Blurred Lines Between Church and State
Revealing the Historical Erosion of America’s Sacred Wall
I want to clarify from the beginning this isn’t an anti-religious rant. Instead, I’m examining how religious influence on government has evolved in America. The purpose of this piece is straightforward: to demonstrate that what was once a solid wall between church and state has now crumbled into pillars of salt.
Some reading this may be happy with these results. Who doesn’t like their team running things?
No one person’s tribe will always be on top forever, though. Would you one day want to find yourself under the rule of a theocracy not of your own religion?
There are hundreds of denominations of Christianity in America alone. Which one is the right one?
The necessity of this discussion stems from a recent uptick in overreach by partisan political figures who inject their religious biases, challenging principles that were forged into the Constitution.
I’d like to start from the beginning with the founding fathers. They are not the monolith people claim they are. Their diverse points of view on religion will be examined to understand the Constitution when referring to religion. After this, we’ll focus on what the Constitution says about religion.
It’s been 232 years since the Constitution was first written and ratified with the Bill of Rights. There have been many decisions by SCOTUS since that have carved out boundaries and even exceptions.
Post World War II is when America accelerates its trajectory toward a theocracy. Up until then, most decisions set boundaries for both the government and religious organizations. The Red Scare changed it all. A fear-filled populace gave in to religion as their shield against the communists.
Today’s political theater is centered around a culture war stoked by religious doctrine. In this very moment, it appears as if America is adding another denomination to Christianity under the guise of MAGA. They have their King and his new Bible. They’ve shown who they are and what they are willing to do.
Let’s get into the boring stuff now.
Founding Fathers
On June 21, 1788, the United States Constitution was officially ratified when New Hampshire became the ninth state to approve it, marking the establishment of the Constitution as the law of the land. It was not until December 15, 1791, that the Bill of Rights was ratified.
In the years leading up to the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the mood in the United States was one of cautious optimism mixed with a touch of apprehension. The States, now free of British rule, had the daunting task of building a functional and balanced federal government.
The Constitution provided a framework for this government, but it appeared to grant too much power to the central authority, potentially reducing individual rights and freedoms. The emergence of deep-seated concerns about potential government overreach prompted debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Two of the founding fathers, Patrick Henry and George Mason, led the way for the Anti-Federalists.
Both Henry and Mason had views about the role of religion in government, which can be linked to the broader discussion of the separation of church and state, although they didn’t specifically frame these views within that modern term.
George Mason was instrumental in the development of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights, which influenced the U.S. Bill of Rights. Section 16 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, largely authored by Mason, states:
“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience…”
This early statement advocates for religious freedom and the idea that religious belief should be guided by personal conviction rather than governmental coercion, aligning with the principle of separation between church and state.
Patrick Henry, on the other hand, had more complex views. He supported the idea of the government providing financial support to Christian teachers and was not in favor of as broad a separation between church and state as others like Thomas Jefferson or James Madison advocated. Henry’s famous 1784 bill, “A Bill Establishing A Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” proposed that citizens of Virginia should be taxed to support Christian teachers of their choosing. This bill was ultimately defeated with the help of James Madison’s famous “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” which argued vigorously against the bill and in favor of religious liberty and the separation of church and state.
James Madison, originally a Federalist opponent of a specific bill of rights, came to champion the cause, recognizing that such a move was essential for achieving national unity and ensuring the Constitution’s acceptance.
Madison’s shift was strategic but also principled, as he came to appreciate the necessity of protecting certain liberties explicitly to prevent interpretative abuses. He carefully crafted the amendments to placate concerns without undermining the functional sovereignty of the federal government. His proposals, introduced to Congress in 1789, were crafted from suggestions made by various state conventions during the ratification of the Constitution. It’s no wonder why he’s considered the “Father of the Constitution.”
Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” (1785) emphasized that religion is a personal matter, stating,
“The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man.”
In an 1822 letter to Edward Livingston, he highlighted the risks of ecclesiastical encroachments on civil liberties, cautioning,
“The danger of silent accumulations & encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.”
Madison’s “Detached Memoranda” criticized the appointment of congressional and military chaplains, challenging these practices’ alignment with the constitutional principle of religious freedom.
