Welcome to the ULC Minister's Network

Rev. J. Kevin Antonson

separation between Church & State

  • In a recent blog post the topic of religious “indoctrination” (in this case Christianity) in school came up and stirred a rather thought provoking discussion. In that post, the separation of church and state came up, and I thought a closer look should be given to the amendment on which this argument stands.

    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.

    All too often we hear (and to be honest I did not know myself) that this amendment calls for the separation of church and state. However, it clearly states that government will not establish or prohibit religion. Therefore the act of separation and censorship of religion in any manner is in direct conflict with this amendment. The phrase separation of church and state appears in a personal letter sent by Thomas Jefferson to church leaders in Connecticut;

    "...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.

    In this excerpt from a letter to the Baptist in Connecticut, reiterates only that government should leave church officials to govern their own processes. Not to mention that letters written to individuals are not law and should never be treated as such. It is this letter alone which influenced the Supreme Court decision in pivotal cases including Everson v. Board of Education. (1947). It is interesting to note that since its creation in 1789 it took over 156 years to bring challenge to this amendment.

28 comments
  • Rev. J. Kevin Antonson
    Rev. J. Kevin Antonson No! People are people; your misunderstanding of a few individuals has been misplaced to an entire group. Unfair to them and yourself, I may not agree with you are anyone else about their personal choice but I will defend their right to have it, and to tel...  more
    August 25, 2011
  • Sandra Palmer
    Sandra Palmer I don't see media as being beyond your control totally. If you set boundaries for your children as to what they get to watch on television and monitor their computer use, then you have control of most of what they'll see in media. I admit you're not goi...  more
    August 25, 2011 - 1 likes this
  • radar pangaean
    radar pangaean Check the 'No True Scottsman' fallacy. You dismiss Sandra's complaints as being based on "a few individuals", apparently because of your own biases here. The fact that it's "only a few" doesn't change the OTHER fact that EVERY ONE of them are using their ...  more
    August 26, 2011
  • Sandra Palmer
    Sandra Palmer I also would like to say that I got the message about how to phrase it from a police dispatcher. I called the non-emergency number because I was totally pissed off. When I had pointed to the note, the jerk said "God told him" to ring my doorbell anyway....  more
    August 26, 2011