Who Separates Church from State?

[shagdrum]

Who Separates Church from State?
By Larrey Anderson

The phrase "wall of separation between church and state" has become a lightning rod for heated debate. This phrase is from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut and is understood by some to reflect the reasoning behind the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

What is overlooked in almost all of the debates is that, logically speaking, the "wall of separation" is one thing if it is built from (and viewed from) the perspective of the people or the church. It is quite another if it is built from (and viewed from) the perspective of the legal system or the state. In a free republic, the wall of separation between church and state can only be built by the people or the "church." It cannot be built by the state.

Here are Jefferson's words to the Baptists in Danbury:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.​

Notice who Jefferson credits with having built the wall: "the whole American people." Congress cannot build the wall separating church and state. It is not allowed to. Congress, in fact, "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That is what the amendment specifically states. According to Jefferson, it is the people who have built the wall of separation between church and state through the process of amending the constitution.

There is a stunningly beautiful symmetry in Jefferson's reasoning that has gone largely unnoticed. The congress agreed, through the amending process, that it had no power either to respect a specific religion or to prohibit the practice of any specific religion. Because it agreed to this via constitutional amendment, the congress cannot readdress its right to retain its power over religion. The congress has no power over religion. None.

But the people do retain their power over religion. Each person may choose his or her religion and each person may publicly exercise that religion. Jefferson is surely correct on this subtle, but vital, point. If the people build the wall between the church and state, it is an act of free will. If we choose to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto the Lord what is the Lord's, then we have defined what things we consider to be specifically political and what issues we take to be specifically spiritual.
What can the federal government (the congress, the president, or the Supreme Court) do to build or to change the wall? Nothing. Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The central government cannot be the creator of the wall of separation between church and state in a free republic. Continuing the example from Christian theology, if Caesar issues the command to render unto Caesar, I am forced to obey Caesar's command at the point of the sword. But if Christ (and by "Christ" I mean here the body of the church or people) issues the same command, I follow it of my own free will. I voluntarily keep Christ's commandment to follow the law of the land out of love for my savior and out of a desire to help bring about the Kingdom of God.

There is another reason why the central government cannot build the wall. In the Danbury letter, right before he credits the people with building the wall of separation between church and state, Jefferson states:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions...​

In other words, the central government cannot decide what is political and what is spiritual because these are matters of opinion that vary from person to person. These are issues between each individual "man and his god." In a free republic, the central government has no right to inform matters of personal opinion of its citizens.

After Jefferson's assertion that the people have erected a wall of separation between the church and state, he continues:

Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.​

Jefferson understood that as we struggle, as a people who have fallen from grace, to build and rebuild the wall separating church and state, we do so for the specific purpose of perfecting ourselves, our families, and our communities in our efforts "to restore to man all of his natural rights."

We, as a people, build the wall of separation between church and state ... to keep the government out of our right to worship whatever god we choose.

 

[fossten]

Funny how liberals whine about separation of church and state but have no qualms about:

Education and state
Private industry and state
Healthcare and state
Banking and state
Retirement savings and state

 

[foxpaws]

Funny how liberals whine about separation of church and state but have no qualms about:

Education and state
Private industry and state
Healthcare and state
Banking and state
Retirement savings and state

So, what happens when State and Church co-mingle...

Do you want churches:
taxed
regulated
overseen
under Senate subcommittees
voted on by the House
administered by the Department of Churches (DOC)
assigned a Secretary of Religion
perhaps one day even absorbed by the state?

It is a two way street - keep church out of state, or you run the risk of having the government's imprint all over religion.

Or as shag's article said...

We, as a people, build the wall of separation between church and state ... to keep the government out of our right to worship whatever god we choose.​

 

[shagdrum]

It is a two way street

No, it's been distorted to be a two way street. That was the entire point of the article; the 1st amendment is simply a prohibition on the government from interfering with religion. It does not prohibit the reverse. If you read the wording of the 1st amendment that is abundantly clear.

 

[Joeys Lincoln]

If the elected official is religious they should be allowed to push a religious agenda.

Just like any other politician pushes their own personal agenda.

 

[shagdrum]

If the elected official is religious they should be allowed to push a religious agenda.

...in as much as it comports with the 1st Amendment (assuming we are talking about a federal level elected officials). However, the 1st Amendment is a pretty big restriction on that.

 

[fossten]

So, what happens when State and Church co-mingle...

Do you want churches:
taxed
regulated
overseen
under Senate subcommittees
voted on by the House
administered by the Department of Churches (DOC)
assigned a Secretary of Religion
perhaps one day even absorbed by the state?

It is a two way street - keep church out of state, or you run the risk of having the government's imprint all over religion.

Or as shag's article said...

We, as a people, build the wall of separation between church and state ... to keep the government out of our right to worship whatever god we choose.​

No, and I don't want that stuff done to the other aspects of my life either - BUT IT IS, much to YOUR satisfaction. Nice red herring.

Are you in favor of keeping the government out of the other aspects of our lives as well, or is it just church?