As we can see, the Founding Fathers were not a monolith. They held a wide range of beliefs from deists like Thomas Paine to devout Christians like Samuel Adams. From Federalists like James Madison to Anti-Federalists like George Mason. This diversity shaped their views on government and religion, influencing the framing of the Bill of Rights.
The next time someone suggests that the United States is a Christian nation, enlighten them about the diverse perspectives held by the founding fathers not only regarding religion but also regarding the interaction between religion and government.
Now that we know what some of the founding fathers thought, let’s pivot to what they wrote in the Constitution.
Constitution & Religion
Two parts of the Constitution come to mind. One is in Article VI, Clause 3. It states:
“no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
This provision ensures that no person can be barred from holding a federal office based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof, promoting a government that is inclusive of all faiths and beliefs.
One doesn’t have to go far to find states trampling on these rights. Below are just a few examples.
Arkansas:
- Article 19, Section 1
“No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this state, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.”
Maryland:
- Article 37
“That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office or profit or trust in this state, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”
Mississippi:
- Article 14, Section 265
“No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.”
North Carolina:
- Article 6, Section 8
“The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.”
South Carolina:
- Article 17, Section 4
“No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.”
Tennessee:
- Article 9, Section 2
“No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.”
Texas:
- Article 1, Section 4
“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall anyone be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”
The Supreme Court has clearly stated in cases like Torcaso v. Watkins that such religious tests are unconstitutional. While these articles are still technically part of the state constitutions, any attempt to enforce them would be legally void.
The other part of the constitution related to religion is the most known, the First Amendment. It states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
This is known as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion, endorsing one religion over another, or favoring religion over non-religion (or vice versa). The Free Exercise Clause protects individuals’ rights to practice their religion as they wish, without interference from the government.
Between the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, along with the individuals who crafted them, it is clear that a deliberate boundary was established between an individual’s religion and the government. These sacred documents explicitly enshrine the separation of church and state, ensuring that religious beliefs are neither mandated nor suppressed by governmental authority.
Now that we’ve explored the foundational views and writings of America’s founding fathers regarding religion and government, let’s examine how these principles have been challenged and transformed over the years.
The Early Years: Setting the Stage
The ink was barely dry on the Constitution when the first challenges to the separation of church and state emerged. In these early decades, several states maintained established churches, funded by public taxes, directly challenging the First Amendment’s provisions. This period was marked by significant legal battles and public debates that would define the boundaries between church and state.
One pivotal case in understanding the separation of church and state is Reynolds v. United States (1878). In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the federal anti-bigamy laws, rejecting the defense that religious duty justified polygamy. George Reynolds, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, challenged the anti-bigamy law, claiming it infringed upon his religious freedoms.
The Court’s decision was critical in establishing that while religious belief is protected under the First Amendment, religious practices that violate federal law or public morals do not receive the same protection. This case set a precedent that the government could limit religious practices but not beliefs, clarifying the boundaries of the “free exercise” of religion.
In the early 20th century, America experienced a wave of immigration, introducing a melting pot of cultures. Religions that rarely interact with one another, are now forced to find common ground. Tensions rose along with legislative reactions, some inclusive, others decidedly less so.
In 1919, the 18th Amendment, led by Pietistic Protestants, was enacted, prohibiting the production, transport, and sale of intoxicating liquors. The following year prohibition began.
It wasn’t until I wrote this piece that I realized the 18th amendment did not include a prohibition on the consumption of alcohol.
After ratifying the 18th Amendment, Congress swiftly passed the Volstead Act, which defined intoxicating liquors as including liquors, wine, and beer. This period of prohibition endured for 13 years until 1933. While not explicitly aimed at favoring any one religion, it served as an early indication of the influence organized religion could exert on American society.
The Progressive Era, particularly the 1930s, marked a significant shift in the role of religion in public policy. This period was characterized by the New Deal, a series of programs and projects instituted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression.
Religious groups played a pivotal role in supporting these initiatives, advocating for social justice, and expanding welfare programs based on moral and ethical principles derived from religious teachings.
This era showcased a different aspect of religious influence, where faith-based advocacy for the poor and disenfranchised became a powerful force in shaping federal policies.
