Separation of Church and State
By Dr. Ken Matto
If there is one thing which befuddles me and that is the great amount of Christians which accept the myth of separation of church and state. Many are stopped in their tracks when confronted by unbelievers with this straw man argument. It is time for Christians to know the truth and where these statements have come from. There is no such thing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights suggesting the separation of church and state. There is, however, a separation of powers in the government as it is divided into three separate entities. The Legislative branch, the Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch.
By the way, do you know what constitution DOES have the phrase "separation of church and state"? Why yes, the Soviet Union had this phrase in their old constitution.

The 1936 U.S.S.R. Constitution
"ARTICLE 124.- In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens."

The 1977 U.S.S.R. Constitution
"Article 52. - Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited. In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church."
So as one can plainly see, the idea of separation of church and state and separation of school and church comes from the old Soviet Union Constitution. Now where does the idea of separation of church and state originate here in the United States?
The First Amendment:
"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."
Now many believe that the idea of separation of church and state was found in the First Amendment. As you can see above that there is absolutely nothing in the First Amendment which speaks about separation of church and state. The First Amendment deals specifically with limiting the power of Congress so that government will not encroach upon religion, not the other way around. The First Amendment does not separate the church from the state, it separates the state from the church, a big difference. The First Amendment does not prohibit an elected official who is a Christian from calling upon their Christian principles to govern. After all, one can plainly see what type of government we now have when those who are non-Christians call upon their humanistic and depraved principles to govern. Need I say more? So now let us look at where the slew of anti-Christian lawyers extract that belief from.
In October of 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut penned a letter to President Jefferson.
The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.
Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, Stephen S. Nelson
This letter was written with concern about the possibility of religious persecution by the government. The Danbury Baptists wanted clarification on the government’s view on religious liberty. With that in mind, President Jefferson responded with a letter of assurance in response to their concerns.
The following letter is taken from the Library of Congress and was written by President Thomas Jefferson on January 1, 1802 in response to the letter written by the Danbury Baptists.
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and 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 and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and 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, & 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. 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 & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
As you can plainly read in Jefferson’s response, he referred back to the First Amendment in connection with the phrase “thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” As we have previously read, what President Jefferson was doing, he was reiterating the contents of the First Amendment and was assuring the Danbury Baptists that the government, by law, was not permitted to infringe upon the establishment of the freedom of religion.
So there it is, there is no such thing in the Constitution, Amendments, or Bill of Rights which speaks of a separation of church and state. So then how did it slip into usage by all liberal and left wing lawyers? It was because of a decision handed down by Justice Hugo Black in 1947. He was a very liberal and left wing Judge.
The Court has repeatedly held that "separation of church and state" is the constitutional cornerstone of religious liberty. In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black, in writing for the majority, stated: "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." In defining what is meant by the establishment of religion, Justice Black wrote, "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.... No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.... The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
Chief Justice Rehnquist also commented on the idea of separation of church and state.
….as Rehnquist writes in his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985:
It would seem...that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment had acquired a well-accepted meaning: it forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations...The Establishment Clause did not require neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the federal government from providing non-discriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the 'wall of separation' that was constitutionalized in Everson... The 'wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.
Chief Justice Rehnquist saw the separation of church and state argument as a fallacious and invisible argument since it did not have its root in any law and he recommended that it should be abandoned. However, that will never happen as more liberal judges are appointed and continue to uphold a constitutional amendment that has never existed.