Separation of Church and State

“Separation of church and state” is a phrase that has become synonymous with controversy and conflict since the concept was first introduced during the post Revolutionary War era in the newly formed United States of America. Although these exact words were never put in writing by the framers of the Constitution, the conflict between government, established churches, and freedom of religion was certainly created. It is improbable that the authors of the Constitution ever imagined the extent to which the First Amendment would be debated and will continue to be debated for years to come.

The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” At the times of its writing, the Colonies were attempting to establish a unified country without the discriminative practices and oppression suffered by those who came to these shores for a new life. When first establishing the Colonies, church and government were not entirely separate entities. There were established churches in most colonies and very little, if any, religious tolerance existed. As the Colonies grew and a greater number of established religious groups immigrated to this country, it became evident that the church and the government could no longer function as conjoined entities and that the government would be representative of the entire nation’s peoples regardless of their religious beliefs.

Colonial churches petitioned the President for decisions and clarification. In his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, President Thomas Jefferson created the metaphor of a “wall between the church and state”. Many believe that Jefferson’s words inadvertently created the controversy which exists today. Yet it was not until 1947 that the actual phrase, “separation of church and state”, was put in writing. Since the signing of the Constitution, it became the responsibility of the United States Supreme Court to interpret and rule on issues related to the First Amendment. The first such ruling of significance related to church and state took place in 1947. In the case, Everson vs. Board of Education, the court ruled in favor of the Board of Education in Ewing, New Jersey, stating that it was not unconstitutional to use a percentage of property taxes to pay for student transportation to Parochial schools. Justice Hugo Black referenced the wall between church and state and stated, “That wall must be kept high and impregnable.” Since this landmark ruling, there have been innumerable challenges to the first amendment regarding the separation of church and state, most of which have ended up with the Supreme Court.

As agents of the government, public schools must uphold the aspect of the first amendment which states that no government may establish a preferred church or religion. Extremists would have everyone believe that this means that any mention of God, religion, holidays, or spirituality is strictly forbidden. These extremist groups have gone so far as to petition textbook publishers to eradicate any words or material related to religion from all public school textbooks. If these groups have their way, the Pledge of Allegiance would be sanitized by removing the words “under God”. The Pledge of Allegiance has previously come under scrutiny, and the courts ruled that although one must stand during the Pledge of Allegiance, no one can be compelled to recite the words. This ruling provides balance so as no one person need violate their personal religious beliefs. Each individual’s religious freedom is protected.

Absolute separation of church and state cannot be achieved except at the expense of knowledge. Our world’s history, literature, music, art, theater, and dance have all emerged from a basis in religion. To eliminate the study of these subjects would be tantamount to programmed ignorance and would cripple our youth in terms of their ability to compete in a global society. Additionally, our understanding of the many peoples who make up the citizens of this country would be severely reduced. Even though the area of the humanities would be most affected by a complete separation from religion, mathematics and the science would be adversely affected as well, since the evolution of these subjects were heavily influenced by both the church and the government. Our entire educational system would be irreparably damaged if the extremists were ever successful in fully separating church and state in public schools.

Everyone in this country is entitled to certain rights and equality, however we are not, in fact, exactly the same. We are not a nation of clones, and to think that we should be is the antithesis of the very foundation of this nation. The delicate balance between church and state that has developed over time is evidence of these foundations successfully at work. We have choices in this country, and where many citizens of other countries around the world do not, we can choose the type of education we want our children to receive. If we believe and support a more secular education, then our children attend public schools. If we desire a stronger religious orientation to education, we have the option to send our children to private religious schools. The public school makes every effort to accommodate the wide variety of religions and ethnicities of the communities which it serves.

Schools, neighborhoods, families, all of society have seen a dramatic rise in violence, offensive language, and overtly vulgar behaviors. Much of this can be attributed to media bombardment and informational technology which has created a culture of acceptance of what used to be considered unheard of or strictly taboo. Those who vehemently oppose the separation of church and state would argue that lack of religion, or at the very least spirituality, in schools is partially to blame for the current state of society. This group would argue that religion as a part of a student’s daily school experience would foster a more highly moral climate and that these expectations would spill over into life outside the school. These groups would argue for established time for prayer in school as well as more teaching based directly on religious tenets. This style of education is readily available to those who attend religious schools, but how could a public school establish religious practices when it must be representative of all the people, some of whom are non-religious? The answer is, it cannot. Even if one agrees that children need a stronger moral education, it must be done in such a way as to remain neutral in terms of established religious practices. Today, many public schools have adopted “Character Education” to combat the overall moral decline of our society.

The separation of church and state we have in 2010 is likely not exactly what our fore fathers envisioned when they established the foundations of a new nation, but the system of balance that was also created still works even today. The Supreme Court serves its function by interpreting each individual case and thereby establishes the status quo until a newer situation arises. This was the case, is the case, and will be the case. Perhaps the phrase “separation of church and state” should be re-coined. Perhaps the “balance between church and state” would be more accurate.