Keating 1

Stacey Keating

Prof. Richardson

English Composition II

24 March 2019

The Separation of Church and State

Although this is not an impending issue for everyone, the discussion of the separation

between Church and State is something that has resulted in many problems. For many people,

this isn’t something that affects them in their everyday lives, but for others it’s something that

they have to deal with everyday. There have been many problems that could’ve led to a solution,

but there hasn’t been any resolution yet. With the implication of a law that clearly defines the

separation of Church and State, there will be less conflict in public schools, government funding,

and the writing on money.

The issue of the separation of Church and State has been a problem dated back to the

creation of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers “declared ‘this is a Christian nation’. One of

the other Founding Fathers said, ‘The highest glory of the American Revolution was, it

connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principle of

Christianity’” (Separation of Church and State). Shortly after this was said, the issue emerged

that many people came to this new land seeking religious freedom, so they didn’t want to have to

practice Christianity. Since that became a rising argument, they decided to include the

Establishment Clause in the Constitution. The Establishment Clause states, “Congress shall make

no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (First
 Keating 2

Amendment). John Dickinson, a Founding Father, once talked about “the proper relationship

between religion and government in a society that increasingly identified with the principles of

natural rights and rationalism originating in the Enlightenment”(Green). Dickinson said in a

speech that “by mixing them together, feuds, animosities and persecutions have been raised,

which have deluged the World in Blood, and disgraced human Nature”(Green). While making

the Constitution, Dickinson was aware of the problems that could result from the mixture of

these two topics. There were always conflicting viewpoints on this topic, even from the creation

of the Constitution, but because of no clear rule, these are still issues being talked about today.

This picture shows how there are two different sides of the argument for and against the

separation of Church and State. In this picture, one side is working towards one goal, while the

other is working for a different goal. Because the two sides aren’t working together, no real

progress is going to be made.

One of the biggest areas of argument for the separation of Church and State is in public

schools. Some issues in public schools that have caused some controversy are saying the Pledge

of Allegiance, teaching of religious classes, the teaching of creationism, and religious

presentations by teachers or outside groups during the school day. However, the most

controversial is the idea of prayer in school. This was a regular practice in most schools until the
 Keating 3

1962 Supreme Court case, Engel vs. Vitale, where school prayer was ruled unconstitutional.

Since that court case, there have been three “tests” to see if schools are practicing

unconstitutional behaviors, the Lemon Test, Coercion Test, and Endorsement Test. The Lemon

Test was based on the 1971 court case of Lemon vs. Kurtzman. A practice is unconstitutional if

“the practice leaks any secular purpose, the practice either promotes or inhibits a particular

religion, or the practice excessively involves the government with a religion” (Longley). The

Coercion Test is based on the 1992 Supreme Court Case of Lee vs Weisman. The Court defined

that “Unconstitutional coercion occurs when the government directs a formal religious exercise

in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors” (Longley). The Endorsement Test was

created based on the 1989 Supreme Court case of Allegheny County vs ACLU. The practice is

tested “to see if it unconstitutionally endorses religions by conveying ‘a message that religion is

favored, preferred, or promoted over other beliefs’”( Longley). These tests have helped be able

to tell if schools are practicing unconstitutional behaviors, but there have still been instances

where these test aren’t enough and other actions need to take place.

Although there are a few tests to make sure public schools are not doing any

unconstitutional activities, there are a few things that the courts have decided are constitutional.

These include “transportation of students to private, sectarian schools at public expense, public

purchase of secular textbooks for use in religious schools, use of school facilities by religious

organizations pursuant to policies that allow non religious groups to use such facilities, release of

students from public schools to attend religious instruction classes, and provision of a signer at

public expense for a deaf student at a public school” (Education Law- Separation of Church and

State). These are a few exceptions to the main rule of no government interaction, but these

actions have no source for conflict and are for the help of the students. These actions all involve
 Keating 4

the interaction of public schools and the rules that they follow and private schools and the rules

that they follow, but there is a whole use for these actions, so there’s no conflict.

One “issue” that isn’t addressed a lot, but is something that happens almost every year, is

the topic of music. In recent years, music has been in important part of many people’s lives, it

would’ve made sense if this would’ve been looked into. Many elementary school and high

schools’ choirs sing songs that could be considered to be related to religion. There is the issue

that “public schools should consider the age of children, proportion of religious songs compared

to context based, and if the song is being sung at an event or ceremony where children will be

attending” (Freedom from Religion Foundation). There is also the thought that public school

should only sing songs that have an educational purpose . However, that argument brings up the

side that would argue that if public schools can only sing educational, then private schools

should only be able to sing about religion on education. Many arguments like this have the

rebuttal of if public schools have to do this, then so should private schools, but they can include

their religion.

Government funding is another issue that pertains to the separation of Church and State.

