Editor's Note: Throughout these pages I will be adding commentary to the letters and columns by other authors.  My commentary will be in [ bracketed red text ]. - wjh

You are here:
[Home]
-> [Separation]
-> [Articles]
-> [Allen#1]

Editor's Note: Mr. Allen has provided me with the original e-mail sent to The Dispatch. I have indicated the parts which the editor removed in [green bracketed text]

Editor:

Recently several letters have been printed which hold that the Separation of Church and State is not constitutional, or that it is exaggerated, or that it is being taken to an absurd extreme. [To these people] I offer the following rebuttal:

The single most important person in the formulation of the First Amendment was James Madison. He had the most influence on its form and content. Any serious student of his writings cannot believe he would have supported anything other than a complete separation. For example:

"The civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State" (Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432).

Madison clearly believed that 'the total separation of the Church from the State' was beneficial not only to Government, but Religion as well:

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

"The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both..." (Letter to Edward Everett, Montpellier, March 18, 1823)

Also consider the debate surrounding the adoption of the First Amendment. The House of Representatives never considered a version that merely barred the esablishment of a state church. Although the Senate did consider such versions, it rejected them in favor of a broader version that barred the establishment of articles of faith and modes of worship without reference to religious denominations. The final joint version barred not only an establishment of religion, but even laws respecting the establishment of religion. Clearly, Congress intended the First Amendment to do more than simply bar the establishment of a state church.

The Supreme Court has heard 41 cases regarding the First Amendment between 1899 and the present, 7 of them before the famous pair of cases in the early sixties. In one case from 1947 Justice Black summarizes the principle of separation well:

"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. (Everson v. Board of Education (1947); Justice Black writing for the court)

[Some have argued that since the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the text of the constitution, that the principle itself is not constitutional. I challenge them to find the phrases "right to a fair trial" or "religious liberty" in the constitution. They do not appear, but they are certainly constitutional principles, as is separation.

It should be made clear that there was not complete agreement on separation. Patrick Henry, for example, did not want a complete separation. However, if you read the opinions of all of the framers, especially Madison, as well as the Congressional record of the debate surrounding its adoption, it should be obvious that the intent of Congress in passing the First Amendment was a clear, complete and total separation of Church and State. People should not try to rewrite history in order to support their views.

In closing, a cautionary word from Madison:

"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?" (James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785)]

Phillip Allen
Gilroy