×
X logo

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox.

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)

You may opt-out anytime by clicking "unsubscribe" from the newsletter or from your account.

Separation of Church, State Is Reviewed

Editor, News-Register:

Open letter to Mayor Elliott, members of Wheeling City Council, and members of Wheeling Human Rights Commission:

We, the Concerned Citizens of the Upper Ohio Valley, commend you on your decision for a continuance for further study and consideration on the proposed LGBTQ ordinance. As government has from the federal, state, and a number of local levels attempted to address LGBTQ regarding matters of equality, what we find is that as LGBTQ rights advance others are infringed upon.  Therefore, we applaud this more deliberate pace which allows for broader participation from the community of concerned citizens that will be affected by your decision.

We have discovered at least two issues that must be addressed before we offer specific points of consideration. It became evident in the last couple of weeks that at least one member of the Human Rights Commission is operating under a severely distorted historical perspective and an equally faulty scientific assumption. This letter will deal with the history of Christian perspective in the public sector.

One commission member asserted clearly that the Constitution invalidated our references to scripture (Bible quotations) in our first letter, sustaining his argument with a reference to Thomas Jefferson’s now famous quotation (much abbreviated and out of context), which is often repeated among modern educators, jurists, and progressive leaders; namely, the Constitution has “(built) a wall of separation between Church and State.” The commission member meant, of course, that Christian religious views have no place in the public forum. A larger quote from Jefferson’s letter follows:

“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 & State.”

What this commissioner, and most progressive modernists, ignore is 1) this statement is not in the Constitution, 2) it was a private letter to a Baptist friend who was concerned that the new government would establish a favored state religion, the very thing from which many Americans had fled Europe, and 3) the part that is in the Constitution; namely, that government should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (see Library of Congress for the complete letter to the Danbury Baptist Church).”

The free exercise of religion did not mean that Christians, or any religious people, were free only to assemble and talk to themselves, but they could express their views freely privately or publicly. They would, and history records they did, integrate morality, religion, and politics. This phenomenon remained the dominant philosophy for over 150 years until socialists, Marxists, skeptics, agnostics, and atheists gained the dominant voice in education and, thereafter, in the media and government.

Consider the words and actions of some of our Founding Fathers. Jefferson has been portrayed as one of the least religious of the founders. Some in his day considered him a deist; others during the election of 1800 a “howling atheist.” He continues to be described similarly today. The claim that Jefferson promoted a purely secular government, meaning one that did not acknowledge a Creator or seek His involvement, is a product of modern bias rather than fact. He may not have been a devout man or a devotee of a particular sect of Christianity, but he had enough respect for Jesus Christ to redact the New Testament, however audacious that may have been, to produce what he considered to be “the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has never been offered to man (Universal History Archive / Getty Images).”  This effort was in his own opinion “the result of a life of enquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system, imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions (emp. add.; see How Thomas Jefferson Created His Own Bible (www.smithsonianmag.com).” Regardless of Jefferson’s religious practices, he was unquestionably a champion of religious freedom and would never have prohibited reference to biblical teachings in public debate.

Benjamin Franklin was also considered one of the least devout of the Founding Fathers, but it was more a product of his personal habits than intellectual acknowledgment. When the Continental Congress was gridlocked and about to implode because the delegates were unable to resolve the differences blocking the ratification of a Constitution, Franklin remonstrated the delegates that “in the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered.” Regarding the impasse he continued, “How has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights (an allusion to the Book of James Chapter 1, verse 17) to illuminate our understandings?” and continued by quoting Psalm 127:1, “Except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.”

Franklin concluded his remarks with: “I therefore beg leave to move, that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of the City be requested to officiate in that service (see www.wallbuiders.com 1787  Franklin’s Appeal for Prayer).”

Not merely from the official beginning of our nation, but also from the process that led to the beginning acknowledgment of the Divine reality and man’s need for His providential care was recognized.

The nation was founded and flourished for eight years under its first, and perhaps its noblest, president, George Washington. In his farewell address, Washington declared in unequivocal terms the characteristics the nation’s people must have if the new republic was to survive and prosper. He wrote: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” The most cursory reading of American history declares that the religion to which he referred was the Christian religion. Religious protections were accorded to all, even to those who claimed no religion, but the one that would be relied upon to make the American experiment in democracy work was the Christian religion.

