Understanding the Origin of “Separation of Church and State” – Key to Biblical Citizenship

Understanding the Origin of “Separation of Church and State” – Key to Biblical Citizenship

During this election season, several myths about the “separation of Church and State” have been prominent in our culture. To be well-informed voters, it’s important to understand the origin of this phrase. To see Christian Voter’s Guides and resources to help you vote, Click Here.

Taken from Stephen and Sarah’s book, Navigating Public Schools, chapter 5.

The Origin of the Phrase “Separation of Church and State”

The words “separation of church and state” are not found in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any other Founding document, yet most Americans today are more familiar with this phrase than they are the First Amendment. Where did this phrase come from? It originally came from a previously obscure letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut in 1802. The Baptists were concerned that Jefferson, an Episcopalian [from the Church of England], would select his denomination of Christianity as the state-sponsored denomination in America. They were concerned that Baptists might be persecuted by the federal government just as they had been persecuted by the Church of England. After all, many of the Founders had come to America to escape persecution of their religious denomination by the Church of England. Fear of government persecution is what spurred the Danbury Baptists to write to President Jefferson. They were concerned that the Church of England was about to become the Church of America. In his letter of reply to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson assures the Baptists that they have no need to fear the government getting involved in their religious matters, because:

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.[1]

This obscure letter by Jefferson, which was never cited in any Founding documents nor in any court decisions until later in the twentieth century, is the only source of the so-called “separation of church and state” language. In fact, Jefferson also wrote in another letter that the government was prohibited from interfering in any and all religious exercises.

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises.[2]

Jefferson would have considered voluntary Scripture reading or prayer in schools a religious exercise protected by the Constitution. His letter to the Danbury Baptists did not influence our government much until 1947, when a court decision (which quoted this phrase) took it completely out of context. The purpose of the Establishment Clause is actually to protect religious institutions and public religious exercises from government control. Yet, with the current misapplication of the phrase “separation of church and state,” we are falsely led to believe that it is Congress’s responsibility to restrict religious expression in all areas of government and culture. This is so far removed from the original intent of the Establishment Clause that it has in fact flipped the intent of the First Amendment on its head![3]

The late Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist had the most succinct and to the point description of the so-called separation of church and state. He referred to it as “a misleading metaphor”:

But the greatest injury of the “wall” notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights . . . The “wall of separation between church and State” is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.[4]

What was originally intended to prevent Congress from interfering with religious institutions or exercises has only recently been misinterpreted as meaning that Congress must restrict religious exercises. As we have seen, nothing could be further from the original intent of the Founders.

The Road to “Separation of Church and State” As We Know It

What led to this “misleading metaphor,” as Justice Rehnquist called it? Let’s look at some of the court decisions that have led to our modern misunderstanding of the separation of church and state. The first case in which the Supreme Court took Jefferson’s phrase out of context, applying an entirely new meaning to it, was the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education. This was the first misapplication of the alleged “wall of separation.”

Justice Hugo Black, a devout anti-Catholic, wrote a decision in which he declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

For nearly 300 years of our nation’s history, Christianity was encouraged at all levels of society and government. The First Amendment was 1) intended to keep Congress from establishing one denomination of Christianity and 2) to stop government from meddling in religious institutions and exercises. But in 1947, the Supreme Court flipped the intended meaning of the First Amendment on its head. Thus began the federal government’s un-Constitutional restriction of our religious rights.

The next case on the road to the restriction of religious freedom in America occurred in 1948 in McCollum v. Board of Education. In this case the Supreme Court banned voluntary, parent-authorized, elective classes in religion because they were paid for with government funds. With the increase in jurisdiction that the reinterpreted First Amendment gave the courts, they started to flex their judicial usurpation of power using this recently acquired misleading metaphor:[5]

  • 1962 School-sponsored prayers to start the day declared un-Constitutional
  • 1963 School-led Scripture reading in class is not allowed
  • 1980 Ten Commandments, standing alone, cannot be displayed in schools
  • 1985 Moment of silence specifically for prayer declared un-Constitutional
  • 1989 Un-Constitutional to display nativity scene on public land by itself
  • 1993 Ten Commandments can’t be displayed at courthouses
  • 1993 Religious artwork by itself may not be displayed at school
  • 2000 Barring school-endorsed, student-led prayer at school sporting events

Through a simplified description of these court cases, you can see the trend. The federal judiciary has consistently expanded its influence and control over more and more areas of American society, and over the practice and expression of religious beliefs by American citizens. The result has been to remove or severely restrict our religious freedoms: freedoms that are guaranteed to us by the U.S. Constitution.

How do you think the Founders would feel about this misleading metaphor and how it has been distorted? Would they be upset that the freedom of religion they fought so long and hard to secure has been redefined almost out of existence? I’m convinced of it.

The Founders would also be upset because they provided a way in which “we the people,” could legally change any part of the Constitution if we desired to do so. It is called an amendment. In Article 5 of the Constitution, the Founders spelled out how to amend the Constitution; it is only to be done by a decision of the people. If we wanted to secularize our society, the Constitution allows that, by a decision of the people, we could write and vote on an amendment saying that we want a more secular nation. However, this is not the way the First Amendment has been changed.

Would the founders be upset at the way the Establishment Clause has been redefined? Absolutely! They never intended for the judiciary to be able to change the Constitution just because they want to. Pick any issue today, and odds are the judiciary has meddled where they never were intended to. George Washington had this to say in 1796 in his Farewell Address:

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or the modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation wrongful seizure of power; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

The federal judiciary has usurped powers which they were never intended to have. The separation of church and state as we know it has been imposed on us by their wrongful abuse of power and by anti-religious groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom from Religion Foundation pushing the false claim that religion has no place in our schools. The consequences are vast, and they pervasively impact our children in public schools.

Fortunately, although voluntary prayer, Scripture reading, and acknowledgment of the Ten Commandments have been severely restricted by the judicial branch’s usurping of power, the First Amendment still guarantees you and your children the freedom to express and practice your religious beliefs, even in public schools. Many Christians think that a total separation of religion and state has been established. This is not the case! We should not give more ground than has already been taken. It is crucial that you understand the rights you and your children still have under the First Amendment. The following chapters should empower you to understand and exercise those rights.


[1] Thomas Jefferson, “Letter to the Danbury Baptists,” 1802

[2] Thomas Jefferson, “Letter to Samuel Miller,” 1808

[3] David Barton, Original Intent

[4] Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Wallace v. Jaffree, U.S. Supreme Court, 1985

[5] David Barton, Original Intent

0 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *