CHAPTER FOUR

Shall Congress Prevent Religious

Expression?

WITH EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING America’s Christian heritage, why do so many deny it? Those who challenge America’s history often acquire their information from “revisionists,” or from “secular interpretations” concerning what the Founders believed, rather than looking to the Framers’ “original” writings. Revisionists often use omissions, broad generalizations, and half-truths in order to rewrite history. From slavery to the Salem Witch Trials, from the massacre of Native Americans to the oppression of women, revisionists attempt to level these charges against all early Americans—to take the exception and portray it as the rule. But they often fail to mention the three Christian men who eventually brought an end to the Salem Witch Trials, the countless early Americans who embraced the Indians, and the plethora of Founders who detested the evil practice of slavery. Many early Americans set in motion social movements that have freed and benefited mankind. Granted, some Christians have been guilty of revisionism as well, but the general push toward revisionism often comes from those who feel disdain toward our nation’s heritage and anything “Christian.”

As yet another example, revisionists try to convince us that people like George Washington were Deists. A Deist believes in an impersonal, distant God; they reject personal prayer, Jesus Christ, and the Bible. Washington used the name “Jesus Christ” in some of his letters, journals, and prayer books; that doesn’t sound like a Deist to me. But the most convincing evidence comes from Washington’s adopted daughter, Nelly Custis-Lewis: “I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his [George Washington’s] firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian.”20 If Washington’s own contemporaries did not question his faith but were thoroughly convinced of it, should we challenge this fact? (For those who desire more information on this subject, refer to Dr. Peter Lillback’s book, George Washington’s Sacred Fire. This resource buries, under an avalanche of facts, the myth that Washington was an unbeliever.)

Others, however, reject America’s heritage because they reject God. Simply stated: If there’s a God, and there is, then the current direction of America’s morality is wrong; something few want to admit. This is why many want a complete separation of church and state: Out of sight, out of mind. Those who cry “separation of church and state” the loudest are often those who reject God and His principles—they want the freedom to do what they want, when they want, how they want, to whom they want. I’m not referring to those who desire a healthy debate and/or may disagree with my position—some of the Puritans, for example, preferred a State Church—I’m referring to those who make their own rules and avoid any mention of God. The arrogant man does not seek God; God is in none of his thoughts (Psalm 10:4).

A monumental debate about the government’s role concerning religion has been ongoing in recent years. For those who understand the foundation on which the Constitution was constructed, there really is no debate. Don’t worry, this shouldn’t bore you; I’ll get straight to the point.

The misconception primarily surrounds the phrase “separation of church and state.” Although the First Amendment clearly says that Congress shall not prevent religious expression, one would think that it reads: Congress shall prevent religious expression. The courts have used the infamous “separation” phrase to ban religious activities, primarily those promoting Christian principles. Sadly, many believe that “separation of church and state” appears in the Constitution, when, in reality, the phrase does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Did you catch that? “Separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. So where did it originate? Be very clear on this point, especially if you are a student in a public school or university, or even a “Christian” university. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, used the phrase in 1802 in a private letter written to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut.21

The Baptists feared that the government might someday try to regulate religious expression. Ironically, we are seeing this today. Remember, that’s one reason why the Pilgrims left England for Holland before coming to America. This is crucial in understanding the spirit in which the First Amendment was written. In other words, the Colonists, like the Pilgrims, did not want the government imposing a national religion or denomination on the people—they wanted to worship freely. Mr. Jefferson wisely agreed with them, as did many of the other Founders.

Jefferson assured the Baptists that the primary purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent rivalry among Christian denominations. He said that Congress would neither establish a national denomination, nor prohibit the free exercise of religion. His statement was intended to protect religious expression by building a wall of separation between the church and the state; solidifying the fact that the federal government could not strike down religious freedoms.

The first part of the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Note the words, “no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The government cannot establish a national religion, but it can openly and unapologetically acknowledge the sovereign hand of God. Acknowledgment is not establishment. That’s why arguments such as “if you display the Ten Commandments you should also be required to display an alternative message,” are absurd. Ten Commandment monuments can be displayed and prayer can be honored in government offices and in schools without offering alternative messages. We can openly acknowledge God in all areas of civil government because our government was built on His Word, His precepts, and His principles—we must acknowledge Him as the source of our nation’s strength. If you doubt this, simply review the Annals of Congress from June 8^th to September 25^th, 1789. These Annals contain the official records of those who drafted the First Amendment. These gentlemen definitely had something to say about the issue. The delegate from Massachusetts actually said that the First Amendment would read better if it said, “no religious doctrine shall be established by law.”

Jefferson said that the freedom to express religion was a God-given right. The federal government was to be restrained in the area of religion; they could not seize power from the states. However, approximately 150 years later, in 1947, the Supreme Court radically changed the meaning of the First Amendment. In Everson v. Board of Education, the Court did something unheard of: They coupled the First Amendment with the Fourteenth Amendment. They said that the states could no longer engage in religious activities, and that the federal courts could now restrict such activities. This is clearly opposed to the freedom the Framers envisioned. The state and the church were to be separate in their duties and functions, but interwoven in their core beliefs and principles. In the Old Testament, in the Hebrew Republic, for example, God separated the church from the state in relation to these duties and functions. The state was to protect, administer justice, and defend the nation. The church was to care for the people, guard the Word of God, and serve as the conscience of the government and the people. You may want to commit those last few sentences to memory; with that understanding, there’s really no debate.

