How Jefferson and Madison’s partnership – a friendship told in letters – shaped America’s separation of church and state

  Few constitutional principles are more familiar to the average American than the separation of church and state.

  According to the Pew Research Center, 73% of adults agree that religion should be kept separate from government policies. To be sure, support varies by political or religious affiliation – with Democrats supporting the principle in much higher numbers – and depending on the specific issue, such as prayer in public schools or displays of the Ten Commandments monuments. Yet only 19% of Americans say the United States should abandon the principle of church-state separation.

  That said, criticism appears to be on the rise, particularly among political and religious conservatives. And such criticism comes from the top.

Have religious conservatives lost their minds?

  Although the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, the concept is based on the First Amendment, which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

  Down through history, the union of church and state has resulted in great evils. Even today, in the twenty-first century, some countries have state religions or state churches. This includes not only Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia but also “Christian” countries like Norway and the United Kingdom.

State funds for students at religious schools? Supreme Court says ‘yes’ in Maine case – but consequences could go beyond

  For nearly three-quarters of a century, one issue in education has come up before the Supreme Court more than any other: disputes over religion.

  Carson v. Makin, a case about Maine’s tuition assistance program for students in districts without high schools of their own, continues the pattern – with potential consequences for schools, families, and courts across the country.

  On June 21, 2022, the court ruled that parents in rural districts lacking public high schools, but who receive state aid to send their children to private schools instead, can use that money for tuition at schools with faith-based curricula. In a 6-3 order, the court held that Maine’s requirement that tuition assistance payments be used at “nonsectarian” schools violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment because parents could not send their children to the schools of their choice.

First Amendment includes separation of church and state

  The phrase “separation of church and state,” once a widely shared article of civic faith in the United States, has become a flashpoint for culture-war debates over the role of religion in American public life.

  On one extreme are those who insist that “separation of church and state” isn’t in the First Amendment. On the other extreme are those who interpret “separation” to mean eliminating religion from the public square entirely.

  The truth falls somewhere in between. The drafters of the Bill of Rights didn’t use the words “separation of church and state” in the First Amendment. But by prohibiting the federal government from passing any law “respecting an establishment of religion” — what is now called the establishment clause — the Framers clearly and unambiguously separated the institutions of government and religion on the federal level.

Reclaiming religious freedom

  Last month, the most religiously diverse U.S. Congress in our nation’s history was sworn into office. For proponents of religious liberty, this was an incredible opportunity to celebrate this fundamental American right. At the same time, however, the current political context raises crucial challenges to religious liberty that this Congress must urgently address. Even as more religious minorities are elected to our nation’s highest offices, protections for those groups are widely being stripped away. And in recent years, many self-proclaimed religious liberty advocates have instead done much to abuse this right by privileging the religious beliefs of a select few over the freedom of all people. Their efforts have eroded the separation of church and state in order to discriminate against specific vulnerable communities. The right to religious liberty should protect these communities and all people from discrimination—not cause them harm.

Bible literacy or Bible wars?

  From everything I know about President Donald Trump, it would surprise me if he studies the Bible – or has even read it. Nevertheless, Trump seems to want other people to study the Bible, including students in public schools.

  “Numerous states introducing Bible Literacy classes, giving students the option of studying the Bible,” Trump tweeted on Jan. 28. “Starting to make a turn back? Great!”

  The trigger for Trump’s Bible tweet appears to have been a Fox Network Fox & Friends segment about the spate of “Bible literacy” bills recently introduced in a number of states including Indiana, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Missouri. This initiative – called Project Blitz – is currently being pushed by a coalition of conservative Christian political groups.

Charles C. Haynes: Holidays, public schools and what it means to be “American”

  Battles this month over holidays in public schools — from Halloween in Connecticut to Christmas in Indiana — are about far more than witches, ghosts, Santa Claus, or Jesus.

  What’s really at stake for people on all sides are emotional questions such as “whose schools are these?” and “what kind of nation are we — will we become?”

  As the United States grows increasingly diverse, our perennial holiday fights turn public schools into a microcosm of the public square, places where we debate and define what it means to be “American” across differences that are often deep and abiding.

Charles C. Haynes: The perils of a “Christian America”

  Thanks to the First Amendment, the United States is arguably the most religiously diverse – and most religiously free – society on earth.

  But not all Americans welcome the new religious America.

  Consider the flap in Idaho this week when a session of the state Senate started with a Hindu prayer.

David L. Hudson, Jr.: Appeals court rules for employer on ‘ministerial exception’

  Employment discrimination laws sometimes take a backseat to the religious-liberty rights of religious institutions.

  In summary, employees of religious institutions simply do not have the same protections from anti-discrimination laws as other employees because of a principle called the “ministerial exception,” rooted in the idea that the government should not interfere with the freedom of religious institutions and how they conduct their internal affairs.

Robert G. Wilkerson: Seven reasons prayer should not be in schools

-It would violate the Constitution. That document clearly calls for the separation of church and state. Those who wrote it knew history. They knew how horrible and oppressive life could be when the two were not separated. All attempts to circumvent this provision have been struck down by the courts and will continue to be.

-It would not be fair or just. Most of those advocating prayer in schools are advocating Christian prayer. If Christian prayer were to be allowed, then prayers of other religions (Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu, etc.) would have to be allowed as well. They are citizens and pay taxes that build, operate, and maintain schools; therefore, they have equal rights.

Charles C. Haynes: ‘Cross at Ground Zero’: History lesson or state religion?

  At a time when Americans are deeply divided over the meaning of “separation of church and state,” a ruling from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week provides a much-needed case study in how the First Amendment’s establishment clause is supposed to work.

  In a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel dismissed a challenge by atheists to the display of a cross-shaped beam at the National Sept. 11 Memorial and Museum at Ground Zero in New York City.

Charles C. Haynes: Don’t worry, Santa, the ‘war on Christmas’ isn’t real

  When I read that 52% of American adults say they believe in Santa Claus (according to a survey from Public Policy Polling), I wasn’t surprised to learn in the same poll that 42% also believe there is a "war on Christmas."

  After all (spoiler alert), both are figments of the imagination.

  Belief in Santa, at least, perpetuates a spirit of joy and goodwill. But the "war on Christmas" narrative, by contrast, does little more than stir up anger and ill will.

Charles C. Haynes: Dispelling the myth of a ‘Christian nation’

  Culture warriors, pseudo-historians and opportunistic politicians have spent the last several decades peddling the myth that America was founded as a “Christian nation.”

  The propaganda appears to be working.

  A majority of the American people (51%) believes that the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation, according to the State of the First Amendment survey released last month by the First Amendment Center.

Ken Paulson: Ten Commandments controversy revisited

  It’s been almost 10 years since the Rutherford County, Tennessee, lost a very expensive lawsuit over the posting of the Ten Commandments in the county courthouse.

  The American Civil Liberties Union sued the commission, contending that the posting was an unconstitutional promotion of religion. U.S. Judge Robert Echols agreed and ordered the Ten Commandments removed in 2004.  It will “stay down,” County Mayor Ernest Burgess said at the time, calling it “the end of the story.”

Gene Policinski: How not to protect religious liberty

  Here’s a quick primer on a recent proposal by two North Carolina legislators to permit the state to designate a state religion:

  First, the North Carolina Speaker of the House effectively killed the proposal one day after it was filed, saying it “will not advance” to a committee hearing.

  Second, even if enacted, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny under existing Supreme Court decisions.