Myth:
The First Amendment only prohibits the state from interfering with churches.
Â
Response:
One popular tactic of opponents of church/state separation is to pretend to accept that separation exists, but then to ague that separation church and state only works one way: the state is prevented from interfering with churches or religious belief but churches are not prevented from interfering with the government.
When stated so clearly it sounds absurd, but it's the position of anyone arguing that the "wall of separation" is really a one-way wall.
This argument is essentially the same as the one which states that we have "freedom of religion" (the right of churches to teach and people to believe what they want), but we have no right to "freedom from religion" (the right not to have other people's beliefs and religious rules promoted or adopted by the state). However, this argument is less subtle because it makes it very clear that churches should be allowed to control or at least interfere with the government and the laws.
Â
Why would some people advocate using the government to impose particular religious beliefs and dogmas on others? Such a position is not compatible with religious freedom and, to be honest, some of those promoting the above position do not truly believe in religious freedom. There are many who regard their religion as the only valid one; and whether out of a desire to have power over others, a lack of human compassion for others, or a desire not to see others go to hell, they want to make sure others follow the same religion.
If it requires the force of the state to accomplish this, so be it.
This argument is an attack on the liberty provided by secularism. People making this argument don't want the state to interfere with their beliefs and their churches, but they do want the power to use their organizations to insert religious dogmas into the civil laws which we must all follow. They are relying on the assumption that they will remain a demographic majority, because of course the power to base laws on religious beliefs depends entirely on having enough popular votes — and this would introduce religious conflict into American politics, exactly the sort of problem which America's founders desperately wanted to avoid.
Â
Although the most likely sources of this argument are conservative Christians, you can sometimes hear it from other sources. There are many who believe in the principle of religious liberty but who nevertheless support the above myth in one form or another. Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the organization Towards Tradition, for example, once wrote "The First Amendment to the US Constitution was designed to protect religion from government regulation, not the other way around."
It's not clear that such people fully comprehend the degree to which their own religious liberties would be infringed upon if it were possible for churches and other religious organizations to influence law or government policies. Some may simply not understand that there is a contradiction between the principle of religious liberty and the implications of this argument. They might, for example, think that because most people in a community are Christian, then it isn't a problem for local government to enforce Christian rules — those who don't personally accept those rules will simply have to deal with it.
Others may honestly believe that the religious principles they would have enforced by law are "universal" and hence do not reflect a particular religious or theological perspective. This seemed to be the argument of the people supporting Ohio's state motto, "With God All Things are Possible." Although it is a quote from Jesus in the New Testament, it simply says "God" and may appear to some to be very general. Nevertheless, ministers testified in court that it expressed a particular perspective on a god who actively aids human endeavors, and this is not a universal position.
Â
Sometimes the following quote is used to support the above myth:
This is normally attributed to Thomas Jefferson by people such as David Barton, but absolutely no evidence can be found that Jefferson ever wrote or said it. Given Jefferson's hostility towards priests, organized religion, and religious orthodoxy, it would be strange if he ever said such a thing and it' more likely that this quote is simply a fabrication. This wouldn't be much of a shock because Barton's "scholarship" has been called into question on numerous points.
James Madison was one founder who unquestionably believed that the separation of church and state should operate in both directions, something evident when he wrote to Jasper Adams that:
History makes it clear that problems result not only when the state interferes with churches, but also when churches interfere with the state as well. People like Madison and Williams recognized this - this is why they sought to protect both by ensuring that each was restricted to those spheres of human existence which is appropriate. Government has no authority over the human conscience, and so has been excluded from the sphere of religion. Religion has no authority over how non-members structure their lives, and so is excluded from the general governing of society.
The First Amendment only prohibits the state from interfering with churches.
Â
Response:
One popular tactic of opponents of church/state separation is to pretend to accept that separation exists, but then to ague that separation church and state only works one way: the state is prevented from interfering with churches or religious belief but churches are not prevented from interfering with the government.
When stated so clearly it sounds absurd, but it's the position of anyone arguing that the "wall of separation" is really a one-way wall.
This argument is essentially the same as the one which states that we have "freedom of religion" (the right of churches to teach and people to believe what they want), but we have no right to "freedom from religion" (the right not to have other people's beliefs and religious rules promoted or adopted by the state). However, this argument is less subtle because it makes it very clear that churches should be allowed to control or at least interfere with the government and the laws.
Â
Defending Theocracy, Attacking Secularism
Why would some people advocate using the government to impose particular religious beliefs and dogmas on others? Such a position is not compatible with religious freedom and, to be honest, some of those promoting the above position do not truly believe in religious freedom. There are many who regard their religion as the only valid one; and whether out of a desire to have power over others, a lack of human compassion for others, or a desire not to see others go to hell, they want to make sure others follow the same religion.
If it requires the force of the state to accomplish this, so be it.
This argument is an attack on the liberty provided by secularism. People making this argument don't want the state to interfere with their beliefs and their churches, but they do want the power to use their organizations to insert religious dogmas into the civil laws which we must all follow. They are relying on the assumption that they will remain a demographic majority, because of course the power to base laws on religious beliefs depends entirely on having enough popular votes — and this would introduce religious conflict into American politics, exactly the sort of problem which America's founders desperately wanted to avoid.
Â
Ignorance About Liberty Secularism
Although the most likely sources of this argument are conservative Christians, you can sometimes hear it from other sources. There are many who believe in the principle of religious liberty but who nevertheless support the above myth in one form or another. Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the organization Towards Tradition, for example, once wrote "The First Amendment to the US Constitution was designed to protect religion from government regulation, not the other way around."
It's not clear that such people fully comprehend the degree to which their own religious liberties would be infringed upon if it were possible for churches and other religious organizations to influence law or government policies. Some may simply not understand that there is a contradiction between the principle of religious liberty and the implications of this argument. They might, for example, think that because most people in a community are Christian, then it isn't a problem for local government to enforce Christian rules — those who don't personally accept those rules will simply have to deal with it.
Others may honestly believe that the religious principles they would have enforced by law are "universal" and hence do not reflect a particular religious or theological perspective. This seemed to be the argument of the people supporting Ohio's state motto, "With God All Things are Possible." Although it is a quote from Jesus in the New Testament, it simply says "God" and may appear to some to be very general. Nevertheless, ministers testified in court that it expressed a particular perspective on a god who actively aids human endeavors, and this is not a universal position.
Â
Thomas Jefferson & James Madison
Sometimes the following quote is used to support the above myth:
That wall is a one directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.
This is normally attributed to Thomas Jefferson by people such as David Barton, but absolutely no evidence can be found that Jefferson ever wrote or said it. Given Jefferson's hostility towards priests, organized religion, and religious orthodoxy, it would be strange if he ever said such a thing and it' more likely that this quote is simply a fabrication. This wouldn't be much of a shock because Barton's "scholarship" has been called into question on numerous points.
James Madison was one founder who unquestionably believed that the separation of church and state should operate in both directions, something evident when he wrote to Jasper Adams that:
The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others.
History makes it clear that problems result not only when the state interferes with churches, but also when churches interfere with the state as well. People like Madison and Williams recognized this - this is why they sought to protect both by ensuring that each was restricted to those spheres of human existence which is appropriate. Government has no authority over the human conscience, and so has been excluded from the sphere of religion. Religion has no authority over how non-members structure their lives, and so is excluded from the general governing of society.
SHARE