Churches and religious organizations increasingly partnered with the government to address social issues, blurring the lines between secular and religious motivations in public policy. These collaborations, while beneficial in addressing the immediate needs of the Depression-struck population, raised questions about the implications of the separation of church and state.
As America edged closer to World War II, the legal landscape regarding church-state separation continued to evolve. The decision Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) comes to mind.
In 1940, the Supreme Court’s decision in Cantwell v. Connecticut significantly clarified religious freedom in the U.S. The ruling emphasized that state laws cannot suppress or interfere with an individual’s religious practices under the guise of regulation.
It applied the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. This ensures that all levels of government must respect and protect an individual’s right to freely practice their religion.
Limitations on religious practices must endure the most rigorous examination. State laws must serve a compelling interest and achieve it in the least intrusive manner possible. Upholding the sacred rights of individuals to worship, preach, and practice their beliefs, the decision shields these freedoms from undue governmental intrusion.
Up until this point, the decisions of the Supreme Court had primarily focused on delineating the boundaries between church and state. Some rulings restrained government intervention, while others clarified the extent to which religious influence could permeate the public sector.
It took the fear of the spread of communism after World War II for Americans to relinquish the strict boundaries previously upheld between religion and government
Pillars of Salt
Post World War 2, to me at least, is where things heat up when it comes to blurred lines between church and state.
Towards the end of the war, America decided to drop, not one, but two, nuclear bombs on civilians. I can not imagine this happening today. There have been many reason flung around as to why or even if it was necessary in the first place.
Some have rumored it was to show the Soviet Union how mighty we were. Unfortunately, this only lit a fire under Stalin’s arse to expedite his nuclear program, thus starting the Nuclear Arms Race.
The significance here is that communists at the time were considered atheists. With some bad reverse engineering logic, society deemed all atheists communists. To distance themselves from the enemy, the commies, America’s propaganda machine took over once more with a flurry of misinformation leading to backlash for anyone who didn’t conclude there was a god.
Now that the stage is set let’s start with the 1950s.
Enter Dwight D. Eisenhower, a respectable man with many accomplishments. He was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force during World War II to the 34rd President of the United States. During his presidency he did many great things like the Interstate Highway System, promoted civil rights advancements and led a prosperous society.
On the flip side he also gave into the fear. The atheist commies needed to be stamped out. At the peak of McCarthyism, Eisenhower becomes President and had to stand strong against those filthy commie atheist so liberties were taken, literally.
In 1953, the National Prayer Dinner was created. Eisenhower was somewhat reluctant to attend but his buddy Billy Graham reassumed him. Behind the scene people like Douglas Evans Coe were leading a shadow organization, The Fellowship, raising a religious army to infiltrate the government. This is the organization that founded the Nation Prayer Dinner.
It wasn’t till I watched the Netflix doc-u-series, The Family, that I heard the name Doug Coe or of his organization’s power in politics. It also touched on the idea of a ‘Wolf King’, providing the most compelling explanation I’ve seen for why religious people might vote for someone who breaks almost every rule they cherish. If you’re curious about this topic, the trailer for the series is below.
From this moment America made it clear it wanted to be projected as a Christian nation.
Not soon after, the word God started to seep into the government.
Even though the original Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, it did not include the word God. The purpose of this pledge was to promote patriotism in schools, not God.
The irony here is he was also a socialist.
A few years later America adopted the slogan, “In God We Trust”, in 1956, replacing the de facto motto , “E pluribus unum” or “Out of many, one”.
Since this was the official motto now, currency in America started printing with the phrase “In God We Trust”. Up till this point there were only a few coins in the Civil War era with the word God on it. Now all currency printed or pressed had this phrase.
I can see how people today would assume this is a Christian nation though. Being born into a society that has God baked into the government their whole lives. From schools, court houses, to currency.
The 1960s were not only a time of legal battles over church-state separation but also a period of significant social and cultural upheaval. The rulings in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) significantly shaped public policy concerning religious expression in schools, establishing a clear constitutional guideline that helped to reinforce the separation of church and state.
These decisions demonstrated the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding the foundational principle that government entities should not promote or endorse religious activities, ensuring that public schools remain environments free from sectarian influences.