Alexis De Toqueville, “Democracy in America,” has been widely considered to have written the definitive work on the American republic. He was interested in how the American experiment seemed to be working when the French republic failed so miserably.  The two attempts shared certain enlightenment ideals; such as, equal opportunity, freedom of speech, popular sovereignty, and representative government, but the French republic diverged radically with regard to deference to Divine guidance. In June 1793, the Jacobins seized control of the National Convention from the more moderate Girondins and instituted a series of radical measures, including the establishment of a new calendar and the eradication of Christianity. By contrast de Toqueville observed in America:

“There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America; and there can be no greater proof of its utility and conformity to human nature than that its influence is left over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.”

He further observed, “Americans so completely identify the spirit of Christianity with freedom in their minds that it is almost impossible to get them to conceive the one without the other.” America was already in De Toqueville’s day seen to be the most successful republic in history. History records that America grew to be also the most successful nation.  De Toqueville reinforced the role of religion in that success when he wrote, “I realize that these people are about to call upon the help of religion, for they must know that the reign of liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without beliefs.” As Washington observed, liberty (political prosperity), religion, and morality go hand in hand.  Take away any one and the other two suffer.

The highest courts in the land for nearly 200 years have also acknowledged and confirmed that the American republic was religious in its construction and Christian in its philosophy. The Supreme Court in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892) with Justice Josiah Brewer giving the opinion of the court wrote:

“But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.”

The court recognized that for over a century religion was not only an unalienable right, but no action of government at any level should even presume to interfere in its free exercise.  De Toqueville quoted above observed this same principle over half a century earlier:

“Religion, which never interferes directly in the government of Americans, should therefore be regarded as the first of their political institutions, for, if it does not give them the taste for liberty, it enables them to take unusual advantage of it.”

Two things are apparent. First, religion does not interfere directly in government, but, as the most powerful influence in the thoughts of Americans it does indirectly affect government and, second, as the “first” among the political institutions protected by the Constitution, it must be protected above all other rights.

As recently as the middle of the 20th century, religious protections and influence were still recognized by the high court. William O. Douglas, the longest serving Supreme Court jurist in history (36 years), wrote the majority decision in the 1952 case of Zorach v. Clauson.  He stated, “The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State.” This separation that is so loudly declared was, as we said above, lifted out of context from a personal letter from Thomas Jefferson to a friend at the Danbury Baptist Church. The Constitution expressly states in Amendment 1:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The government shall not establish a state approved religion, favor one practice over another, or pass any law which would interfere with the practice and expression of religious beliefs.  The government would violate the Constitution if or when it prohibits this “first” protected right, whether in private or in public.

Justice Douglas continued:

“We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. … When the state encourages religious instruction … it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe (www.americanminute.com).”

If the government would pass any law, statute, or ordinance that would provide a right or a protection to any person or group of persons such that it could be construed to infringe upon the free exercise and or expression of religious beliefs and practice; then, that act would be in violation of the Constitution as intended by the founders and contrary to 165 years of legal precedence.

A final note relating to high court opinion.  In the 1984 decision of Lynch vs. Donnelly, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger quoted Justice William O. Douglas:

“The concept of a ‘wall’ of separation between church and state … is not an accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists. The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. Anything less would require the ‘callous indifference’ (Zorach v. Clauson), that was never intended by the Establishment Clause.  (www.americanminute.com).”

The argument from one commission member that religious ideals have no place in the public debate is entirely bogus. The objective of many modernists is to make man the master of his own destiny without deference to a transcendent moral authority. Of course the temptation is that those who rise to the highest positions of power become rulers of their world, whether it be local, state, national, or international.  To pursue such an idea is contrary to the spirit and the intent of the Founding Fathers, is in opposition to a wealth of legal precedence, and is counter to all legal, religious, and political tradition that has stood for nearly 200 years.  To reject or deny religious narrative, especially the Christian narrative, is foolish at best and disingenuous at worst.

We shall close with the Preamble to the West Virginia Constitution:

“Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia, in and through the provisions of this Constitution, reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God and seek diligently to promote, preserve and perpetuate good government in the state of West Virginia for the common welfare, freedom and security of ourselves and our posterity.”

Do not assert or operate under the illusion that there is no place for religious opinion, especially the Christian worldview, in the public debate.

Jim Hyest

Concerned Citizens

of the Upper Ohio Valley

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *

COMMENTS

Starting at $4.73/week.

Subscribe Today