 

[04SCTLS]

No, and I don't want that stuff done to the other aspects of my life either - BUT IT IS, much to YOUR satisfaction. Nice red herring.

Are you in favor of keeping the government out of the other aspects of our lives as well, or is it just church?

So has the government done something that actually affected your freedoms as you exersize them in any real way.

 

[fossten]

So has the government done something that actually affected your freedoms as you exersize them in any real way.

Uh, yeah.

My healthcare premiums artificially high due to gov regulation
Taxes on income reduces my freedom to live the life I want to
Gov interference hurts employment, reducing my opportunities
Gov regulation hurt the housing market, reducing the price I can get for my house
Higher costs for products due to corporate taxes and needless regulations (i.e. CAFE standards)
Tells me what kind of products I can or cannot buy, from light bulbs to guns
Fed banking restricts the money supply, increasing interest rates, reducing my buying power
Fed banking inflates our currency, devaluing the dollar, hurting my buying power
Confiscates my money and gives it to people who don't earn their own
Limits the amount of money I can invest without tax penalty
Limits the amount of money I can donate to political candidates (1st Amendment)
Forces me to sign my tax returns on penalty of fraud (5th Amendment)

I can post a longer list later if you want.

 

[04SCTLS]

Uh, yeah.

My healthcare premiums artificially high due to gov regulation
Taxes on income reduces my freedom to live the life I want to
Gov interference hurts employment, reducing my opportunities
Higher costs for products due to corporate taxes
Tells me what kind of products I can or cannot buy, from light bulbs to guns
Fed banking restricts the money supply, increasing interest rates, reducing my buying power
Fed banking inflates our currency, devaluing the dollar, hurting my buying power
Confiscates my money and gives it to people who don't earn their own
Limits the amount of money I can invest without tax penalty
Limits the amount of money I can donate to political candidates (1st Amendment)
Forces me to sign my tax returns on penalty of fraud (5th Amendment)

I can post a longer list later if you want.

These are all costs so it follows then that freedom is money.
More money means more freedom.

 

[fossten]

These are all costs so it follows then that freedom is money.
More money means more freedom.

Non sequitur. All government laws are at the point of a gun. If I refuse to abide by any of these regulations the end result is prison. If I refuse prison, the end result is death.

You said 'affected.' I answered your question. End of story.

 

[04SCTLS]

Non sequitur. All government laws are at the point of a gun. If I refuse to abide by any of these regulations the end result is prison. If I refuse prison, the end result is death.

You said 'affected.' I answered your question. End of story.

That may well be but the government guns also offer the protection of american law enforcement to maintain that thin veneer of civility and order that we have.
What kind of society do you think we would have without laws enforceable at the barrel of a gun?
At least you don't have to pay tribute to the local gang leader or some other bold ruthless criminal.

 

[shagdrum]

These are all costs so it follows then that freedom is money.
More money means more freedom.

no, it is not that freedom = money. That again, is based in a marxist delusion of rights and economics.

What fossten pointed out more is that personal liberty is inseperable from economic liberty. Both are interdependent.

 

[shagdrum]

That may well be but the government guns also offer the protection of american law enforcement to maintain that thin veneer of civility and order that we have.

But that in no way justifies the government actions fossten cited. A minimal government is certainly necessary. But their are trade-offs for that government and as government grows, the costs of government outweigh the benefits. Government is, at best, a necessary evil that should be kept to a minimum.

 

[fossten]

That may well be but the government guns also offer the protection of american law enforcement to maintain that thin veneer of civility and order that we have.
What kind of society do you think we would have without laws enforceable at the barrel of a gun?
At least you don't have to pay tribute to the local gang leader or some other bold ruthless criminal.

That's a false dilemma and a red herring. Why does it have to be one or the other?

You're using examples of crime fighting to support your argument that being enslaved is okay? In other words, just put some ketchup on my crap sandwich and all is well, right? Also, we're not talking about local governments and police officers, we're talking about the massive, overbearing National government. Please use examples that support the topic, okay?

Let me ask you this: Do you know the difference between malum se and malum prohibitum?

 

[04SCTLS]

Let me ask you this: Do you know the difference between malum se and malum prohibitum?

Freedom is not absolute.
We are not free to commit evil and that's a reasonable restriction.

You're using examples of crime fighting to support your argument that being enslaved is okay? In other words, just put some ketchup on my crap sandwich and all is well, right?

You seem to be saying that you feel enslaved and your life is a crap sandwich and government is to blame.... or are you making a hypothetical example.

I thought you were going to say the government is the relentless ruthless criminal , even as it provides certain protections.

I was stating that money is a big component of freedom.
If you don't have money then freedoms are academic.
Unlike you I don't feel I'm being ripped off and enslaved by the government.

 

[shagdrum]

I was stating that money is a big component of freedom.

Not so much...

If you don't have money then freedoms are academic.

You are claiming that money is a necessary condition for freedom when that is not, nor has ever been the case. It has been distorted to be such through leftist rhetoric, but when you look to where freedoms come from and what they are, it is abundantly clear that the claim that money is necessary for freedom is mere rhetoric, nothing more. Again, it is that Marxist illusion of freedom from economic concerns.

