COMMENTARY: Yes, There is a First Amendment Wall of Separation

c. 2005 Religion News Service (UNDATED) “Is there such a thing as separation of church and state?” asks a reader. Yes, it is required by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Arguments about “separation of church and state” […]

c. 2005 Religion News Service

(UNDATED) “Is there such a thing as separation of church and state?” asks a reader.

Yes, it is required by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”


Arguments about “separation of church and state” sound like other culture-war arguments being waged in code language. Like “family values,” as if that were a settled compilation waiting to be implemented; or “states’ rights,”a onetime cover for perpetuating racial segregation in the name of freedom.

The First Amendment cuts two ways. First, it prevents the state from establishing any religion as official. Second, it prevents the state from denying people the right to exercise their religion, whatever it may be. Leading off the amendments guaranteeing American freedoms, the prohibitions sought to avoid the bloody religious wars that many colonials came to America to escape, as well as remembered excesses of intolerance in the early colonies.

Free exercise of religion seems well established, although efforts continue against non-mainstream religious practices _ as if minority rights could be compromised without endangering the majority rights, a delusion whose outcome we witnessed in Germany in the 1930s.

The “establishment of religion” question seems more lively, although not in the same form as in the 18th Century. I doubt that compelling attendance at certain churches has much appeal, except perhaps among the proprietors of those churches. What some want is to enshrine their particular beliefs in the law of the land _ specifically in laws pertaining to sexuality, families, scientific origins and medical practices _ as opposed to the topics Jesus actually addressed, namely, wealth, power, mercy and justice.

Some insist that the United States is, or was intended to be, a “Christian nation,” and therefore “Christian values” (as they define them, of course) must guide our laws. Southern Baptist leader W.A. Criswell sounded the charge in a television interview in 1984: “I believe this notion of the separation of church and state was the figment of some infidel’s imagination.”

What do I think about “separation of religion and state”? (The amendment is broader than “church,” a Christian term.)

First, the impact of the First Amendment is not only to protect religion from incursions by the state, but also to protect the state from the heavy hand of religion. The amendment avoids what we saw in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where religion and state became one, and the result was totalitarian oppression, especially of women and religious minorities.


Second, the issue at hand is the effort by conservative Christians to legislate their moral views into local and federal law. It is precisely such a heavy theocratic hand that the Constitutional principle seeks to avoid. The issue isn’t their morality vs. no morality, as if their slant on moral codes were absolute truth and anything less than that is a moral vacuum. The issue is whether their narrow religious agenda becomes the law for all citizens.

Third, the First Amendment doesn’t prevent the religious from engaging in politics or from bringing their faith to that engagement. Indeed, both liberal and conservative Christians believe their faith compels them to be active politically, although they come out on different sides of most issues, despite quoting the same Bible.

Finally, we must learn from history. Religion tends to become both corrupt and cruel when given the reins of state. We religious folks are poor rulers. Because we talk about our faith in absolutes, we don’t know how to compromise in the political arena, to negotiate, to consider other people’s rights and views as legitimate. We tend to be rigid, doctrinaire, ideological, resistant to change, far too certain of our correctness, and at odds with any data that disputes our writings or creeds.

It seems far better for religious institutions to be serving, healing and teaching than holding seats of power.

KRE/JL END EHRICH

(Tom Ehrich is a writer, consultant and leader of workshops. His book, “Just Wondering, Jesus: 100 Questions People Want to Ask,” was published by Morehouse Publishing. An Episcopal priest, he lives in Durham, N.C. His Web site is http://www.onajourney.org.)

Editors: To obtain a photo of Tom Ehrich, go to the RNS Web site at https://religionnews.com. On the lower right, click on “photos,” then search by subject or slug. If searching by subject, designate “exact phrase” for best results.


Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!