A few examples of things that could cause some trouble are “government aid is actually used for

religious instruction or activity, direct cash aid is given to a pervasively religious institution or

program, only religious organizations are eligible for funding under the aid program, the aid

recipient discriminates in employment based on religion with respect to publicly-funded

positions, and the aid recipient coerces service recipients to submit to religious proselytization or

take part in religious worship” (American United for the Separation of Church and State). These

are examples of actions that are technically not unconstitutional, but they border the line of

becoming unconstitutional. There are many examples of the government and faith-based
 Keating 5

organizations working together since the beginning of our country. The same Congress that

“wrote the First Amendment also set aside in the Northwest Ordinance public land for churches”

(O’Neill). Also, “government programs for newly emancipated African Americans funneled

much of their money through religious schools and social agencies” (O’Neill). The government

had been funding for many churches and using religious sources for money for many years. It

was also said that “both state and federal governments have long granted tax breaks to religious

institutions” (O’Neill). This is something that had happened for a long time, but if this type of

activity happened now, then it would be more of a problem than it ever way back then.

In recent elections, the idea of government funding has become a big factor. In the 2000

election, “both major-party candidates called for carefully tailored partnerships between

government and faith-based groups” (O’Neill). After winning the race, President George W.

Bush “unveiled a faith-based initiative that significantly expanded opportunities for federal

funding. However, this stalled in Congress” (O’Neill). Because of this, “Bush then issued a

series of executive order requiring equal treatment for religious organizations seeking federal

funds, permitting them to use religious beliefs in selecting employees and methods but not in

choosing clients, and barring religious worship in subsidized social programs” (O’Neill). This

resulted in more than ten percent of all federal grants were going to faith-based organizations in

2004. This funding was given in the form of grants, contracts, and individual vouchers. Local

state governments supported “hospitals, medical clinics, orphanages, and homes for the aged

operated by religious groups” (O’Neill). In the 2012 election, Republican candidate Mitt

Romney said that “the US Founding Fathers’ celebrated detachment of government from

religious faith ‘has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning’” (O’Neill). Romney

also said, “they seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgement of God. Religion
 Keating 6

is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life” (O’Neill). Government interaction

with faith-based organizations has been a huge part in presidential elections over the last few

years.

There are good and bad things about government interactions with faith-based

organizations. A few examples are “faith-based initiatives pose several constitutional and

political questions, the initiative violate the Establishment Clause by delegating government

functions to religious organizations and funding institutions whose secular and religious

activities are inseparable, exemptions for employment laws blur the boundary between private

and government discrimination, and advocates assert that government should assist faith-based

social programs as long as it does so in a nondiscriminatory fashion without any endorsement or

coercion” (O’Neill). The Supreme Court has made some points about this topic, without actually

saying their point of view. The Supreme Court “has never struck down a government-funded,

faith-based social program” (O’Neill). The Supreme Court “upheld a federal construction grant

to a Catholic hospital in Bradfield vs Roberts (1899), a federal grant to a faith-based counseling

program for teenagers in Bowen vs Kendrick (1988), and most recently, a series of programs

involving indirect aid” (O’Neill). In these decisions, the Supreme Court never directly said their

opinion for any of these issues, they were just ruling on the decision.

The next issue is the writing on the US money. Engraved in all dollars and coins is the

phrase “In God We Trust”. This causes issues for some people because of the word “God”. Not

every religion believes in the same God, or even a God in general. Some people feel that having

that put on our money is pressuring people to conform their religion or to believe in a certain

God. This phrase was approved in 1956 by President Dwight Eisenhower to be put on all US
 Keating 7

currency. This phrase was declared the national motto in 1957, also by President Eisenhower.

People believe that this phrase should be removed from not just money, but all public property.

This has not won any battles because of the interpretational doctrine of accommodationism,

which allows the government to endorse religious establishments as long as they are treated

equally. There have been many surveys and tests done to see if Americans now are happy with

the phrase being the US national motto and being inscribed on money. In most studies, more than

75% of Americans supported both of these actions. The House of Representatives also did a

revote to make sure the phrase “In God We Trust” should still be the national motto, and it was

kept on a 396-9 vote. After the September 11th attacks, many schools, public and private, hung

up signs that said, “In God We Trust” in their libraries, cafeterias, and classrooms. In 2018, a bill

was created that would require all schools, grades PreK-12, to display the motto, “In God We

Trust” in a conspicuous place. This passed in the House of Representatives in a 97-10 vote. Also,

nineteen of the fifty states have the option of getting a specialty license plate that says “In God

We Trust” on it, instead of the country.

There has also been the issue of whether or not people should be be able to choose which

currency that they use in the United States. Many people have argued that the choice of currency

is similar to the choice of religion (Voorhees). There has been the argument that “the choice that

you make abou money dictates the ramifications of your life and those around you. And so, to

have an institution like money so controlled by a central entity- by a monopoly- is absurd. It is

immoral. We should get rid of it” (Voorhees). Many people say that since our country thrives on

competition, that we should make the national currency also a competition. Many people think
 Keating 8

that “perhaps we should permit competition in money, permit competition in financial structures,

just as we permit competition in religion. We allow many churches to exist. Why do we do that?