If I want to live a penniless existence, I am free to do so (for as long as I can make that last). Money is necessitated to achieve certain ends (due to a scarcity of resources) but it is only a means to an end and freedoms are not an end.

In fact, your argument is kinda putting the cart before the horse. Economic freedom is necessary to acquire wealth and achieve whatever ends you choose to; freedom is necessary for wealth, but wealth is not necessary for freedom.

 

[04SCTLS]

If I want to live a penniless existence, I am free to do so (for as long as I can make that last).

I guess you could be a monk

I'm not trying to have a deep philosophical discussion.
Strictly speaking money and freedom are different things by definition but I've been (relatively) poor and now I'm(financially) rich.
Money buys me the freedom to not have to conform to the usual work rules my employees have to and I can come and go as I please, do whatever I want.
I'm conservative with my big war chest,
don't pay hardly any interest and anything I want I can just buy and pay for immediately.

Money buys a lot of enhanced freedom to do things enjoyable with one's time.

 

[shagdrum]

I guess you could be a monk

I'm not trying to have a deep philosophical discussion.
Strictly speaking money and freedom are different things by definition but I've been (relatively) poor and now I'm(financially) rich.
Money buys me the freedom to not have to conform to the usual work rules my employees have to and I can come and go as I please, do whatever I want.
I'm conservative with my big war chest,
don't pay hardly any interest and anything I want I can just buy and pay for immediately.

Money buys a lot of enhanced freedom to do things enjoyable with one's time.

The phrasing you use is misleading (unintentionally, I am sure). This is not simply semantics but a very important difference in views of freedom. Money is something that can only be acquired through freedom. If you have no right to property, then you have no right to the fruits of your labor. Only with freedom can you amass a fortune of any sort.

 

[04SCTLS]

The phrasing you use is misleading (unintentionally, I am sure). This is not simply semantics but a very important difference in views of freedom. Money is something that can only be acquired through freedom. If you have no right to property, then you have no right to the fruits of your labor. Only with freedom can you amass a fortune of any sort.

Money knows no prejuduce also crosses political and ideological lines.
People who are not free by your definition nonetheless can buy a better life if they have money.
An associate of mine just got back from a one month business trip to China and he saw the explosion of wealth taking place.
He's having some tooling built there for production here as well as surveying other opportinities that make sense.
The workforce there is young and lean, there's no obese, never mind morbidly obese people.
People walk up stairs.
Outside the international hotels there's no credit cards.
Chinese people are not heavily indebted(unfree?) the way americans are.
Huge factories are being thrown up.
People are buying stuff for cash.
Using the chinese version of eminent domain, along with 60,000 miles if interstate(equivalent or greater than the US interstate launched by Eisenhour) being built, thousands of miles of 2 track monorail (using a triangle shape) between the cities are pushing forward at breakneck speed like the american rail expansion of the 19th century.
Wealth creation is explodingly taking place in China, a country you would not describe as free.

 

[fossten]

Money knows no prejuduce also crosses political and ideological lines.
People who are not free by your definition nonetheless can buy a better life if they have money.
An associate of mine just got back from a one month business trip to China and he saw the explosion of wealth taking place.
He's having some tooling built there for production here as well as surveying other opportinities that make sense.
The workforce there is young and lean, there's no obese, never mind morbidly obese people.
People walk up stairs.
Outside the international hotels there's no credit cards.
Chinese people are not heavily indebted(unfree?) the way americans are.
Huge factories are being thrown up.
People are buying stuff for cash.
Using the chinese version of eminent domain, along with 60,000 miles if interstate(equivalent or greater than the US interstate launched by Eisenhour) being built, thousands of miles of 2 track monorail (using a triangle shape) between the cities are pushing forward at breakneck speed like the american rail expansion of the 19th century.
Wealth creation is explodingly taking place in China, a country you would not describe as free.

You just disproved your entire point. Well done.

By the way, are you familiar with the Chinese government's activity vis-a-vis access to the internet?

 

[04SCTLS]

You just disproved your entire point. Well done.

By the way, are you familiar with the Chinese government's activity vis-a-vis access to the internet?

My point that people are freer when they have more money.
Everybody likes having more money free or not totally free.

The Chinese government is the Big Brother of their internet

 

[shagdrum]

People who are not free by your definition nonetheless can buy a better life if they have money.

No, they will not have money to be able to buy a better life. Freedom is a necessary condition to amass wealth. You are putting the cart before the horse and saying that money is a necessary condition of freedom.

An associate of mine just got back from a one month business trip to China and he saw the explosion of wealth taking place.

Yes, and how are they achieving that? It is through freeing up the market; an increase of economic freedom (a necessary condition for a free market and the creation of wealth). Again, freedom is a necessary condition for the creation and amassing of wealth, not the reverse.

Whenever the free market has been permitted to operate, wherever anything approaching equality of opportunity has existed, the ordinary man has been able to attain levels of living never dreamed of before
-Milton Friedman​