Separation of Church and State in the United States – A Primer
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” First Amendment to the US Constitution, Part a, ratified effective Dec 15, 1791, also known as the “Establishment Clause”. Emphasis added.
In our Salem Sojourners meeting of Tuesday May 23, 2006, we discussed the importance of education and the failing public school system at length. The progressive banning of any form of Christian religious education or expression from the public school system, the growing lack of discipline, the rise in violence and the withdrawal of parents’ rights to opt their children out of objectionable course content have produced a political movement that calls for the issuance of vouchers to parents to send their children to the private schools of their choice. We did a cursory treatment of the history of Christian religious exercises in public schools and the current banning thereof when the question arose, “Doesn’t the Constitution call for the separation of Church and State?” This post will lay out a fuller answer to that question.
To set the record straight, the phrase “separation of church and state does not appear in any of the United States’ founding documents. The phrase a “wall of separation” referring to church and state originated with Roger Williams (1603-1684), an Anglo-American theologian, co-founder of Rhode Island and founder of the town of Providence. In Williams' day, church and state were intertwined throughout England and New England. Williams carried out a series of published exchanges with John Cotton, the chief spokesman for Massachusetts orthodoxy, in which his most consistent metaphor was the church as a garden in the wilderness of the world. In 1644, he used the garden metaphor as a way of describing the importance of separating the church from the state and attributed the problems of his own time to their being commingled. Williams 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." [1] Williams had himself been persecuted and banished from Massachusetts for disputing church doctrine. While he was president of the Colony of Rhode Island it became a haven of religious liberty and in 1658 Newport became home to the first Jewish synagogue in America – the Touro Synagogue.
In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, fearing persecution as a religious minority, wrote the newly elected President Thomas Jefferson a letter dated October 7. It said, in part, “Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty - That religion is at all times and places a matter between God and Individuals - That no man ought to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of Civil Government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But, Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our infant charter, together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted as the Basis of our government at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws and usages, and such still are; that 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 favor granted, and not as inalienable rights: And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen.“
Jefferson’s reply, dated January 1, 1802, stated in part, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, 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.”
The “act of the whole American people” to which Jefferson was referring is the ratification of the First Amendment. Jefferson used a phrase coined by a Baptist pastor in corresponding with a group of Baptists who would have understood it in a particular way. It is important to note that the context of Jefferson’s application of the phrase “wall of separation between Church and State” referred only to the federal government and was not absolute.
Further Reading:
1. Baptists in the history of separation of church and state.
2. Danbury Baptist Correspondence.
3. Cobin, David M. (1990), “Creches, Christmas Trees and Menorahs: Weeds Growing in Roger Williams’ Garden.”4. Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, 1802.
[1] “Mr. Cotton's Letter lately Printed, Examined and Answered." (London, 1644; reprinted, with Cotton's letter, which it answered, in Publications of the Narragansett Club, vol. ii.).
2006 Oregon Primary Results
Updated primary election numbers from the May 17, 2006 Statesman Journal. This is a partial list. Totals in most noncompetitive races have been excluded. Results are unofficial.
Governor DEM
1,000 of 1,000 precincts - 100 percent
x-Ted Kulongoski (i) 165,053 - 54 percent
Jim Hill 88,996 - 29 percent
Pete Sorenson 49,301 - 16 percent
Governor GOP
1,000 of 1,000 precincts - 100 percent
x-Ron Saxton 120,319 - 42 percent
Kevin Mannix 85,671 - 30 percent
Jason Atkinson 64,556 - 23 percent
W. Ames Curtright 7,111 - 2 percent
Gordon Leitch 2,966 - 1 percent
William Spidal 2,438 - 1 percent
David Beem 1,589 - 1 percent
Bob Forthan 807 - 0 percent
State Superintendent
1,000 of 1,000 precincts - 100 percent
x-Susan Castillo (i) 358,145 - 62 percent
Deborah Andrews 217,305 - 38 percent
Oregon Senate District 13 Forest Grove to Salem
31 of 31 precincts - 100 percent
x-Larry George 5,755 - 51 percent
Charles Starr (i) 5,497 - 49 percent
Oregon House District 18 Silverton, Molalla
15 of 15 precincts - 100 percent
