Quite a while ago I wrote a post about the phrase “separation of church and state”. I pointed out that the phrase was used by Thomas Jefferson to describe the freedom that the church had to exist without state intervention. It does not mean that the church must be strictly reserved to the private sphere or that public expressions of religion are unconstitutional. The reason I bring this up again is that religious liberty is being eroded and the battle is hitting close to home. I live right behind the Mooresville High School football stadium. That stadium is becoming yet another battlefield where the fight for freedom is being fought. MHS football coach Hal Capps was recently ordered by the Freedom From Religion Foundation to stop praying with players after games. The foundation called Capps’ behavior “unconstitutional”. I veer off the history track briefly as I write “A Defense for Prayer”.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Nowhere in the Constitution do the words “separation of church and state” appear. That phrase was a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a personal letter to a New England Baptist congregation. (See my post entitled “The Wrongly Understood, Wrongly Used, Metaphorical Philosophy of One Man”.) Nowhere in the Constitution is public prayer forbidden. In fact, the Founding Fathers prayed publicly and encouraged massive, state-wide, public, “days of prayer and humiliation”. Samuel Adams, one of the foremost members of the Sons of Liberty called on the people of Massachusetts to hold days of prayer and fasting on three different occasions in the 1790s. Elbridge Gerry and John Hancock did the same.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, in declaring Coach Capps’ actions “unconstitutional” are acting unconstitutionally themselves. “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. By forcing Coach Capps to stop praying, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is taking away his freedom to freely exercise his religion. This is unconstitutional.
Coach Capps should be able to freely exercise his religion, that includes praying publicly with his players. But he isn’t the only one suffering mild persecution. All across America, Christians are barred from praying and reading the Bible in school among other public places. This is an unacceptable, unconstitutional situation. The erosion of religious liberty in America today is disturbing. We must stand up and fight for freedom.
I kind of thought that all that hurting of Christians would stay out of the USA but this whole thing with Coach Capps just made me realize that it is here too. But, aren’t we blessed we can still pray privately as a church and family for now! Thanks for standing up to it Jace. Great job!!
CeCe
Any Christian who takes his faith outside of the church building and tries to engage the culture will encounter this type of “persecution”. (It’s minor now, but the clouds are growing very, very ominous.) Just come out to a local abortion clinic and speak truth and you will face it. I don’t think the average Christian has any idea of the hatred, hostility and vitriol people have for Christ, His true Church and His commandments. Enemies of God don’t care about and aren’t bothered or threatened by Christians who stay in the four walls of the church, but step outside, take a Biblical stand and it’s an all out war. I’m very proud of you, Jace, for the Biblical stand you are taking. May God protect you and bless you. Remember, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. They will prevail against the Republican Party, the Tea Party, Conservatives, etc., but they won’t prevail against the Church. You were made for such a time as this!
Thank you for your encouragement and wisdom. God knows all and he is in control!
Confusion understandably arises about separation of church and state because the constitutional principle is sometimes equated with a widely supported political doctrine that goes by the same name and generally calls for political dialogue to be conducted on grounds other than religion. The underlying reasons for that political doctrine are many, but three primary ones are that (1) it facilitates discussion amongst people of all beliefs by predicating discussion on grounds accessible to all and (2) it avoids, in some measure at least, putting our respective religious beliefs directly “in play” in the political arena, so we’re not put in the position of directly disputing or criticizing each other’s religious beliefs in order to address a political issue and (3) since the government cannot make laws or decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion, it makes little sense to urge the government to do just that. This political doctrine, of course, is not “law” (unlike the constitutional separation of church and state, which is), but rather is a societal norm concerning how we can best conduct political dialogue in a religiously diverse society. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the doctrine is a good idea or not and whether or how it should influence us in particular circumstances.
I applaud your interest in history and law. In this and your earlier post, though, you repeat some misunderstandings, commonly encountered in the blogosphere, about separation of church and state.
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
That the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who mistakenly supposed they were there and, upon learning of their error, fancy they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, noting the expressed understanding of Madison perhaps even more than Jefferson, and only after concluding its analysis and stating its conclusion did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion. The notion, often heard, that the Court rested its decision solely or largely on that letter is a red herring.
Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). Indeed, he understood the original Constitution–without the First Amendment–to separate religion and government. He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820).
With respect to the coach’s situation, it is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not, as is sometimes heard, purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school coaches coaching students at practices or games), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. (Students also are free to exercise and express their religious views–in a time, manner, and place that does not interfere with school programs and activities.) If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
Thanks for the comments Doug. Much to think about regarding your ideas. Thanks again for chiming in and supporting your points so well.