The phrase “separation of Church and State” is a common expression. But often those who use it have little idea where it came from.
It’s been hailed as a constitutional and enlightened notion. Those who cite it positively have extolled that it has kept the government from interfering with the affairs of religions, though often they prefer to emphasize that it has kept religion from imposing itself on a secular government. This was not what the American framers had in mind, strictly speaking.
In 1802, the Danbury Baptist association of Danbury, Connecticut penned a letter to President Thomas Jefferson. Given that they were a religious minority, they expressed concerns in their letter that their religious practice might be under threat, and the state constitution of Connecticut contained no explicit clause that guaranteed the right of religious liberty. He wrote in the letter:
“ …religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.”
The Danbury Baptists hoped that Jefferson would affirm them in their sentiments and exercise his influence in their favor, though in their letter they acknowledged that the president ought not to interfere unduly in the affairs of the individual states. In response, Jefferson sent his now well-known letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he shared their feelings that the business of religion was between a man and his God. He reminded them of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which stated that there should be “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
If this were all that Jefferson said, we may not have the serious problem that affects the thinking of so many Americans today. In the letter, Jefferson also said of the effects of the first amendment he cited:“…thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
The consequences of this phrase have been disastrous for how Americans think about the practice of Christianity in relation to wider political society. Many Americans, whether they are Protestant, Catholic, of some other faith, or irreligious altogether, now think that all association between the political and the religious ought to be totally and strictly forbidden in all respects.
Some have thought Jefferson’s phrase is the correct interpretation of the religion clause in the First Amendment – “correct” in order to keep those they view as religious fanatics out of the running of the state. Others have leaned toward the idea that this interpretation can be used as a defense to keep the state from meddling in the affairs of faith. Never have they questioned if this was actually the way the American founders thought about the question of political governance and how it related to matters of religion.
The obvious quote to reference is John Adams’ statement that a republic can only be effectively sustained by a moral and religious people. But there are other sources which make clear that the founders, including Jefferson, did not think that the non-establishment clause in the constitution meant that the government had to take a totally neutral and even averse stance to dealing with religion in any way. In fact, there were themes of governmental promotion of the Christian religion through the early generations of the republic.
Fast-forward to 1985, and a consequential United States Supreme Court Case, Wallace v. Jaffree, decided on the issue of silent school prayer. A set of Alabama laws in the early 1980s first mandated, then simply allowed for, a minute of silent prayer or meditation to be led by teachers before the beginning of classes. An Alabama resident, Ishmael Jaffree, brought a suit against the Mobile County School board, and various school officials and teachers as defendants. Jaffree wanted a declaratory judgment and injunction against the defendants, restraining them from allowing or maintaining prayer or religious observance in school, on the basis that it was a violation of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
After a district court upheld the practice and the 11th circuit Court of Appeals upheld a 1978 law but held the 1981 and ‘82 laws unconstitutional, the case came before the Supreme Court in Wallace v. Jaffree. The Court ruled 6-3 holding that state endorsement of prayer activities was prohibited by the First Amendment.
Notably, Chief Justice William Rehnquist dissented. He outlined a thorough history of the attitude of the state and federal governments in the Republic towards religion. He was highly critical of the misapplication of Jefferson’s quote in the Danbury letter to the non-establishment clause as constituting its spirit. Rehnquist excoriated not only the popular adoption of the idea of total neutrality of government toward religion but also previous Supreme Court cases that promoted it.
Rehnquist pointed out that during the debates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 (which Jefferson was not present for; he was in France at the time), there was much disagreement on how the clause concerning religion should be written. Many members expressed concern that James Madison’s original language which prohibited a “national religion” might have the eventual effect of hostility toward religion, even though Madison assured them this was not what he intended. Eventually the clause as it now reads in the Bill of Rights was adopted, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Rehnquist rightly pointed out that this language could not logically conform to Jefferson’s “wall of separation” comment in his letter to the Danbury Baptists.
Even more telling than this or any writings or sayings of the Constitutional framers were the actions of both congress and the presidency toward religion, in particular Christianity, all the way up until the turn of the 20th century. George Washington, John Adams and James Madison all issued Thanksgiving day proclamations which made references to acts of prayer and thanks to God for the blessings of liberty He bestowed on the American people. Jefferson did not issue one, stating he trusted the people to have the wisdom to make acts of prayer and fasting at the times they thought fit.
Promotion of religiosity was not exclusive to presidents, Rehnquist wrote in his dissent:
“As the United States moved from the 18th into the 19th century, Congress appropriated time and again public moneys in support of sectarian Indian education carried on by religious organizations. Typical of these was Jefferson’s treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which provided annual cash support for the Tribe’s Roman Catholic priest and church. It was not until 1897, when aid to sectarian education for Indians had reached $500,000 annually, that Congress decided thereafter to cease appropriating money for education in sectarian schools.”
Both the legislative and executive branches made actions in tandem in order to provide for the spread of religion (including Catholicism surprisingly, at a time when “papists” were not as welcome in America) and its attendant education. Another example was the endowment of thousands of acres of land from 1789 to 1823 to the Society of the United Brethren for “the propagation of the Gospel among the heathen.”
The congressional act was from time to time renewed and signed into law by Washington, Adams and Jefferson. There were other examples that can be looked to but the point is clear: explicit government support was given not only to religion but the Christian religion especially.
Rehnquist turned to cite a Supreme Court predecessor, Harvard law professor and famous constitutional commentator, Joseph Story, who sat on the bench from 1811 to 1845. Story wrote that the idea that the government could or should be totally neutral to religion would be unthinkable to the vast majority of Americans in his time and in previous generations.
“Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration [First Amendment], the general if not the universal sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”
For generations, Americans as a whole never imagined that a prohibition of the establishment of a state church meant that the national government and state governments should adopt an avowedly neutral stance toward religion. Supreme courts starting in the 20th century gradually began to take this stance, to the point where cases have been brought before it which have argued effective hostility toward religion, Christianity mainly. The cases, such as Wallace v. Jaffree, have taken on a general attitude that even the mere allowance of free public expression of religiosity is somehow an affront to the rights of private citizens who do not want anything to do with it.
This was never the intention of the constitutional framers nor Americans overall for over an hundred years after the founding. Joseph Story rightly stated that the non-establishment clause was simply “to exclude all rivalry among christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.”
While it’s clear the American Founders desired no state church, they also had an understanding that religion – and specifically Christianity – should inform culture, politics, and society. A religiously “neutral” society cannot exist. It will either freely allow (and even encourage) the Gospel to spread or will devolve to elevate the state as a secular god.
The relationship between church and state correctly understood by many of the United States’ first presidents, framers, and Supreme Court justices can be accomplished without cruelty, undue coercion, or infringement on the basic rights given by God to all men.
So, in the year of our Lord 2025, it’s time we boldly proclaim: Mr. Jefferson, tear down this wall!
