Separation of Church and State

The degree to which religion should influence public policy is a national topic of debate and interest, and has been since the inception of the United States. In recent years, this debate has been exacerbated by such policies as the exclusion of Creationism in public science classes, the "under God" clause in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the exclusion of religious iconography from public buildings. This topic has become all the more relevant with the foundation of the Tea Party, which calls for an inclusion of Protestant religious principles being included in those very public and governmental spheres where it has been excluded. Much has been made of the writers of the U.S. Constitution and their religious orientation, and the idea that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were written to establish a country based on Protestant Christian principles. Those who support the inclusion of religion in public policy claim that their authority to do so derives from the similarity to the thought and intent of the Founding Fathers. However, a thorough study of the founding documents of our country and the public and private documents of the Founding Fathers themselves will reveal that this is, in fact, not only contrary to their intent for the government of the U.S., but also their personal religious beliefs. This paper will discuss the thought of the Founding Fathers, public and private, the philosophical integrity of what has come to be known as "separation of church and state," and finally the relationship between religion and government.
To fully understand the Founding Father's religious ideas, it is necessary to briefly look into the historical period known as the Enlightenment, otherwise known as the Age of Reason. The time span of this period begins sometime around the mid to late seventeenth century and ends near the beginning of the nineteenth century. The Enlightenment is notable for its insistence on the human faculty of reason, the empirical nature of the universe, and humans' capacity to understand the universe through empirical study, the importance of education, and a skeptical, doubting attitude toward traditional religious doctrine (Hooker, 1996). In place of traditional Christian ideas about the nature of the universe, whether Catholic or Protestant, many leading intellectuals of the Enlightenment ascribed to the ideology of Deism, which holds that God created the universe and its immutable laws, and let it run its course. Baruch Spinoza, an Enlightenment-era philosopher, is a good example of Enlightenment thinkers' attitude toward God and religion. Spinoza held that God is Nature, in toto, and that the proper means of worship is abstract intellectual appreciation of natural laws (Dutton, 2004). Another Enlightenment philosopher, John Locke, and his philosophical thought, is far more important to the investigation of the thought of the Founding Fathers.
John Locke, according to Martin, has been called the "American philosopher" (Martin, 2006). John Locke was outspoken in his disdain for the Divine Right of monarchs, and advocated a political institution of limited government and democratic involvement of the people. The idea of inalienable rights that eventually found expression in the Bill of Rights has its beginning in the writings of Locke. Locke, like his contemporaries, felt that God was able to be known by men through the use of reason, and adhered to the idea that faith and religion were necessarily separate from civil government, because religion derived its power from "the inward and full persuasion of the mind" (John Locke, 2001). Locke's influence on the thought of the Founding Fathers is indisputable, and it is evident that the concept of inalienable rights was not the only idea of Locke's to be used in the creation of the U.S., but also the ideal of religious tolerance and what would later come to be called the separation of church and state.
Martin identifies Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as "the Founding Fathers who played the greatest role in shaping the American understanding of the appropriate relationship between church and state" (Martin, 2006). Both were strong advocates of religious tolerance and the separation of church and state. This separation was desirable because the merit of any given citizen cannot be weighed by his or her religious views. The civil government is in place for a very specific reason, and that is to maintain social and political order. It was the place of religion to provide moral instruction and a sense of meaning within one's life. Jefferson argued this point eloquently, and Martin quotes him thus: "the legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injuries to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say There are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket" (Martin, 2006). Madison felt that the adoption of a state religion or the endorsement of any particular religion by the state was a form of tyranny. This was partially economic, since taxes would be levied to support a state religion, and he felt it to be oppressive to take the money of one who did not believe in that religion to support it. Aside from the authoritarian possibilities, Madison also felt that the mingling of church and state led to the dissolution of the moral fabric of both. Jefferson, Madison, and Locke were all influenced by the history of the Catholic Church. The Medieval Church claimed spiritual and temporal authority (Boniface VIII, 1302). The subsequent tyranny, violence, and corruption that Jefferson, Madison, and Locke perceived led them to be highly suspicious of the political power of any given religion. Locke, in spite of his beliefs regarding religious tolerance, went as far as to advocate intolerance toward papists, due to the possibility of the Church again gaining political power (John Locke, 2001).
The influence of Jefferson and Madison is evident in the Constitution. Martin emphasizes the secular nature of the Constitution, noting that it derives its legitimacy not from any superior being, but rather from "We the people of the United States (Martin, 2006)." This is significant, as it implies the "social contract" idea espoused by John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, another Enlightenment philosopher, which states that government arose from the desire of human beings to empower certain officials to offer protection from those who would prey on them, in exchange for allegiance to those officials. This secularity, Martin continues, was vehemently opposed by Christians at the time for excluding the necessity of elected officials to adhere to Christian principles (Martin, 2006). In seeming contrast to the "godlessness" of the Constitution, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights explicitly prohibits making any "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (Madison, 1789).
