COLUMN: The constitutionality of separation
There has been a lot of controversy recently over whether or not “separation of Church and State” is in the constitution, and what exactly that means.
Pundits and hopeful politicians have, with increasing volume, argued the constitutionality and Americanism of this idea.
While some have argued that separation of church and state derives from the first amendment of the constitution, others claim that the idea itself is simply unconstitutional. Still others have argued that none of the founding fathers contemplated the idea, and have attributed the idea of separation to Nazi Germany. Glen Urquhart, who is running for the House of Representatives explained where he thought the idea came from in a town-hall meeting
“Do you know, where does this phrase ‘separation of Church and State’ come from? Does anybody know?” he asked. A history teacher replied that it was from Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptists. Urquhart countered with:
“It was not in Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists … The exact phrase ‘separation of Church and State’ came out of Adolph Hitler’s mouth, that’s where it comes from.”
And, to drive the point home, he then urged those listening to ask their liberal friends, the next time separation of church and state is mentioned, to “ask them why they’re Nazis.”
Really?
I can understand pointing out the fact that the phrase “separation of church and state” doesn’t exist in the constitution. Truth be told, is isn’t – though the spirit of the phrase is certainly in the first amendment. I can even understand arguing about to what degree church and state should mesh.
Even the supreme court has acknowledged that a complete separation – due to responsibility of the government to ensure building codes and other city ordinances are met – is impossible.
But to claim that this principle is unconstitutional, or worse, to claim that this was coined by Adolf Hitler, is ludicrous.
The history teacher, by the way, was right. Here is what Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists:
“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.”
While Hitler may have indeed aspired to reach a separation of church and state, it was not he who imagined the idea.
And, while many people of faith argue that separation of church and state is bad, the principle was founded in order to protect religion.
John F. Kennedy understood this, and addressed it as such:
“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute – where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote – where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference – and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.”
Kennedy, when running for president, came under attack because of his Catholic faith. The nation, at that time, feared that if Kennedy were elected the Pope would control the United States. And, while Kennedy was defending his own faith, he understood that a separation of all religion was required in order to protect all religion.
As Kennedy explained it, while at one point in time certain groups may be in charge and can do as they wish, tides can change. While one religious group is being questioned or even persecuted, that could change.
Kennedy continued: “For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew – or a Quaker – or a Unitarian – or a Baptist.” To that list we could add Mormon and Muslim, as well as many other Christian and non-Christian religions, as all of them have come under attack.
If the government had the power to take up, promote, or interfere with religion, Mormons could still fall under “extermination orders” and be expelled from states that are under the control of other Christian denominations that view Mormons as a cult. And the same could happen to every other religion.
People proclaiming that their personal religion should be promoted by the government today are putting their religion at risk tomorrow by wanting it to mesh with State. People of faith should be delighted that the two are constitutionally – by the stated intent of at least one founding father – separate.
As Kennedy put it:
“Today I may be the victim – but tomorrow it may be you – until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.”
And, if you ask me, that fabric seems to be ripping rather audibly right now at the hands of the very people who should be cherishing it.
Ben Zaritsky is a senior in journalism. He can be reached at ben.zaritsky@aggiemail.usu.edu.