          Separation of Church and State in America: A Short History
                               by Mister Zen
                      Copyleft 1992 - All Rites Reversed
            ------------------------------------------------------

This short work is in response to recent statements made on CultWatch
to the  effect that:

  a)    The USA has no Constitutional Ammendment providing for the
        separation of church and state.

  b)    The founding fathers did not intend for there to be such a
        separation.

  c)    The USA was intended by the founding fathers to be a Christian
        nation.

  d)    That the 1st Ammendment to the Constitution is absolute, in
        that any attempt to make illegal prayer in schools is
        unconstitutional.

I believe these statements to be erroneous, and am therefore
promulgating this thesis. I hope that it sheds some light on
the situation.

Since it would appear to be Christians who are putting forth
the aforementioned balderdash, I'd like to begin by quoting an
authority whom some may have respect for, who spoke on the
separation of church and state. His name was Jesus of Nazareth,
and he has been quoted as having said, "Render to Caesar the
things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's"
(Mark 12:17), which I believe indicates a clear distinction
being made between things secular and things spiritual. It
would appear, Christians, that your own founder [sic] was in
favor of keeping church and state separate!

In order to better understand why our founding fathers wished
to keep separate the functions of church and state, it would do
to take a close look at prevailing conditions in England prior
to the colonization of America.

In the 16th and 17th centuries, the government attempted to
declare illegal and destroy any religion that did not adhere to
standards set forth by the official state church, the Church of
England (Anglican). This included Catholics and some Protestant
faiths. Puritans were prohibited from publishing their books
and pamphlets. A famous Puritan, John Milton, did succeed in
publishing a protest against the situation, the "Areopagitica."

Popular dissent against the restrictive laws led in part to the
English Civil War in 1642, which put the Puritans in power.
Apparently unable to learn their lesson after having been
repressed themselves, they promptly began oppressing the
Catholics. Then came Oliver Cromwell, who favored religious
toleration. Following him came the restoration of Charles II to
the throne in 1660, and he instituted the Clarendon Code in
1661, which legalized persecution of non-Anglicans. There was,
again, a great deal of dissent over this unpopular law, and
following the Glorious Revolution in 1689, William III and Mary
II again permitted religious toleration.

One may note with irony that it was the many foibles and
caprices of the monarchy and government of England that led
many of our founding fathers to leave England for America in
the first place. However, once here, our worthy forefathers
could not resist the temptation to set up their own official
religions, and to begin persecuting those who were not members.

In Virginia in particular, the Church of England was the
official church. In 1758, there was a confrontation with angry
Baptists and Presbyterians, which led to the Anglican Church
being removed as the official church of Virginia in 1779.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Mason
completed the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty, which
legally separated church and state, and established the
principles which would later be followed by the United States
of America. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson stated that his intention
was to erect a "wall of separation between church and state."

In the 1st Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States,
first penned by Madison in 1789, it was stated, in part,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...," which
has been interpreted by some to be absolute. However, such has
not proven to be the case, with the 1st Ammendment, or indeed,
with any of the others. Congress has passed many, many laws
which have been deemed to be "in the public interest" that have
restricted the free practice of religion in one form or
another. The most innocuous of these are laws requiring
churches to conform to building and fire codes, as well as
sanitation laws. The IRS has assumed the role of determining
whether or not a religious group is indeed a church for
purposes of avoiding taxation.

The Supreme Court, since the earliest days of our government,
has consistantly  determined that there are two parts to the
1st Ammendment - the "free exercise" portion, and the
"establishment" portion. The Establishment Clause specifically
prohibits any law "respecting an establishment of religion,"
while the Free Exercise Clause bans laws "prohibiting the free
exercise of religion." These two clauses are designed to
protect the same basic value - the freedom of every individual
to worship (or not to worship) as he or she wishes, without
government interference. The Supreme Court has consistantly
held that the government may neither engage in nor compel
religious practices, that it effect no favoritism among sects
or between religion and non-religion, and that it work
deterrence of no religious belief.

Now comes the tough part - the Supreme Court has had to walk a
tightrope since  the earliest days of our government, balancing
the desire to leave religions  alone to practice as they please
and the need to protect the legal, social and religious needs
of society as a whole. Examples of tough decisions abound. For
example:

     Reynolds v. United States, 1878 - Mormans claim religious
        freedom to practice polygamy under the Free Exercise
        Clause. Denied.

     West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943 - West Virginia
        law requiring that students in public schools salute the flag
        struck down.

     Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 1930 - Public
        schools may legally furnish secular textbooks for the use
        of children in religious schools.

     Everson v. Board of Education, 1947 - State reimbursement of
        parent's money spent for public bus transportation of their
        children to parochial schools does not constitute
        "establishment of a religion."

     McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948 - Public schools may
        cooperate with churches for religious education of children,
        but may not use public property or funds, and religion itself
        may not be promoted.

     Engel v. Vitale, 1962 - The Supreme Court struck down mandatory
        prayer in public schools. A period of silence may be observed
        during which children may pray if they wish, but the school
        may not conduct devotional exercises, compose prayers, read
        the bible, or otherwise enter the field of religious
        instruction.

     Walz v. Tax Commission, 1970 - Traditional freedom from taxation
        for churches upheld.

     Cruz v. Beto, 1972 - Prisoners have the freedom to worship as
        they please.

     Lynch v. Donnelly, 1984 - Cities have the right to display
        Nativity Scenes in public Christmas displays.

In the preceding text, I have attempted to show that the four
assertations  mentioned herein are incorrect, and I believe
that I have acheived that goal. It should be obvious to even
the most casual reader that the USA does, indeed provide for
the separation of church and state in its Constitution. In
addition, as quotes by Thomas Jefferson would indicate, our
founding fathers, the framers of the Constitution, did most
definately intend for there to be a distinct and inviolate
separation between church and state in our country. Further, as
the many divisions of Christian sects in both England and
America would indicate, it would have been impossible for our
forefathers to have intended for the USA to become a
"Christian" nation, as there was then, as there is now, no one
"Christian" religion - indeed, when the various factions and
sects are brought together in one place, they immediately
attempt to oppress each other. And finally, I have shown that
the Supreme Court has consistantly held, that although the 1st
Ammendment is most important and deserving of respect, it must
be tempered (as all laws must) by the needs of the people it
serves. --Mister Zen---

