The term, separation of church and state, is not a foreign one to Christians. Whenever someone feels that the church is getting too public, they file suits or make complaints. Then some governing authority steps in and says the church is going too far and is violating separation of church and state. Yet, how can you be violating a law that does not exist?
There is a principle, maybe even a precedent, of separation of church and state but no such law. The principle began with Thomas Jefferson. The Darbury Baptist Association wrote to him that their politicians were treating their religious liberties as personal favors. In his reply to the Darbury Baptist Association regarding their complaint he used the words, “wall of separation between church and state.” Jefferson wrote that from a national view, the government could do nothing that would support the establishment of a state religion. In other words, he didn’t feel that it was the place for the government to be involved in the affairs of religion.
This lingo was later taken up by a plethora of politicos to justify everything from why there shouldn’t be prayer in school to Nativity scenes on courthouse lawns. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case when it comes to taxes and 501 ( c ) (3) statuses. According to that law, churches cannot be preach political stances from the pulpit lest they risk their tax-free status. If the church cannot have a say in what goes on inside a courtroom, how can the government have a say about what goes on inside a church house? This doctrine apparently works one-way.
There is a need for a ‘separation’ between church and state. The Framers of the Constitution did not want it to be possible for a state-sponsored or state-mandated church; thus, the First Amendment. Otherwise, we’d have the government offering special privileges or funding to one faith or another, depending upon who was in office and what faith he or she belonged. What I don’t think the Framers intended was the exclusion of faith in the affairs of state. In other words, they didn’t want the state involved in religious business; they did not have a problem with religion being involved in the state’s business.
The Framers understood that people would bring their religion or lack of religion with them to work. The Framers did. Many of them were religious and it was reflected in the early formations of our government. Our money says, “In God we trust.” The Ten Commandments are on the wall of the Supreme Court. Elected officials and witnesses are sworn in on Bible (or Qurans) and say “So help me God.” Congress starts or started each session in prayer. Even our Declaration of Independence says ‘that men are endowed by their Creator’ certain inalienable rights.
In short, I think that the whole separation of church and state in being blown out of proportion. When it becomes illegal for a policemen to have a cross on his uniform, a stocker at Home Depot to have a religious button on his apron, a child to wear a hijab to school, then we have taken separation of church and state too far. What about the freedom to express your religion so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone? What about freedom of expression? Do these go out the window to protect someone else’s right to not be exposed to said expressions? If that’s the case, when and where will it stop?
Soon, it may be that all rights to express religious beliefs may be gone while it will be ok for people to walk around with clothing, jewelry, and signs expressing all sorts of deviant and profane words and acts.