Remember, this is not about exalting the Founders, America, or the Constitution; it’s about promoting godly principles necessary to properly govern the nation.

Just how serious is this issue? In a newsletter entitled, Truth & Tyranny, Coral Ridge Ministries made this powerful statement in 2003: “Church-state separation is a lie, and it is deadly. It was this lie that led the Warren Court to ban prayer in public schools in 1962. That ruling set in motion the speediest and most spectacular decline of any civilization in history.”22 Does this statement seem too radical? If so, consider this: It’s been estimated that talking, chewing gum, and making noise were the top three public school problems in the early sixties. Some argue that sexual misconduct, robbery, and assault lead the list today. You be the judge.

It’s important to note that for 150 years before the 1947 decision, the states had their own powers and rights, and the federal government could not infringe upon them. Religious expression, especially of the Christian faith, was commonly shared. As a matter of fact, many of the original thirteen states had “establishments of religion” known as state-supported churches. Today, however, the courts have taken it upon themselves to assume the role of a law-making body, rather than a protector of the Constitution. The wall that was designed to protect America’s freedoms has now imprisoned her. It is critical that we pray for our leaders—executive, legislative, and judicial.

Without a doubt, the original intent of many of the Founders was not to remove God’s Word from society, but to promote it. An important relationship between wording and intent must be recognized. Wording divorced from intent leads to speculation. Many can manipulate the words of early Americans to fit their ideology, but it’s difficult to manipulate their intent. Intentions clearly indicated that early Americans were concerned about the government influencing religion rather than religion influencing the government.

Freedom of religion was not freedom from religion—separation of church and state does not mean separation of God and government. National policy was to be shaped by God’s principles. For example, many of the ideas found in the Declaration of Independence came directly from John Locke’s masterful work, Two Treatises on Civil Government. In order to illustrate the proper function of civil government, Locke cited the Bible approximately 1,500 times. Additionally, America’s three branches of government can be found in Isaiah 33:22, the tax-exempt status for churches in Ezra 7:24, and the reason behind “separation of powers” in Jeremiah 17:9.

Freedom of speech is another misapplied freedom that has cost us dearly. Again, it’s important to consider the words and the intent of the Founders. The infamous Freedom of Speech clause was never intended to lead to the distribution of pornographic material, crude dialogue in the media, and an array of other misapplications. To fully understand the true meaning of freedom of speech, it must be read in context; it deals primarily with protecting religious expression, not protecting offensive material. I’m not advocating censorship, but there should be a balance between freedom and responsibility; a balance that many have traditionally recognized and respected. James Kent, one of the fathers of American Jurisprudence wrote the following in his classic work, Commentaries on American Law: “Every citizen might freely speak, write, and print, on any subject, but is responsible for the abuse of that liberty.”

If you doubt this, consider the following fact: Many of the early justices participated in drafting the Constitution. One can simply review their rulings in the courtroom to understand how they felt about issues such as “freedom of speech”—rulings reflected convictions. For example, in The People v. Ruggles (1811), the defendant was tried in court for making vulgar comments about Jesus and His mother. The defendant’s attorney believed that he had an open and shut case, and that his client would not be convicted based on “freedom of speech.” The judge, however, did not agree because he understood the true intent of the First Amendment. The defendant was convicted, fined, and sentenced to three months in jail. Although foreign to our way of thinking, Judge Kent plainly stated: “Nothing could be more offensive to the virtuous part of the community, or more injurious to the tender morals of the young, than to declare such profanity lawful.”23 This statement would be ridiculed and seem absurd today. As a nation, we have, without question, lost our moral and spiritual compass.

Group Study Questions

1.       What is the difference between the “original” writings of the Founders and secular interpretations? What is revisionism? Why is it dangerous, even for Christians, to accept revisionism?

2.      Why do many believe that “separation of church and state” appears in the Constitution? How has this misconception influenced the courts?

3.      Why did Jefferson assure the people that Congress would neither establish a national denomination nor prohibit the free exercise of religion? Explain this statement: Acknowledgment is not establishment.

4.      The state and the church were designed to be separate in their duties and functions, but interwoven in their core beliefs and principles. How is it possible to be separate, yet interwoven?

5.      What is the relationship between the wording of the Founders and the intent of the Founders? Why is it important to consider both?

6.       Comment on this statement: Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion—separation of church and state does not mean separation of God and government.

7.      If the primary purpose of freedom of speech was to protect religious expression, how, instead, did pornography and other offensive material fall under its protection?

“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord”

(Psalm 33:12).

Recommended Resources

The Exhaustive Concordance to the United States Constitution, available through WallBuilders, is a comprehensive concordance that allows quick reference to every word used in the U.S. Constitution arranged by Article, Section, Clause, and sentence.

The Original 13, by William J. Federer, vividly documents the history of religion in America’s first thirteen states. Numerous historical documents provide solid evidence for religion’s role in America.

Understanding the Constitution, by David Gibbs, Jr. & David Gibbs III, underscores ten points every Christian should know about the United States Constitution.

Wall of Misconception, by Peter Lillback, clearly and powerfully demonstrates that separation of church and state does not mean separation of God from government.