The civil rights movement, led by figures like Martin Luther King Jr., showcased the potent mix of religious leadership and social justice advocacy. King used his theological insights to frame civil rights issues in a moral and ethical context, using religion to galvanize support for equality and justice.
SIDE NOTE: King’s philosophy of nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience was deeply influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s successful nonviolent movement against British rule in India. Gandhi himself drew upon the principles of ahimsa (nonviolence) and anekantavada (non-absolutism) from the ancient Indian religion of Jainism, one of the oldest religions in the world.
His approach highlighted how religious beliefs could positively influence public policy and social change, while also sparking debates about the appropriate role of religion in public advocacy.
This period saw religious motivation and public policy intersect on streets and pulpits, challenging and reshaping public perceptions of the relationship between faith and governance in the quest for civil rights.
As America moved beyond the 1960s, the Supreme Court continued to refine and clarify the boundaries of church-state separation. The 1970s and 1980s witnessed several pivotal cases that further defined the limits and liberties of religious expression in public spaces.
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) introduced the Lemon Test, a significant judicial tool used to assess whether government actions violate the Establishment Clause. This test requires that a law must have a secular purpose, not primarily promote or inhibit religion, and avoid excessive government entanglement with religion. It became an important standard for future church-state separation cases, underscoring the ongoing judicial effort to maintain a neutral government stance on religion.
During the 1980s, the Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) decision struck down an Alabama law mandating a moment of silence in schools intended for prayer or meditation, reaffirming that such policies could not be used to promote religious practices in public education. This case highlighted the Court’s vigilance in preventing subtle forms of religious endorsement by the state.
Influence
Societal debates over religious influence in public life have become more pronounced. The rise of the Moral Majority and other evangelical Christian groups in the 1980s signaled a new era of religious activism that sought to reshape public policy on issues ranging from school prayer to moral and ethical considerations in lawmaking.
The Court’s responses to these movements were mixed, reflecting a nation deeply divided over the role of religion in public life. Cases like Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), which ruled against teaching creationism in public schools, illustrated the ongoing tension between scientific perspectives and religious beliefs in educational settings.
The trend with these court cases has been to prevent religion climbing over the wall separating it from the government. This must feel like opposition for them to lose so much in the courts.
If you can’t win in the courts, the next best option is to replace the court with your people with your ideology.
Theocrats manufactured, what will be decades of the Oppression Olympics, with think tanks like Heritage Foundation (73`) and The Federalist Society (82`).
Their goal?
To craft policy favoring their ideology while simultaneously propping up judges that will rule on said policy. The first step involves identifying an ‘other’ to blame for existing disparities. Insert ‘other’ with labels like ‘communist, socialist, Marxist, woke’. This plan has been in the works for decades now.
The Federalist Society
Their influence extends beyond promoting conservative judicial philosophies, but also advancing a religious agenda. The justices known for their conservative stances have been pivotal in shaping the direction of the Supreme Court over recent decades. Through its central role in vetting and endorsing candidates, the Federalist Society aims not only to steer the judiciary towards a more conservative and originalist interpretation of the Constitution but also to align legal principles with certain religious values.
Don’t believe me?
Here are some of their recent promotions:
- Clarence Thomas — Nominated to the Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush.
- Samuel Alito — Nominated to the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush.
- Neil Gorsuch — Nominated to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump.
- Brett Kavanaugh — Nominated to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump.
- Amy Coney Barrett — Nominated to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump.
Do these names look familiar?
I hope so, because they are sitting on the Supreme Court as I type this out. That’s 5 out 9 Justices influenced by a religious think tanks designed to imprint out their ideology over your own.
Rethinking the SCOTUS Bench
Elections, Term Limits, and Transparency for a Modern Judiciary
medium.com
Heritage Foundation
While the Federalist Society focused more on Justices, Heritage foundation worked on policy. Their 2,000 policy suggestions significantly shaped the Reagan administration’s agenda, including welfare reform and tax cuts. This marked a shift towards conservative policies in American governance.
Even though a Democrat, Bill Clinton, was President most of the 1990s, he could not hold back the Heritage Foundation. At the charge was a different era of Republicans led by Newt Grinch, Speaker of the House.
