Surprising support for separating church from state
It’s been a good month for the much-maligned, often misunderstood principle of church-state separation.
A whopping 67% of the American people agree that the First Amendment “requires a clear separation of church and state,” according to the 2011 State of the First Amendment survey released July 12 by the First Amendment Center.
This is somewhat surprising given the decades-old culture-war fight over the meaning and scope of separation.
For decades now, Christian-nation advocates have tried to convince Americans that “separation of church and state isn’t in the First Amendment.” They have peddled a revisionist account of a “Christian America” that should (at best) tolerate other faiths to reside here.
Apparently, the American people aren’t buying the propaganda.
It’s true that the actual words “separation of church and state” aren’t in the Constitution. But as the majority of Americans understand, the principle of separation clearly is.
The establishment clause of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) prohibits government entanglement with religion — a principle of religious freedom described by Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as “separation of church and state.”
What most Americans see as a necessary condition for religious liberty — separating religious institutions and government — has always been a tough sell in most of the world. But this month, new endorsements of separation were heard on the international front, as well.
On July 9, the 8 million people of southern Sudan celebrated separation of mosque and state in the newly independent Republic of South Sudan. After decades of subjugation, southerners are finally free from the extremist version of Islam imposed by a northern regime.
Under the leadership of Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the northern government killed and enslaved southern Christians, followers of traditional African religions as well as Muslims labeled apostates.
Today, South Sudan is the world’s newest secular democracy, with a constitution that separates both mosque and church from state, thus protecting religious freedom for all. Sudanese in the south have learned the hard way that only by prohibiting entanglement of government with religion can people of different faiths live together in peace and safety.
Also this month, the Dalai Lama of Tibet — the living embodiment of an institution that has combined religion and government for centuries — offered a ringing endorsement of “separation” during his visit to Washington, D.C.
Explaining to congressional leaders why he voluntarily relinquished political power earlier this year, the Dalai Lama was emphatic about the necessity of separating religious institutions and government:
“The religious institution, the leader of the religious, and the political leadership should be separate. I myself combine! So my statement, my explanation, become like hypocrisy. Saying something, doing something different. Religious institutions, political institutions, must be separate.”
Despite these gains for separation, the religious-liberty picture in much of the world remains bleak. From Islamic theocracy in Iran to Christian Orthodox nationalism in Russia, unholy alliances of religion and government conspire to deny religious freedom to millions of people.
Of course, “separation” itself can also be distorted and abused. In the name of separating religion and government, repressive regimes such as China establish an extreme form of secularism that keeps all faiths under the thumb of the state.
And in the United States, there are some who would banish all religion from the public square in the name of “separation of church and state” — a false reading of the First Amendment that denies religious freedom.
When properly understood and applied, church-state separation liberates religions from state interference while protecting people of all faiths from state-imposed religion.
The American idea of religious liberty — separating church from state and protecting free exercise of religion — may well be our greatest contribution to world civilization.
But if you have doubts about this arrangement, talk to the people of south Sudan or to the Dalai Lama. They’ll quickly reaffirm your faith in the genius of the First Amendment.
Tags: establishment clause, Inside the First Amendment, religion in public life, religious liberty, separation of church and state, State of the First Amendment
8 Responses to “Surprising support for separating church from state”
Let Us Know What You Think
Ken Paulson is president and chief executive officer/First Amendment Center. Previously, Paulson served as editor and senior vice president/news of USA Today and USATODAY.com.
Gene Policinski, senior vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center, is a veteran journalist whose career has included work in newspapers, radio, television and online.
John Seigenthaler founded the First Amendment Center in 1991 with the mission of creating national discussion, dialogue and debate about First Amendment rights and values.
Dr. Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum. He writes and speaks extensively on religious liberty and religion in American public life.
David L. Hudson Jr. is a scholar at the First Amendment Center. Hudson writes for firstamendmentcenter.org and for other publications devoted to First Amendment issues.
Tiffany Villager is director/First Amendment studies at the First Amendment Center, which she joined in 1993. She also served as the center’s research manager and research coordinator, and developed the center’s library.
[...] C. Haynes, director of the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum, hailed Americans’ endorsement of church-state [...]
[...] Americans agree with the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. In a July 14 article explaining the results, Center President Charles C. Haynes calls the results [...]
[...] C. Haynes, director of the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum, hailed Americans’ endorsement of church-state [...]
It’s not in the First Amendment, it’s *before* the First Amendment, at the end of Article VI: “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Next time you run into a Christian Dominionist who plans to run for office, ask him how he could take the oath of office (also specified in Article VI) in good faith, having declared himself an enemy of the Constitution.
[...] Haynes does not tell the whole story in his July 16th article on religious freedom in the Potomac News and Messenger. The principle of religious freedom was the inspired vision of [...]
[...] More Americans view socialism favorably than they do the Tea Party Religion 67% support separation of church and state [...]
[...] Sixty-seven percent support separation of church and state . . . A whopping 67% of the American people agree that the First Amendment “requires a clear separation of church and state,” according to the 2011 State of the First Amendment survey released July 12 by the First Amendment Center. [...]
I agree with what the article states with the exception of stating that “not allowing religious promotion in the public square” is an extremist secularist viewpoint. Nor do I agree that prohibiting it violates the freedom of religion. Freedom of religion means that all individuals have a right to worship, go to church, and promote their religion privately OR to choose to not partake in those activities or believe at all. And that regardly all citizens have equal protection under the law regardless of their private belief system. Our gov’t is The Constitution and those individuals elected to uphold The Constitution. To create universal laws. To allow the elected officials to promote their religious ideas through laws and a gov’t banner gives them priviledges over other religions and the non-religious. That is not the role of government. Those elected officials have every right to promote their religion privately on their own time, but not on tax payers expense. It is a slipper slope. It is divisive. And sets a precendent that in the future if America elects a predominatly agnostic or non-religious officials, then they to can promote their anti-religious message. You majority of Christians don’t even realize that you are shooting yourselves in the foot.