THE HISTORY AND DEBATE OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Austin Lucas
October 9, 2016
INTRODUCTION

The doctrine of the separation of church and state has been the subject of much
controversial debate. Many assume that separation of church and state is Constitutional and,
therefore, must be sacrosanct. However, the words separation of church and state are not
specifically found in the United States Constitution. The following paper will analyze the
separation of church and state debate by first discussing the historical source upon which the
doctrine is based. Moreover, the paper will analyze source material from members of the
Founding Fathers. Finally, the paper will address a landmark Supreme Court case that altered the
legal understanding of the separation of Church and State.
HISTORICAL ASPECT OF CHURCH AND STATE
The Founding Fathers understood that many tyrannies came into existence because of an
improper balance between the church and state.
Religion and Government are certainly very different Things, instituted for different
Ends; the design of one being to promote our temporal Happiness; the design of the other
to procure the Favour of God, and thereby the Salvation of our Souls. While these are
kept distinct and apart, the Peace and welfare of Society is preserved, and the Ends of
both are answered. By mixing them together, feuds, animosities and persecutions have
been raised, which have deluged the World in Blood, and disgraced human Nature.
(Green 2014)
In this passage John Dickinson analyzes the fine line between a properly balanced
Church and State and tyranny when the balance is misplaced. It is important to note that
Dickinson was living in a time when the English forced the general population to pay tithes to
the State Church. Dickinson, like other Founding Fathers, found that systematically conforming
people into practicing a religion they dont believe in, let alone taking money away from them to
support, was to be avoided by all costs. This is evident by the fact that the United States never
legally required citizens to pay tithes to a State Church. (Britannica 2016)

In order to avoid the tribulation caused by an improper balance of Church and State, the
Founding Fathers formulated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The text
reads, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof . . . (United States Constitution 1788) The First Amendment is very
precise; Congress cannot make a law establishing a State Church and they cannot prohibit the
free exercise of religion. If the Founding Fathers were so extraordinarily clear about the Church
and State, why is there great debate in this country over the subject? This question is analyzed
through the Jefferson letters and a landmark Supreme Court case in the 20th century.
THE ESTABLISHMENT AND FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE DEBATE
Thomas Jeffersons letter to the Danbury Baptists is viewed as one of the main reasons
why there is debate over the meaning of separation of church and state. (Dreisbach 1999) In the
letter, Jefferson addressed the state of Virginias persecution of the Baptists and explained that
the First Amendment created a wall of separation between Church and State. (Library of
Congress 1998) Looking more closely into the context of these writing, however, completely
changes the modern perspective of Jeffersons letter. The Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson
because they were experiencing persecution by the state of Virginia and its Episcopalian
leadership. Jeffersons opposition against the favoritism the Episcopalians received is seen
through his writings to Benjamin Rush in 1800,
[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press,
covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of
obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States;
and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his
own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense
of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of
power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe
rightly. (Founders Online)

Perhaps if more people who advocate the total separation of Church and State would
more thoroughly research the freedom of religion principles espoused by Thomas Jefferson, they
would not use his letter to the Danbury Baptists to support their positions. In his letter Jefferson
was merely explained his concern to the Danbury Baptists as he had articulated to Mr. Rush.
Stated simply, Jefferson was against promoting specific sects of Christianity over others.
The Supreme Courts decision in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), however, caused
more debate by using Jeffersons letter to the Danbury Baptists as a means to alter the First
Amendment.
The establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means at least this:
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws
which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another [] No tax in
any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or
institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or
practice religion [] In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of
religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between Church and State.
(Green 2014)

The Court did reiterate the Founders belief that there should not be a State Church,
however, they stretched Thomas Jeffersons wall of separation too far. This decision meant that
Congress can not prefer one religion over another or any god centered view at all. By doing so,
this Court chose Scientism over Creationism. Not only did this Court reject Creationism, it
obliviously rejected the very foundation upon which the United States was erected. When
Thomas Jefferson famously wrote, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights . . . he was declaring a State Religion, the religion of Creationism. Thus,
the State forgot about their Creator and adopted non-Creationism. As a result of this Supreme
Courts misinterpretation of Jeffersons core belief the results which have followed have been
damaging to the nation. The late Justice Antonin Scalia held lawyers responsible for creating the
3

so-called separation between church and state. (Green 2014) Whereas, on the opposite side of
the debate they disagree, the high court's decisions have worked well in practice. (Americans
United for Separation of Church and State 2016) But in practice the Courts decisions have not
worked well. During the 20th century the United States suffered a moral degeneration. For
example, divorce rates have spiked since the displacement of Creationism. (United States Census
Bureau) This could be evidence that adoption of the anti-religion wall of separation has
damaged the United States Creationism society. It seems as though this nation and its leaders
have strayed away from the Founding Fathers belief of a Church and State balance.
CONCLUSION
While there has been much debate over the issue of the separation of Church and State,
the debate should focus on the intentions of the Founding Fathers rather than the unsound legal
pronouncement of nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. John Dickinson, along with many
Founding Fathers, believed there could be a perfect balance between Church and State.
Significantly, he never proposed there be a complete wall separating the two. Thomas Jefferson,
criticized by John Adams in the 1800 Presidential election as an atheist, was not suggesting that
the Church and State are completely incapable of working together, as Supreme Court believes.
Instead, Jefferson was merely protecting minority sects of Christianity from being consumed by
more powerful Christian sects. Therefore, it is crucial for both sides to analyze and consider the
plethora of source material at their disposal, rather than making the separation of Church and
State the topic of moral obligation and right.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
20th Century Statistics. United States Census Bureau. Pg 879. Accessed October 9, 2016.
https://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf.
Dreisbach, Daniel L. Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists Revisited. The William and
Mary Quarterly 56, no. 4 (October 2011): 805. Accessed October 7, 2016.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2674239?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.
From Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 23 September 1800. National Archives: Founders
Online. Accessed October 8, 2016. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/0132-02-0102.
Green, Steven K. The Separation of Church and State in the United States. Oxford Research
Encyclopedias. Last modified December, 2014. Accessed October 7, 2016.
http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/ac
refore-9780199329175-e-29#acrefore-9780199329175-e-29-note-1.
Jeffersons Letter to the Danbury Baptists: The Final Letter, as Sent. Library of Congress. Last
modified 1998. Accessed October 8, 2016.
https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html.
Prayer and the Public Schools: Religion, Education & Your Rights. Americans United for
Separation of Church and State. Accessed October 8, 2016.
https://www.au.org/resources/publications/prayer-and-the-public-schools.
Tithe: Almsgiving. Encyclopedia Britannica. Last modified February 9, 2016. Accessed
October 7, 2016. https://www.britannica.com/topic/tithe.