And why don’t we do that with money?” (Voorhees). There are many viewpoints as to why the

US made their own currency and didn’t use one that was already in use. This is just one of the

factors that led to the conflict over money.

There have been recent events that brought up the discussion of the separation of Church

and State. In July of 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions “turned to the Bible to justify

President Trump’s policy of separating migrant children from their parents” (Jacoby). Some say

that “for a political decision, this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone because Mr. Trump’s

administration has consistently treated the separation of Church and State as a form of heresy

rather than a cherished American value” (Jacoby). Under the Trump Administration, the phrase

“religious liberty and religious freedom” has “been altered to mean that government should

foster a closer relationship with those who want to mix their Christian faith with taxpayer

dollars” (Jacoby). The White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, stated a “reminder

that was ‘very biblical’ to enforce the law” (Jacoby). The Trump administration has used

“fundamentalist biblical interpretations to support everything from environmental deregulations

to tax cuts” (Jacoby). This helps show that this is still a relevant issue and the Trump

administration is getting very involved the idea of the separation of Church and State.

On the other hand, there is an argument for why a clear statement of the separation of

Church and State shouldn’t be made. If there is a law made, then that would leave many people

unhappy and unsatisfied. There is no way for everyone in this country to come to a decision that

everyone agrees with. So, no matter what decision is made, there will always be a group of
 Keating 9

people who don’t agree with the “solution”(Hamburger). This goes for all results of this law.

People might not like the changes being made, and how the national decision is affecting then so

much in their own individual city or town.

This picture shows how, even though people might not like it, Church and State are

connected and apart of a bigger picture. There are aspects that are connected to both no matter

what, and are just as important to both Church and State.

Just growing up in my city, I’ve seen many example of how the separation of Church and

State has changed in the few years since I’ve been through it myself. I’ve seen examples mainly

in schools, and how they’ve changed. I’ve gone back to my elementary school a few time, and

I’ve learned that they don’t say the Pledge of Allegiance before school anymore, and the students

aren’t taught some things because they could cause some problems of conflicting interests. With

a law that states the clear rules of the separation of Church and State, there would be a much

clear outline and would overall result in a less conflicted country.

 Keating 10

Works Cited

Build the Wall Between Church and State | Americans United of Houston || Church-State

Separation Advocacy || Defending Freedom ||, auhouston.org/build-the-wall-between-

church-and-state/. Accessed 6 April 2019.

Education Law - Separation Of Church And State, Education Laws,

https://law.jrank.org/pages/6350/Education-Law-Separation-Church-State.html. Accessed

24 March 2019.

Example Violations, Americans United for Separation of Church and State,

https://www.au.org/get-involved/report-a-violation/examples. Accessed 24 March 2019.

Green, Steven K. The separation of Church and State in the United States, Oxford

Research Encyclopedias, 2014,

http://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/ac

refore-9780199329175-e-29. Accessed 16 March 2019.

Hamburger, Philip. Separation of Church and State, Harvard University Press, 2002,

https://networks.h-net.org/node/16794/reviews/17002/mcgarvie-hamburger-separation-

church-and-state. Accessed 2 March 2019.

Jacoby, Susan. The White House is Tearing Down the Wall Between Church and State,

The New York Times, 5 July 2018,

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/opinion/sunday/church-state-supreme-court-

religion.html. Accessed 2 March 2019.

 Keating 11

Longley, Robert. School Prayer: Separation of Church and State, Thought Co., 3

September 2018, https://www.thoughtco.com/separation-of-church-and-state-3572154.

Accessed 2 March 2019.

O’Neill, Timothy J. Faith-based Organizations and Government, The First Amendment

Encyclopedia,

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/915/faith-based-organizations-and-

government. Accessed 24 March 2019.

Separation of Church and State, All About History, 2002,

https://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm. Accessed 2 March

2019.

Top Ten Public School State/Church Violations, Freedom from Religion Foundation,

https://ffrf.org/publications/brochures/item/27181-top-ten-brochure. Accessed 24 March

2019.

Voorhees, Erik. The Separation of Money and State is the New Separation of Church and

State, Bitcoin Magazine, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/erik-voorhees-separation-

money-state-new-separation-church-state-1440193836/. Accessed 24 March 2019.

Zeringue, Charles. “Religious: Separation of Church, State Can Be 'Confusing,' 'Messy'.” The

Vermilion, 8 Nov. 2017, www.thevermilion.com/allons/religious-separation-of-church-

state-can-be-confusing-messy/article_572a3974-c40f-11e7-bc6d-e3dff0fd15c0.html.

Accessed 6 April 2019.

Keating 12