What was the true nature of the Separation of Church and State clause? How has it been distorted in modern day times?
My understanding is that at the time when Jefferson proposed the separation clause to Madison each colony, or state, had their own adopted religion.
For example, Virginia was an Anglican state. Its charter, or constitution, claimed "no man who is not of the Anglican faith can hold public office in the Commonwealth of Virginia"
Pennsylvania was the most liberal state at the time. Its charter said, "no man not affirming of a supreme creator can hold public office in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania."
They used tax dollars to build churches, purchase bibles for church and Sunday school, etc. They did this, because that's what they did in England since the dawn of time.
Jefferson saw that a new federal congress was created. He feared that the federal congress could adopt its own religion and supercede it over the states. The separation clause Jefferson proposed was a limitation on congress from telling the states that they had to adopt the federal religion. It was totally a matter of states rights. We know this by reading the letters written back and forth from Jefferson and Madison, who both toured the country giving speeches about the subject. They became lifelong friends.
The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was written in a letter by Jefferson on January 1, 1802, to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. Rumors that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion were spreading like wildfire.
Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that the federal government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:
"I contemplate with solemn 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."
The reason Jefferson chose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
"When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that therefore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world."
Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles, and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. It wasn't until the radicals of the 1960s began tinkering with almost 200 years of tradition of the concept of government not establishing but promoting religious values and morality that our society began its downfall culturally and morally. For example, the Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably. Today the Bible cannot even be taught from a historical perspective. To cut out the Bible from teaching History is like cutting out whole pieces of our past. Our society was built on the values of biblical
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity. The U.S.A. is a Christian nation by overwhelming numbers.
The atheists now claim that a Nativity scene on public property is an attack on them and their values. This is the argument now being eaten up by activist judges. The difference here is that a Nativity scene in a school is not government establishing a religion. It is promoting the values of a religion, but there are huge differences between establishing a state-sponsored religion and promoting any religion.
We now live in a time where the godless are claiming that promoting your individual and personal beliefs is an attack on atheism. Doesn't this mean that according to the argument of the modern day atheist promotion of anything but atheism is allowed by the Constitution?
I view the radicalization of the separation clause (which doesn't appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution) as a more sinister plot. I believe that liberals wanted to remove morality from public life, especially from public schools. To remove morality would make it much more easy to indoctrinate young students to the liberal (read socialist) mindset, and removing religion from schools was the best way to remove the teaching of morality. One could argue that Civics was a teaching in morality. Civics used to be taught in schools. Civics was basically teaching how to be a good citizen, neighbor, and member of society. We no longer teach Civics in public school, and I believe it's because of the same reasons we removed religion. Civics would remind students that there are moral codes in every society that cannot really be legislated against.
There is no right to not be offended in the U.S. Constitution, so what other reason would the liberals remove religion than for indoctrination purposes? And it's worked. Today most students believe that prayer in school is wrong, having the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill" on a wall of a school is an abomination, and teaching science as opposed to creationism is the way to go.
Thoughts?
