If you read the Constitution, you don’t find the phrase “separation of church and state”, even though we say there’s a provision for separation of church and state in it. Based on a comment from a previous blog entry, I thought I’d look at the issue. So I turned to http://www.constitution.org, the official web site of The Constitution Society. Here’s what I learned.
The phrase “separation of church and state” comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. They wrote Jefferson wondering why he had not declared national days of fasting and thanksgiving. (Would anyone really fast if we had a day of fasting?) Here’s Jefferson’s reply. I put the key phrase in bold. You can find this at http://www.constitution.org/tj/sep_church_state.htm.
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
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, 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] 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.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed)
Th Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
The phrases “should make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and “prohibit[ing] the free exercise thereof” come from the First Amendment, which is given here:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Jefferson is saying that since Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, there exists a wall of separation between church and state. It appears that Jefferson is saying the First Amendment builds a wall between church and state. While it is true that Constitution does not contain the phrase “separation of church and state,” as far as Jefferson was concerned, it contains the concept.
The Feral Deacon 
Thanks David. I identify the questions about whether that phrase is in our Constitution to be accompanied by the sound bytes of freedom “of” religion vs freedom “from” religion. Or said another way, there is the idea that the church should have free reign in terms if influencing the government, but just not the other way around. To me, that’s a bit of a logic puzzle…. one that fails. To suggest that the church can influence the government and to not expect that that influence will come back to dictate our citizens’ expressions of faith is ludicrous, logically speaking. So for those who can see the fallacy of this “one-way influence” argument, but continue to want to establish a religious state, what’s left is the simple admission that “I want everyone to follow my religious preferences, including what policies guide our government’s policies and what laws the citizens live under.” It seems strikingly un-American to me, yet it is often embraced with an American flag waving in the background.
LikeLike