Home Page

Introduction

Government

Environment

Judiciary    Scalia
   Federalist Society

Bush

Faith Base Initiative

Dominion Economics

Schools and Homophobia

Religious Institutions

Middle East

The Media

Satan

States' Rights

Separation of Church and State

Appeal of the Religious Right

2002 Texas GOP Platform

Biography of Joan Bokaer

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992. From Religious Tolerance.org Click Here.

Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State writes: "The constitutional principle of separation of church and state has given Americans more religious freedom than any people in world history. Around the globe, those suffering under the heavy heel of government-sponsored religious oppression look to America's church-state model with longing. The "wall of separation between church and state" is America's bulwark of true religious liberty."

The Christian Coalition and its allies are ardent foes of church-state separation. Let's look at what was said about the concept at the last Road To Victory rally sponsored by Christian Coalition just before the 2002 elections. As Joseph Conn tells us in Church and State, "speakers seemed to compete with each other to say the worst things they could about this concept."

Conn quotes such notables as Coalition founder Pat Robertson who described church-state separation as "a lie" and "a distortion foisted on us over the past few years by left-wingers." Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore termed separation "a fable" and insisted that the phrase "has so warped our society it’s unbelievable." Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) upped the ante, calling concerns about church and state "the phoniest argument there is."

But the award for the most vicious attack goes to Joyce Meyer, the TV preacher who cosponsored the Coalition’s national meeting. Meyer lambasted the constitutional concept as "really a deception from "Satan." For the article by Joseph Conn called "Christian Coalition, Undermining America," Click Here.

For a brochure from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State discussing ten "myths" surrounding the principle of separation of church and state   Click Here.

The following link is an article by Rob Boston of American's United for Separation of Church and State in response to David Barton, who has made a career of discrediting that principle. Click Here

The following link is a an excerpt from Legacy Of Freedom by Rob Boston, as quoted in Church and State, January, 2003. "Jefferson, Madison And The Nation’s Founders Left Us Church-State Separation. Can We Keep It?" by Rob Boston Click Here

Below is an email sent by Donya Khalili from Americans United for a Separation of Church and State:

It is true that the literal phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but that does not mean the concept isn't there. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

What does that mean? A little history is helpful: In an 1802 letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson, then president, declared that the American people through the First Amendment had erected a "wall of separation between church and state." (Colonial religious liberty pioneer Roger Williams used a similar phrase 150 years earlier.)

Jefferson, however, was not the only leading figure of the post-revolutionary period to use the term separation. James Madison, considered to be the Father of the Constitution, said in an 1819 letter, "[T]he number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church and state." In an earlier, undated essay (probably early 1800s), Madison wrote, "Strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church, State and Freedom, "It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American people....[T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that 'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including 'separation of church and state,' have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles."

Thus, it is entirely appropriate to speak of the "constitutional principle of church-state separation" since that phrase summarizes what the First Amendment's religion clauses do-they separate church and state.

Religious Right activists have tried for decades to make light of Jefferson's "wall of separation" response to the Danbury Baptists, attempting to dismiss it as a hastily written note designed to win the favor of a political constituency. But a glance at the history surrounding the letter shows they are simply wrong.

As church-state scholar Pfeffer points out, Jefferson clearly saw the letter as an opportunity to make a major pronouncement on church and state. Before sending the missive, Jefferson had it reviewed by Levi Lincoln, his attorney general. Jefferson told Lincoln he viewed the response as a way of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."

At the time he wrote the letter, Jefferson was under fire from conservative religious elements who hated his strong stand for full religious liberty. Jefferson saw his response to the Danbury Baptists as an opportunity to clear up his views on church and state. Far from being a mere courtesy, the letter represented a summary of Jefferson's thinking on the purpose and effect of the First Amendment's religion clauses.

Jefferson's Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision the high court said Jefferson's observations "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In the court's 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church and state.

In 1947 the Supreme Court made a decision affirming the "wall of separation between church and state." In 1971 another major Supreme Court case continued to uphold the 'wall of separation'. It is referred to as the Lemon Test.

For a discussion of the two Supreme Court decisions   Click Here

In 1962 the Court found official school prayers was unconstitutional. Only Government mandated or required programs of prayer and Bible reading violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. No other type of prayer activity was prohibited.

These Supreme Court decisions have upheld a principle that has, as Boston writes, " given Americans more religious freedom than any people in world history." The separation of church and state has come under strong attack in the past decade from the Religious Right. On January 12, 2003, Justice Scalia speaking at an event called Religious Freedom Day, publicly attacked the separation of church and state signaling the problems this important principle will have under a Supreme Court with a Scalia majority.