Levell 1

Joshua Levell
20150322
Eng 1030-19
On the Separation of Church and State
It is said that there are two conversations one should avoid in civil conversation. These are
the extremely divisive topics of religion and politics. The separation of church and state combines
both of these topics into one giant (and often offensive) mess. There are many common
misconceptions about the origin of this idea and its application in the modern day court system. In
recent years Americans have taken up arms against each other on this issue in correlation with the
broad division of partisanship. It can be basically summarized as the Republicans wanting more God
in the government and Democrats wanting the government to be completely secularized
(Statista.org). So, the question is presented: who is right? Where should God be in the government?
Should there be any mention of a God at all, regardless of denomination or religion? These
questions are often left unanswered by fact and taken up only by the opinions of activists, but I
believe everyone could easily draw an unbiased and common conclusion if all of the facts and history
of the separation of church and state were thoroughly analyzed. That is the conclusion that there is no
place for the formal presence of anyones God in government.
The phrase separation of church and state is not found in the Constitution. The
Constitution does mention the topic, but with different, more ambiguous wording in the 1

st

amendment. The phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in reply to the Danbury
Baptist Association regarding their formal request that the government does not interfere with their
religious practices (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson). In his letter, Jefferson assures them that he
will adhere to the 1 amendment and maintain a wall of separation between Church and State
st

(Jefferson). This context sheds a slightly different light on the separation of church and state than is
commonly viewed in modern day America. The separation is often seen as a protection of the

Levell 2

government from religious establishments, but this original instance of this phrase means the precise
opposite; it protects religion from the government. So to say that Thomas Jefferson was the father
of modern day separationists is incorrect (Boston). His goal was not to restrict all forms of religion
from the public arena as seems to be the goal of separationists today, but to ensure the government
did not interfere with the religious practices of Americans.
This enigmatic phrase began to morph into a defense of the government from religion in the
mid-twentieth century, thus dividing the country into two main camps; the Fundamentalist
Conservative Christians (FCCs) who wanted the Judeo-Christian God to be weaved into the
government, and the total separationists (FCCs were sometimes separationists as well, but fifty-four
percent generally favor a non-separationist point of view (Statista)). According to Statista.com,
forty-one percent of Americans are in favor of the absolute separation of church and state. This is the
highest percentage among the data (thirty-four percent do not want absolute separation and twentyfive percent are unsure), possibly revealing that this problem is not as divided on party lines as is
usually perceived. Though the partisan divide may not be as prevalent as sometimes perceived, it
still exists. Sixty-five percent of Democrats believe there should be an absolute separation between
church and state, while fifty-four percent of Republicans believe there should not be absolute
separation. This data follows the general beliefs of each party. Republicans are (more recently)
historically conservative Christians, and Democrats are more liberal and secular. These two camps
each have good intentions for our country, but they are completely different mindsets.
Total separationists believe that there should be no mention or acknowledgement of any God
in the government. They take the phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson to be an equal protection of the
government from religion and religion from the government. Total separationists are not antireligion, but just do not think it has a place in the government. Many Christian denominations
support this view as well as non-Christians. According to Simon Brown (the Assistant Director of

Levell 3

Communications at Americans United for Separation of Church and State), they simply do not want
the government to ever show favor to religion over secularism. This includes funding provided by the
government being strictly limited to secular purposes. Religious organizations should have their own
means of raising money for their operations, according to total separationists.
The FCCs commonly believe that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and
therefore should keep their God in government practices if only for traditions sake. This point of
view follows Thomas Jeffersons original context of the use of the phrase separation of church and
state. FCCs often quote President (and Founding Father) John Adams famous statement: Our
Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the
government of any other. This is used as evidence by FCCs that the originators of our country
intended for America to be reliant on God above all else. Thus, denying the presence of religious
text in government buildings and practices goes against the very seed from which America grew.
FCCs have brought many cases to the Supreme Court defending the display of religious text in
courthouses and on public school property. These cases were ruled against (Stone v. Graham,
Allegheny County v. ACLU). The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of a secularized
government in many court cases spanning across the second half of the twentieth century, yet
religious texts are commonly visible in government buildings.
With most Americans in favor of an absolute separation between church and state, why are
there so many references to God within our government and on government documents? It wasnt
always this way. In fact, the national motto In God We Trust wasnt adopted until 1955. Many
believe the adoption of this motto was a response to the spread of godless Communism over-seas
(3). This motto was not added to currency until the 1950s either (it was added to Union money
during the Civil War, but wasnt officially adopted on American currency until 1956). The phrase
under God wasnt even added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954 (Brown). These factoids

