NOW

Historical Context

The history of the United States of America offers a unique context in looking at the mindset and motives of the Founding Fathers. Historians have differing opinions in pinpointing a specific event or date that marked the beginning of history for The United States of America. One of the first notable events in American history took place between 1492 to 1502, when Columbus introduced Western Europe to the Americas (“Christopher Columbus Timeline” 2020). Historical documents show that immigrants coming from Europe were seeking freedom to practice their differing religious views and to escape the unjust rule of the British parliament. One of the first notable historical documents of the time was the European constitution, called the Magna Carta written in 1215. The first notable events examined in the formation of the United States are the European settlers landing in Jamestown in 1607 and Plymouth in the late 1620s (“Jamestown Colony” 2010). Much of the religious persecution in Europe’s state sponsored religion drove settlers to the American Colonies. All of the Founding Fathers considered themselves British subjects’ until breaking their ties to the tyrannical rule of King George III and Parliament. America’s Founding Fathers outlined the reasons for the separation in the Declaration of Independence (“George III” 2009). “A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people” (Declaration 1776). In 1776, the Founding Fathers' desire and determination was to prescribe freedom from the crown and its state established religion in the colonies. The distasteful experience of a state established religion was in the forefront of the founders’ minds as they drafted the Constitution of the United States, specifically the First Amendment and Establishment Clause. The Declaration of the thirteen United States of America declares, “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” (Declaration 1776).

 A collection of beliefs rooted in religious liberty influenced the religious heritage of the United States of America. Since settlers immigrated from Western Europe to the colonies, the European Constitution should also be considered as an influence of the United States. The European Constitution, The Magna Carta penned in 1215, was one of the first documents espousing religious freedom (“Magna Carta Translation” 2015). Number one reads, “In the first place we have conceded to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we wish that it be thus observed” (“Magna Carta Translation” 2015). An opposing view argues the Magna Carta never established religious liberty but instead merely inspired a new set of laws for America. “American colonialists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries perceived Magna Carta as an integrated part of a larger body of laws and acts, such as the Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act, and the Bill of Rights, all of which reinforced and guaranteed the fundamental rights and liberties of Englishmen” (Green 2017). Whether the magna carta intended to inspire the United States Constitution and First Amendment or not, is not specifically documented, but it would be a prominent historical document for the founders’ to reference.

In the 17th century, one of the first and largest expeditions took place on a ship named the Arbella, sailing from Europe to the Americas. The religious expedition, led by Governor John Winthrop in 1630, brought seven hundred immigrants seeking freedom to practice a pure form of Catholicism (“The Winthrop Fleet” 2012). Winthrop and the puritan immigrants sought to exemplify a higher standard of living in the newly established territory. Winthrop famously advocated, "We shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us" (“Massachusetts Bay — ‘The City Upon a Hill’” n.d.). The puritans believed their individual liberties were God ordained not given by the crown. “Under siege from Church and crown, certain groups of Puritans migrated to Northern English colonies in the New World in the 1620s and 1630s, laying the foundation for the religious, intellectual, and social order of New England” (“The Puritans” n.d.). Although some expeditions by the European immigrants were primarily economic, one of the largest expeditions by Winthrop was religiously focused.  These initial settlements of immigrants included a number of religious denominations--the common denominator was a belief in God.

The Founding Fathers of the Constitution were religious men, influenced by their ancestors' biblically based beliefs. “The perspective the Founders shared was overwhelmingly based on the Westminster Confession of Faith. Two-thirds of the framers came from Calvinist backgrounds; a majority were Presbyterians” (Religious Freedom Institute 2016). The Constitutional Convention in 1787 was attended by educated and intellectual delegates, encouraged by neighbors to represent their Constituents (Barton 1993). The delegates attending the Constitutional Convention represented several denominations, including: Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Quaker, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, and others. Every delegate was required to abide by their own states’ Constitutional requirements (Barton 1993). An oath of office in the Delaware Constitution read, “Article 22. Every person, who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust . . . shall . . . make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: “I, _________, do profess faith in God the father, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration” (Barton 1993). The oath of office in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, North Carolina and Maryland penned similar requirements of their representatives to recognize the supreme being of God. “Considering what was required for service in public office, it would be unreasonable to imagine that these men went to the Constitutional Convention with the design of separating church and state” (Barton 1993).

