Ok! I have to get this off my chest. I cannot remain silent any longer! I am imploring people to get the real facts on the meaning of separation of Church and State. In my opinion, this one of the frontline issues in the media war and as this issue goes—so goes the country. The original definition of Separation of Church and State was based on protecting the local churches from a government sponsored national church. This separation has been turned upside down to mean separation of any religious values from the state. Can a society honestly survive while rejecting all religious values? How far we have wandered from the founding principles on separation—based upon John Locke’s writings. Just a cursory look at the history of Separation of Church and State will produce a major conflict in the real history from its interpretation used today. Here is the Wiki entry on Separation of Church and State.
The idea of separating the church and state is often credited to the writings of the British philosopher John Locke, which deeply influenced the drafting of the United States Constitution. According to his principle of the social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain inviolable by any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became influential in the American colonies.
The concept was implicit in the flight of Roger Williams from religious oppression in
The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,
"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, & not opinions, 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."
Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights, who often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state." "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the
... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
I believe the original documents of the Founding Fathers and John Locke’s writings are very clear as to their meaning. Religious toleration meant giving all the Christian denominations the right to worship God in 
the way they deemed fit. There was a strong undergirding of Judeo-Christian principles that supported our laws, communities, and leaders. No founding father imagined a separation of religious values from the operation of government. I could prove this point in many areas, but let me stay focused and just pick the Ten Commandments given from God to Moses on
Why should we be shocked when a politician accepts bribes or embezzles? Shouldn’t their defense be, “I separated my religious values from my political assignment.”? If he was a Christian and brought his values to his job, then he would not steal, lie, commit adultery etc. Only an inconsistent Christian would do what a consistent person would do who rejected Judeo-Christian values. But if these religious values are rejected from government, then what values are left? I can see the politician who consistently follows through on Separation of Religion and State. They could state, “I will lie, cheat, steal, disrespect my parents, and fornicate with other people’s spouses and this is just the beginning of my value system for government work.” Would anyone legitimately vote for this person? If not, why would anyone honestly argue for separation of religious values from government positions? The wall of separation should ensure government does not create rules of faith for religious groups. If a religious faith violates the basic 10 commandments rules—our judicial system will intervene, because our judicial system is based upon the traditional Judeo-Christian faith.
Let me give an analogy of how people have turned the Separation of Church and State on its head and are applying the principle backwards to its original intentions. The Dutch nation in the 13th century was a hardworking, future focused group who built dams, dykes, and other barriers to separate the ocean from the low lying land. The Dutch created this separation to allow them to reclaim the land and have farms where the ocean water previously had been. The separation was designed to keep the ocean out of the farms—not the farmers out of the ocean. Can you imagine if a century later the government argued against the Dutch sailing on the ocean? The government would argue, “Our forefathers separated the ocean from the Dutch people and we cannot have any sailors sailing on the oceans. This would violate the principle of Separation of Ocean and Dutch. The Dutch people would rise in outrage against this disingenuous interpretation. They would argue the separation was designed one way—to keep the ocean from the Dutch people, but not the Dutch from the ocean. The Dutch have always been an ocean going people and would not tolerate this unconscionable interpretation. But isn’t this exactly what happened to the Separation of Church and State? It was designed to keep the State (ocean) out of the Church (Dutch people), but now keeps the Church and its values out of the State.
In the same way Americans have always been a religious people and should protest the wrong interpretation of Church and State. I am disappointed that someone would argue such twisted logic, but I am more disappointed that the vast majority of the American people will swallow this confused thinking with hardly a word of protest. I fear for our country if we reject the underlying principles of a good society. What society can last long term—if the people elected are liars, stealers, adulterers, etc? Our first president, George Washington said,
“Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
I could not say it any better than Mr.
I certainly am not proposing a national church and strongly support the true interpretation of Separation of Church and State. I am not proposing mass elections of Christians as they will only have the support if the people are behind their actions. But I am proposing the individual responsibility of Americans to educate themselves on the historical issues. How can we possibly vote without an understanding of the underlying issues accepted or rejected by the candidates? I strongly believe if we get the American people right, the politicians will miraculously get it right! :) I do not believe in one person telling everyone else how to think. This would not be freedom, but demagoguery. I am encouraging everyone to read and think through the issues themselves. Our republic will not survive without a literate and educated citizenship. Only a people, that does not know its history can fall prey to a charlatan selling a false interpretation of its history. Please share this article with others and be part of the solution and not part of the problem. We are a blessed nation and we must accept responsibility to carry on this blessed tradition. God Bless, Orrin Woodward
Assignment: Were you aware of the true history of the Separation of Church and State doctrine? Have you heard a twisted version espoused by the media? What are you doing to separate the truth from fiction? Pass this article on to others and encourage everyone to read the history for themselves.
