This concept does not come from the US Constitution (although out of unwitting ignorance, some think it does). Rather, it comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in response to a letter from a small Christian religious group in Connecticut who feared they would be persecuted by the state government there. In it, Thomas wrote of a “wall of separation” between church and state, with the context implying clearly that the freedom implied was not restriction upon the people to practice their beliefs, but a restriction on the government from preventing them from doing so.

Thus, it would be a historical mistake to think this wall of separation that has come to be known as separation of church and state has its early adherents in Thomas Jefferson. In fact, here are some things Thomas Jefferson did regarding religion in his public life:

  • In 1774, while serving in the Virginia Assembly, Jefferson personally introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer.
  • In 1779, as Governor of Virginia, Jefferson decreed a day of “Public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God.”
  • As President, Jefferson signed bills that appropriated financial support for chaplains in Congress and the armed services.
  • On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered “A National Prayer for Peace”, which petitioned:

“Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues. Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth. In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.”

Thomas Jefferson was a God-fearing man. He feared for our country in a future day where we might forget that our constitutional freedoms come as a blessing from God directly:

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

Now that the myth of Thomas Jefferson being a proponent of separating church from state is exposed, we can proceed to the subject of separation of church and state. If there is a debate about what the Constitution says or means, we must first agree on the principles of how to interpret the Constitutional Amendments. There are 2 extreme camps in this regard:

  1. Those that see the constitution as an “enduring document“, and
  2. Those that see it as a “living document“.

The “enduring document” adherents see it as a document that should be interpreted in the light of what our forefathers thought when writing it. What did they intend? And how did they apply it to their generation?

The “living document” theorists reckon that the Constitution is broadly stated as general principles which makes it incumbent upon each generation to specifically legislate laws to apply these principles to an evolving society with its own distinctive norms and practices.

Neither side is wrong, but both are right. It is both an “enduring” and “living” document, and the weights of both must be considered.

While the original forefathers did not intend there to be a complete separation of church and state and while those who identify themselves as Christians is still the majority in this country, there is a trend in modern American society noted by recent judicial and regulatory rulings to remove the religious traditions and structures that have been associated with our schools and governing bodies. Some recent court decisions and federal agency initiatives in this regard are:

  1. removal of school prayer in public schools (Engel v. Vitale (1962)
  2. mentioning of God in the pledge of allegiance although the Court. The Court did not rule on the case, but did comment on its validity saying “under God” was not as a religious declaration, but rather a historical or patriotic one (Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004). Unfortunately, that will affect future decisions negatively from a Christian perspective since religion is implicitly not a valid constitutional reason for defending something. See McCreary v. ACLU 2005.
  3. removal of statues honoring the 10 Commandments in government office buildings (McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky. (2005). Here the Court ruled against display of the 10 commandments on government property because it was done for purely religious reasons, thus continuing the trend of looking upon religion negatively in judicial decision-making.
  4. denial of Christian group status on College campus (Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010).  Membership should be allowed in Christian groups even if their status (gay) disagrees with group morality or religious views.
  5. nativity displays on government property (Lynch vs Donnely 1984, County of Allegheny vs ACLU 1989).  The first one permitted the display since it did not promote a specific religion and was recognized as a national holiday.  The second one did not permit the display since it was by itself only depicting the Christian religion.  It allowed for other Christian displays as long as other religions were represented. In this case, the menorah and some other secular ones, like santa clause.
  6. removal of state sodomy laws (Lawrence v. Texas 2003), where the Court ruled against laws prohibiting private homosexual activity between consenting adults.
  7. addition of sexual orientation as a protected civil rights liberty (supposedly implied by the prohibition of discrimination clause) by the federal agency that enforces the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, The Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
  8. Same sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015) ruled that right to marry is guaranteed to same sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
  9. Definition of Sex in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, 2020) ruled that “sex” applies  to L.G.B.T.Q. people as well.  Employers cannot discriminate against them in employment.

These legal precedents suggest that the “living” concerns are out-weighing the “enduring” concerns in current constitutional interpretation.

The addition of sexual orientation, the removal of state sodomy laws, and the inclusion of LGBTQ in sex definition should be a great concern to churches that judge homosexual or lesbian practices as being morally evil. It is only a few more stepping stones before the government might rescind 501c taxable income relief for churches that deny membership to a class of people that the federal government explicitly protects.

But I will end with this personal conviction, “So Help Us God”, because I agree with Jefferson who says that if we leave God out of the picture, we are doomed to a great fall. May God bless America.