x-Mac Sumner (i) 3,880 - 79 percent
Dale Settje 593 - 12 percent
James Buchal 441 - 9 percent
Oregon House District 25 Keizer, St. Paul
18 of 18 precincts - 100 percent
x-Charles Lee 2,056 - 59 percent
Susan Keen 1,423 - 41 percent
Oregon Supreme Court, Position 6
1,000 of 1,000 precincts - 100 percent
r-Jack Roberts 242,680 - 42 percent
r-Virginia Linder 223,898 - 39 percent
Gene Hallman 114,193 - 20 percent
r-Advances to runoff
Salem Municipal Court Judge
128 of 128 Marion precincts - 100 percent
14 of 14 Polk precincts - 100 percent
x-Jane Aiken 9,736
Lynda D. Olson 6,913
Kasia Quillinan 5,315
Salem Mayor
128 of 128 Marion precincts - 100 percent
14 of 14 Polk precincts - 100 percent
James M. Alderson 8,798
x-Janet Taylor 16,295
Salem City Council Ward 2
128 of 128 Marion precincts - 100 percent
14 of 14 Polk precincts - 100 percent
Jim Randall 1,272
x-Laura Tesler 1,563
Salem City Council Ward 8
128 of 128 Marion precincts - 100 percent
14 of 14 Polk precincts - 100 percent
x-Dan Clem 3,473
E.M. Easterly 1,274
Salem-Keizer transit levy
Five-year local-option tax to maintain and improve Cherriots bus service
128 of 128 Marion precincts - 100 percent
14 of 14 Polk precincts - 100 percent
Yes 19,877
No 18,634
* With an estimated 38 percent of registrated voters in Marion County, voting, the measure fails because it requires at least 50 percent voter turnout plus majority votes.
Willamina School District 30J
Shall Willamina School District 30J issue $13,500,000 of general-obligation bonds to expand one school and construct a new high school?
14 of 14 Polk precincts - 100 percent
Yes 150
No 332
Marion County County Commissioner No. 2
128 of 128 precincts - 100 percent
x-Janet Carlson (R) 14,209
Michael W. Forest (R) 7,922
Marion County Assessor
128 of 128 precincts - 100 percent
Lynn J. Bradley 8,706
x-Richard K. Kreitzer 18,851
Chris Lord 6,926
Douglas Schmidt 9,950
Circuit Court, 3rd District, Position 2
128 of 128 precincts - 100 percent
Ross Day 22,119
x-Paul Lipscomb 27,130
The Right to Life
Salem Sojourners has identified several issues of importance to ourselves as Christians and as members of the U.S. electorate. These issues, based upon the Holy Scriptures, provide the spiritual and moral criteria for living our daily lives and for evaluating candidates for office. In a comment posted to Bryan's "Issues List Refined" post, I suggested we prioritize the issues list, based upon those things which must exist before others have relevance:
1. Sanctity of Life
2. Family Values
3. School Choice
4. Compassion for the Poor
5. Social Justice in Taxation
6. Fiscal Responsibility
7. Land Use Planning, etc.
8. Willingness to Build Bridges
While this list may seem arbitrary, there is a rationale behind it. The right to life is antecedent to all others. If we do not have life, we can do nothing. If our right to life is not recognized by our government, any of our other rights can be infringed upon or abrogated altogether. The Founders recognized this principle when they placed these words in the Declaration of Independence , "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed..." The right to life is placed before the right to liberty, which is placed before the right to happiness because we must have life before we can have liberty and we must have liberty in order to pursue happiness. More importantly, the right to life is not conferred upon us by governments, but governments are established by us to secure our right to life.
It is not surprising that the right to life which was deemed to be "self-evident" by the writers of the Declaration of Independence is being debated by secular humanists today. What is surprising is that the right to life is not self-evident to many professing Christians. The Bible teaches us that all life, including human life, comes from God (Gen 1). It further teaches us that human life is of particular and special significance because humans are created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27). Our lives are a gift from God (Job 33:4) and have intrinsic value, regardless of stage of development in the womb, condition of health, disability, injury, infirmity, or age. Government officials who do not accept, appreciate, undertand, or abide by this basic principle are dangerous. If human life is not considered sacred, it can be taken away at any time - through abortion, "mercy" killing, eugenics, or even state-sponsored murder. If human life is not valued by our representatives in government, we cannot rely upon them to sponsor policies that support the family, have compassion for the poor, administer social justice in taxation, use our money in a fiscally reponsible manner, or plan land usage for our benefit. Moreover, we cannot count on them to set aside partisan and other differences to work toward our common good.
If we as Christians will support only candidates who believe that human life is sacred from conception until natural death, certain peripheral "right to life" issues will automatically be resolved; e.g., embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, "futile" care laws and human cloning. We have an opportunity and a duty as members of the electorate in our democratic republic, to elect only those individuals who honor and respect human life.
