Constitution and founders of our public schools, had any such intent.

But for Bible in the Schools, keeping religion out of public expressions or out of governmental institutions (schools) is not an issue. The Bible History courses offered as electives in the middle and high schools of Hamilton County are not religion courses. The Bible is taught as a text book from which its words speak for itself. Highly qualified, state-certified, professional teachers are carefully trained and supervised to insure that, as instructed by Judge Frank Wilson, they seek neither "to disparage nor to encourage a commitment to a set of religious beliefs."

Bible History, as taught in Hamilton County, meets the Constitutional tests enumerated in Judge Wilson's 1980 ruling, namely that
(a) the nature, intent and purpose of the course must be secular,
(b) the primary effect of the course must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and
(c) the course must be offered in a manner that avoids excessive entanglement between government and religion.