Interpretation Changes

In the last several decades, the Supreme Court of the United States has broadened its interpretation of the First Amendment and Establishment Clause. A narrow view of the establishment clause argues the amendment should bar the government from creating a national church or forcing citizens to take part in a religion (“The Religion Clauses: Historical Background” n.d.). Another view of the Establishment Clause believes there should be a strict wall of separation between government and religion, giving no aid or support to religion (Joppke 2017). In Everson v. Board, the supreme court decided in a narrow 5-4 decision that a New Jersey statute did not violate the First Amendment or Establishment clause (“Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing” n.d.). However, the opinions and reasoning from Justice Hugo Black resurrected the idea and now common phrase, coined by Thomas Jefferson, “separation of church and state” (Jefferson 1802). In the majority opinion, Justice Hugo L. Black based, cited Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association when he wrote the phrase “thus building a wall of separation between Church & State” (Miller, Vandome, and McBrewster 2011). Recently, the supreme court has broadened its interpretation of the First Amendment in a movement towards government neutrality, not favoring one religion over another or religion versus non-religion (LII n.d.).

20th Century Changes

Throughout the 20th century, interpreting the First Amendment and Establishment Clause has changed through several application styles and a landmark application test. Strict neutrality became the first interpretation approach in the 1960s, prescribing the establishment and free exercise clause as a cohesive principle instead of separate ideas (Pepper 1991). Engel v. Vitale, 1962, makes verbal prayer in a school unconstitutional even if it is both voluntary and religiously neutral (“Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421” 1962).  Reed v. Van Hoven, 1965, ruled if a student wants to pray over his lunch it is unconstitutional for him to pray aloud (Barton 1992). A number of cases began to undo the moral foundation the framers had first prescribed. In fact, the 1962 case Engel v. Vitale was the first time the doctrine of separation had been introduced and applied to education (Barton 1992, 14).

The Supreme Court began taking a more religiously friendly approach in the 1970s known as accommodationism. Accommodationism is a judicial interpretation that seeks to accommodate all religions, beliefs or non-belief. As Chief Justice argued his opinion for the Court in Lynch v. Donnelly, the Constitution does not ‘‘require complete separation of church and state [but] affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any” (Lynch v. Donnelly 1984). Courts begin to realize that complete separation between church and state was not practical. Hence, the creation of the religious test in Lemon v Kurtzman. Lemon v Kurtz establishes when an action or symbol is present it must have a primarily secular meaning. As more cases were brought forward following Lemon the test, it became apparent that complete separation of church and state was not practical. Supreme Court justices have utilized the Lemon test in hearing several First Amendment religious cases, but some justices disagree with its application. Justice Scalia said, “Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District” (“Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384” 1993).

Consequences of Removing Religion

Several negative effects can be correlated with removing religion from the public square. As posed by Professor of Law at Chapman University John Eastman, certain cultural indicators negatively correlate as we remove religion from the public square (Eastman 2020). The number of marriages, births and charity contributions show a downward trend as we remove religion (Eastman 2020). In addition, fatherless children, negative school behavior and crime on the rise since we have removed religion from the public square (Eastman 2020). According to Pew Research, the number of children living with unmarried parents has more than doubled since the late 1960s (Livingston 2018). “The share of U.S. children living with an unmarried parent has more than doubled since 1968, jumping from 13% to 32% in 2017” (Livingston 2018). The United States is now leading in the rate of children living with single parents (Livingston 2018). Cultural indicators can be influenced by several factors, removal of religion from the public square is one of many significant variables in the last century. 

