One Way Separation?

Myths About the Separation of Church and State

• Church / State Separation • Church / State Myths • Ten Commandments • Sabbath Laws • Jehovah's Witnesses • Separation of Church & State

• Site Resources • Main Site Index • What is Atheism? • Religion & Theism • Skepticism & Logic • Arguments for / against Gods • Evolution vs. Creationism • Religious Timelines • Hate Mail • Glossary • Book Reviews

• Chat Room Join others in the Agnosticism/Atheism chat!

• Discussion Forum Do you have an opinion about this page? Make it known on the Discussion Forum!

Myth:
The First Amendment only prohibits the state from interfering with churches.

Response:
This myth argues that there is a "wall of separation" between church and state, but that this wall only works "one way." It prevents the state from interfering with churches and telling them what they may or may not teach, but it does not prevent churches or other religious organizations from using the state to enforce their particular religious dogmas and beliefs. This misconception isn't limited simply to conservative Christians - Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the organization Towards Tradition once wrote "The First Amendment to the US Constitution was designed to protect religion from government regulation, not the other way around."

This argument is essentially the same as the one which states that we have "freedom of religion" (the right of churches to teach and people to believe what they want), but we have no right to "freedom from religion" (the right not to have other people's beliefs and religious rules promoted or adopted by the state). However, this argument is less subtle, because it makes it very clear that churches should be allowed to control the government and the laws.

Why would some people advocate using the government to impose particular religious beliefs and dogmas on others? Such a position is not really compatible with religious freedom, and to be honest, some of those promoting the above position do not actually believe in religious freedom. There are quite a few out there who regard their religion as the only valid one; and whether out of a desire to have power over others, a lack of human compassion for others, or a desire not to see others go to hell, they want to make sure others follow the same religion. If it requires the force of the state to accomplish this, so be it.

There are many, however, who do believe in the principle of religious liberty but nevertheless support the above myth in one form or another. Why they do this is difficult to understand - some may simply not understand that there is a contradiction. They might, for example, think that because most people in a community are Christian, then it isn't a problem for local government to enforce Christian rules - those who don't personally accept those rules will simply have to deal with it.

Others may honestly believe that the religious principles they would have enforced by law are "universal" and hence do not reflect a particular religious or theological perspective. This seemed to be the argument of the people supporting Ohio's state motto, "With God All Things are Possible." Although it is a quote from Jesus in the New Testament, it simply says "God" and may appear to some to be very general. Nevertheless, ministers testified in court that it expressed a particular perspective on a god who actively aids human endeavors, and this is not a universal position.

Sometimes the following quote is used to support the above myth:

That wall is a one directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.

The above is normally attributed to Thomas Jefferson by people such as David Barton, but absolutely no evidence can be found that Jefferson ever wrote or said it. This isn't surprising because Barton's "scholarship" has been called into question on numerous points.

James Madison was another who assumed that the separation of church and state should operate in both directions, something evident when he wrote to Jasper Adams that:

The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others.

History makes it clear that problems result not only when the state interferes with churches, but also when churches interfere with the state as well. People like Madison and Williams recognized this - this is why they sought to protect both by ensuring that each was restricted to those spheres of human existence which is appropriate. Government has no authority over the human conscience, and so has been excluded from the sphere of religion. Religion has no authority over how non-members structure their lives, and so is excluded from the general governing of society.