Levell 4

present the argument that this battle to put God into the government is a relatively new one. They
also disprove the argument that this use of God on national government documents was the work
of our God-fearing Founding Fathers, which is simply not true. There is a very recent movement to
put In God We Trust in some form in every single courthouse in America. The movement is being
led by city councilwoman Jacquie Sullivan (Bakersfield, CA) (Brown). Her group, called In God we
Trust-America Incorporated, recently reported that over four-hundred eighty cities across America
now display the words In God We Trust in some fashion due to the groups efforts. So the
inclusion/exclusion of God from the government is not an old fight, but a new one. As mentioned
earlier, the Supreme Court has had to make judgments for the nation on this issue. There are two
main court cases that set the precedent early in the debate for what legislation was to come later on.
The first Supreme Court case that truly opened this dialogue was that of Engel v. Vitale in
1962. The argument of Engel was that the public recitation of a prayer each day in public schools in
NY violated the 1st amendment (Engel v. Supreme Court). His clients practiced Judaism and felt
their children were forced to participate in a religious act that conflicted with their personal beliefs.
This, according to the plaintiff, was a direct infraction of the Establishment clause in the 1

st

amendment (prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, (United
States Constitution, Amd. 1)). The Supreme Court sided with Engel with a six to one vote. They
explained that whether or not the prayer was done in a non-denominational fashion, it was still the
state of New York imposing religion on the students of the public schools. This clearly shows that,
half a century ago, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of an absolute separation between church and
state, and yet their decision is still wildly unpopular with many Americans. This unpopularity can be
attributed to false media hype over these types of decisions labeling them as an attack on Christianity
instead of the logical practice and interpretation of our nations Constitution. This type of
propaganda can be seen in a nearly constant stream from media outlets like Fox News. Their news

Levell 5

correspondent Todd Starnes often displays the practice of the guidelines outlined in the Constitution
as a war on religion (Starnes). These types of media displays easily sway the minds of the population
uneducated in this topic.
The second court case is that of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). It argued that it is
unconstitutional for religious schools to receive federal aid, as this is the govt supporting the
establishment of a certain religion which violated the 1st amendment. Private Christian schools in
Rhode Island and Pennsylvania were allowed (per legal statutes) to request and gain federal
monetary aid for their schools. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time was Chief Justice
Burger. Burger created a three part test that would decide if legislation adhered to the 1 amendment
st

(which is still used today). The first rule was that the law or statute must have a secular legislative
purpose (Burger) (Lemon v. Kurtzman). This meant that the law could, in no way, support or
interfere with religious practices. The second rule was that the law could neither advance nor inhibit
religion. The third and final rule was that the statute cannot foster an excessive entanglement
between the government and religion (Burger) (Lemon v. Kurtzman). The Supreme Court voted
unanimously in favor of the plaintiff, furthering their continuing support for the secularization of the
American government. This support, once again, was not for their own opinions and beliefs, but
from their unbiased analysis of the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
These two court cases show exactly what is and isnt considered separation of church and
state, as laid bare in the Constitution. There are many other court cases in which the majority have
been in favor of the secularization of the government forum. This shouldnt come as a surprise as
this is what was intended when the constitution was originally written. Even if the clause was
written with the protection of the church in mind, it still ensured that the government and the church
would remain two totally separate entities for America to retain its true and unique freedom. For the

Levell 6

government to give any favor to any religion whatsoever goes against the liberty so treasured by all
Americans, and the original intentions of our Founding Fathers.
So, should Americans keep fighting for the inclusion of their religious practices into the
public legislative forum? Should we focus solely on the practices of Christianity and the worship of
the Judeo-Christian God? After the evidence and facts of this argument are presented, this seems to
be an easy question to answer. It is very apparent that the secularization of the government was
originally laid forth in the 1 amendment of the Constitution. The very fact that the introduction of
st

God into the public legislative arena did not truly take hold until approximately 175 years after the
Founding Fathers laid the foundations for the law in America shows that this argument is a new one
that holds no real historical weight. Even the use of God as a ceremonial deity for patriotic
purposes causes problems. If this were the case, then using Allah on our bills, pennies, and in our
Pledge instead of the Judeo-Christian God would be accepted. However, as we all know, this would
not be accepted as America is predominantly Judeo-Christian. I believe that religion should be
completely removed from the government if America is to remain effectively free. This does not
mean I do not support religion or the principles of Christianity. If a voter in America wants Christian
principles to be implemented into American legislation, it is up to them to vote for a representative
who shares their same values. If there isnt a representative who does, then they can run for office
themselves. This is the beauty of freedom in America. All this being said, America needs to
completely separate religion from politics and the government. This is not an attack on religion, but
a means of keeping our government and religions uncorrupted.

Levell 7

WORKS CITED
"US Public Opinion on the Separation of Church and State." Statista. Statista, Inc., n.d. Web. 22 Mar.
2015.
Jefferson, Thomas. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Comp. Andrew Lipscomb and Albert Bergh.
Vol. 16. N.p.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, n.d. 281-82. Print.
Boston, Rob. "Myths DEBUNKED. (Cover Story)." Church & State 68.2 (2015): 9-13. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.
Stone v. Graham. Supreme Court. 1980. OYEZ. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.
Allegheny County v. ACLU. Supreme Court. 1989. OYEZ. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.
Brown, Simon. "Americans United Braces For Renewed Assaults On The Church-State Wall. (Cover
Story)." Church & State 68.1 (2015): 6-8. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.
Engel v. Vitale. Supreme Court. 1962. OYEZ. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.
U.S. Constitution. Art./Amend. I, Sec. 1.

Starnes, Todd. "Christmas Under Attack." Fox News. Fox, n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.
Lemon v. Kurtzman. Supreme Court. 1971. OYEZ. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.