At first, there may seem to be a logical discrepancy between the governmental separation from religion and the popular freedom to believe in and practice any religion he or she deems fit. However, this relationship is neither contradictory nor arbitrary. Indeed, it is of the utmost necessity that government be separate from any particular religion or any particular sect, if its citizens are to maintain religious freedom. If the government were to endorse or adhere to a particular religion, the potential exists for the enforcement of religious laws, which may contradict the beliefs and practices of members of other religions; again, it is worthwhile to keep in mind Madison's conviction that such practices are "tyrannical," and opposite to the function of government. If, however, the government remains secular, concerning itself with civil responsibilities, such as ensuring that its citizens are protected from external and internal threats, the levying of taxes to support its initiatives, and maintaining social order, and does not interfere with the religious or spiritual life of citizens, those citizens are likely to retain the freedom to believe in and practice what they will. Also, governmental interference in religious matters is directly opposed to the small governmental model championed by Locke, Jefferson, Madison, and the other Founding Fathers.
The 2008 American Religious Identification Survey shows that the primacy of Christians in the U.S. is a waning thing. The estimated percentage of the population that identify as Christians of all denominations in 1990 was 86.2 percent, and 76 percent in 2008. In contrast, the percentage of those who identified as having no religion has grown from 8.2 percent in 1990 to 15 percent in 2008. Those who ascribe to other religions, including Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and less mainstream religions like Wicca are likewise on the rise (Kosmin & Keysar, 2009). It seems likely to assume that the rise in non-religious persons and those who adhere to religions other than Christianity will continue to grow as time goes on. Thus, the Constitutional separation of church and state becomes all the more important. Often, there is strife between members of one religion and another, which just as often escalates to violence. The role of the government as maintaining civil order is emphasized here. A secular government will be more effective in maintaining the rule of law among the diverse religions that exist amongst each other in the United States today. Also, the possibility of either actual or perceived endorsement of harassment or violence toward a particular religion, or any special status afforded to a religion is almost nonexistent. It is also worth noting that the moral and ethical standards upheld by most Westerners, including Christians, atheists, and rational humanists, are nearly identical. For example, most atheists will agree with the Christian moral of charity. This is due to the influence of Christianity in Western civilization, and the fact that very few have tried to restructure the Western ethical frame of reference (one notable example however, is Friedrich Nietzche). Thus, in reality, the question of whether or not to include religion in government is a superficial one; whether or not children pray in school is far less important than ensuring that murderers do not go unpunished, for example.
The necessity of maintaining a separation of church and state should be self-evident based on the above arguments. It is apparent that the Founding Fathers themselves held this idea in high regard. The views of Jefferson and Madison regarding this topic can be regarded as typical of the other Founding Fathers; the fact that the First Amendment as well as Article VI of the Constitution exist is evidence that the majority of Founding Fathers and state representatives did in fact ratify it. This fact, along with the analysis of Enlightenment thought provides the historical legitimacy of the separation of church and state. Aside from this, the function of the government as maintainer of civil order precludes its interference in religion or its attributing special or official status to a particular religion. The wisdom of the Founding Fathers should not be forgotten due to the insistence of outspoken special interest groups. Rather, the U.S. should continue the enlightened practice of religious tolerance, and the maintenance an impenetrable wall between church and state should be of prime importance of both the people and government officials.
 
Works Cited
Boniface VIII, P. (1302). Medieval Sourcebook: Unam Sanctum. Retrieved June 13, 2010, from Fordham University: www.fordham.edu/halsall/source…
Dutton, B. D. (2004, May 16). Benedict De Spinoza. Retrieved June 13, 2010, from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: www.iep.utm.edu/spinoza/
Hooker, R. (1996). The European Enlightenment. Retrieved June 13, 2010, from Washington State University: www.wsu.edu/~dee/ENLIGHT/PREPH…
John Locke. (2001, April 17). Retrieved June 13, 2010, from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: www.iep.utm.edu/locke/#SSH2a.i
Kosmin, B. A., & Keysar, A. (2009, March). American Religious Identification Survey 2008. Retrieved June 13, 2010, from ARIS.org: www.americanreligionsurvey-ari…
Madison, J. (1789, December 15). Constitution of the United States: Bill of Rights. Retrieved June 13, 2010, from Yale Law School: avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_centu…
Martin, W. (2006, April). Secular State, Religious People - The American Model. U.S.: Baker Institute.