Keep in mind it had been 40 years since a conservative held the position of Speaker of the House. Newt wasted no time with his scorched earth tactics, shutting down the government and pushing forward Heritage-driven agendas like welfare reform and tax cuts. By cutting welfare, churches become more appealing. Those falling through the cracks of society are often more susceptible to their influence.
The trend has not let up.
I’ve tried not to bring political parties into this piece. But it’s hard not to when the topic involves religion in government. There is a clear symbiosis relationship formed with the Republican party and Evangelicals some time around the Reagan Era.
They are now, one in the same.
This is evident as Clinton leaves office and George Bush takes over. In 2003, Heritage provided policy recommendations that led to the adoption of 15 new rules in Congress. Thirteen of these rules were directly aligned with Heritage’s suggestions. These changes affected budgeting, transparency, and accountability within the legislative process, but also steered policies toward contentious cultural issues, like opposition to gay marriage. This alignment shows how religious agendas have increasingly influenced policies that shape the cultural and moral landscape of the nation.
Don’t worry, I won’t bring up Bush’s relationship with Ted Haggard. 😂
There’s a clear trend here. Since Reagan, policies by religious think tanks have attached them self to a party and squeeze it for all its worth. Policies should be about solving problems based on evidence, not tearing people down due to fear.
Another variable I have not addressed is the Johnson Amendment. If you’re not familiar with it, in 1954, then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson introduced a provision in the U.S. tax code, specifically Section 501(c)(3), which regulates the tax-exempt status of nonprofit organizations. There’s a clear line established: it prohibits tax-exempt organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates.
In simple terms, the Johnson Amendment means that religious organizations, like churches, which have tax-exempt status (meaning they don’t have to pay taxes on the money they receive), cannot openly support or oppose political candidates during their activities, including sermons or other church events.
How many of you have experienced politics being preached from the pulpit?
Did your church lose their tax status?
Most likely not. This amendment has no teeth. On paper, it makes sense, but if no one enforces it, it’s a paper tiger.
How do I know this?
Because both the Heritage Foundation and The Federalist Society have the same tax status, 501(c)(3). These lines, once made to keep neutrality, are now used to funnel tax-free revenue from churches to tax-exempt organizations to heavily influence federal, state, and local policies, paid for by tax dollars, to favor their prescribed ideology.
For decades, fear has ruled a party via religion. Policies determined by religious organizations, some from the shadows like Doug Coe to out in the open like the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society.
I cannot deny that religion influenced some of the founding fathers and thereby shaped the Constitution. From their writings, both public and personal, it is clear that they intended to prevent religion from exerting undue influence over government, ensuring that governance remains secular and independent.
WARNING
The founding fathers laid a foundation for America to build upon, anticipating that society would evolve and laws would need to adapt. But what happens when laws are not enforced, or when policies are imposed and judged by both covert and overt religious organizations? There’s a very real possibility that the trend described above will continue, depending on the outcome of the next presidential election.
This trend leads us to Project 2025.
A flagship initiative of the Heritage Foundation. Once their Wolf King wins in November, a series of federal policies with a theocratic brush will be sculpted in such a way it will forever change America.
Before I end, I’ll leave you with a few of Project 2025’s initiatives:
- Invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy U.S. military forces for domestic law enforcement as a way to forcefully implement their agenda
- Drastically expand presidential powers and eliminate checks and balances through an extreme “unitary executive theory”
- Purge tens of thousands of federal workers deemed “disloyal” and replace them with far-right loyalists
- Push Christian nationalist ideology and biblical laws into all levels of government policymaking
- Enact national bans and criminalization around abortion, contraception, LGBTQ+ rights
- Gut agencies like the DOJ, FBI, EPA and turn them into partisan weapons against perceived enemies
- Severely restrict immigration, deport millions, and target legal residents/communities
- Eliminate the Department of Education and privatize/defund public education
- Outlaw materials and resources related to LGBTQ+ issues by deeming it “pornography”
- Censor what can be taught in schools regarding race, gender, sexuality under “anti-woke” policies
- Dismantle environmental protections and efforts to address climate change
For a more expansive look at Project 2025’s agenda, a link is provided below.