 A biblical perspective of separating faith from the public square can be found in scripture. The Bible references several ideas and warnings against a divided people and commands his followers to respect government authority. Separating the church from the public square is causing division in families and communities as previously noted. Matt. 12:25 (NKJV) says, “But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.” As America becomes more divided in the 20th century, one solution is to bring morality and religion back into the public square. In Hebrews 13:17 (ESV) says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

Over the last seven decades, interpreting the 1st Amendment and Establishment Clause has caused the Supreme Court to teeter on the Founding Fathers’ intent of the relationship between government and religion. By referring back to the historical context during the first European settlement in the Americas, the recorded states’ Constitutional requirement of acknowledging God in their oath to take office and the various Christian denominations practiced by the Founding Fathers, it becomes evident religion was essential to the framers in establishing the United States of America. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers never intended for the church and state to be completely separate. Instead, the framers’ intent of the first amendment, specifically the establishment and free exercise clause, was to establish a wall of hedges protecting religion from government interference or establishment of a national religion. Over the last seven decades, religious liberties have been removed from the public square piece by piece. Similar to the story of a frog tale, if you are a frog you would jump from a pot of boiling water but if you are placed in a pot of warm water that is gradually heated to boiling, the threat is far less noticeable. A wall between church and state was not resurrected overnight, instead the separation of religion from society has occurred over several decades. 

Bibliography

Eastman, John. 2020. “Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing.” Oyez.Org. May 20, 2020. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/330us1.

Fagan, Patrick. n.d. “Why Religion Matters Even More: The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability.” Heritage.Org. Accessed February 7, 2021. https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/report/why-religion-matters-even-more-the-impact-religious-practice-social-stability.

“First Amendment - Establishment Clause - Government Display of Religious Symbols - American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n.” 2019. Harvard Law Review 133, no. 1. https://bi-gale-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/global/article/GALE%7CA611498832?u=vic_liberty&sid=summon.

Giles, Edith. 1910. “WASHINGTON’S FAREWELL ADDRESS.–(IV.).” The Journal of Education 72, no. 10 (1796): 271–271.

Jefferson, Thomas. 1802. “Letters between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists (1802) - Bill of Rights Institute.” Billofrightsinstitute.Org. 1802. https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/danburybaptists.

Joppke, Christian. 2017. “Beyond the Wall of Separation: Religion and the American State in Comparative Perspective.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 14, no. 4: 984–1008.

“Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.s. 384.” 1993. Justia.Com. 1993. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/384/.

LII. n.d. “Establishment Clause.” Cornell.Edu. LII / Legal Information Institute. Accessed February 7, 2021. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause.

Livingston, Gretchen. 2018. “About One-Third of U.S. Children Are Living with an Unmarried Parent.” Pewresearch.Org. April 27, 2018. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/27/about-one-third-of-u-s-children-are-living-with-an-unmarried-parent/.

“Magna Carta Translation.” 2015. Archives.Gov. October 6, 2015. https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured-documents/magna-carta/translation.html.

Miller, Frederic P., Agnes F. Vandome, and John McBrewster, eds. 2011. Everson V. Board of Education. Alphascript Publishing.

Pepper, Kathleen. 1991. The Strict Neutrality Principle: Workable Solution for First Amendment Challenges to Preservation Designation of Religious Landmarks? William and Mary Journal of Environmental Law. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1504&context=wmelpr.

Religious Freedom Institute. 2016. “The Religious Roots of the Constitution — Religious Freedom Institute.” Religiousfreedominstitute.Org. Religious Freedom Institute. June 30, 2016. https://www.religiousfreedominstitute.org/cornerstone/2016/6/30/the-religious-roots-of-the-constitution.

“The Establishment Clause and the Chilling Effect.” 2020. Harvard Law Review. October 2, 2020. https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/02/the-establishment-clause-and-the-chilling-effect/.

“The Religion Clauses: Historical Background.” n.d. Congress.Gov. Accessed February 5, 2021. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1_1_1/.

“The Winthrop Fleet.” 2012. Macycolbyhouse.Org. 2012. https://www.macycolbyhouse.org/Winthrop-Fleet/.

“What Does Separation of Church and State Mean?” 2020. YouTube. May 25, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_yS0X5s0lo.