"Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me. Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding" (Job 38:2-4, NKJ).
Facing horrific trials in his life, Job, like many of us under pressure, said a lot of things that revealed his ignorance. Carefully observing Job's ordeal, God began a dialogue with Job by indicating to him that his words were "without knowledge" and that they "darkened" or usurped godly "counsel." Then, He proceeded to the crux of the matter, questioning Job in a manner that consistently revealed to him his ignorance, allowing Job to move from that ignorance to understanding.
Talk to a group of people about religious freedom as defined by the First Amendment of the Constitution and, doubtlessly, someone will start talking about how First Amendment of our governing document speaks of "the separation of church and state." In doing so, they, like Job, reveal their ignorance, as the First Amendment says nothing about "the separation of church and state," nor is such language contained anywhere in the Constitution.
What the First Amendment does contain related to religion are two clauses. The first is "the Establishment Clause," which was included to prohibit the federal government from establishing a state church, as many of the founders had experienced in Virginia, Massachusetts, and, prior to coming to America, in England. The second is the "Free Exercise Clause," which was included to prevent the federal government from infringing upon its citizens' religious expressions and actions. It is important to note that both clauses, unlike those who use the "separation of church and state" phrase are wont to do today, were included to restrict the actions of the federal government, not the actions of citizens.
That acknowledged, then where did this idea of a "separation of church and state" related to the First Amendment derive? In 1801, the Danbury Baptist association of Danbury, Connecticut wrote a letter to President Thomas Jefferson. In the letter they expressed their concerns about their freedom of religion being protected by laws and constitutions. President Jefferson responded in 1802, assuring them that they need not fear the government interfering with or infringing upon their religious expressions and actions.
Jefferson stated, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and God,... 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 the Church and State."
President Jefferson's words assured the Danbury Baptists that "the wall of separation" was not erected to limit religious expressions and actions but instead to limit the federal government's interference with and infringing upon those expressions and actions. Thus, for 145 years the Supreme Court interpreted First Amendment cases focusing upon religion with Jefferson's words in mind, that being to support the view that the federal government could not interfere with the religious expressions and interactions of citizens, as there was a "wall of separation" preventing them from doing so.
For example, the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States (1878) greatly relied upon Jefferson's letter in reaching its decision, concluding, "[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere [with religion] only when its principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] ... is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the Church and what belongs to the State.... Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach [religious] actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." As delivered, the opinion in Reynolds v. United States limited the government to actions related to religion only if religious behaviors met the criterion of being overt acts against peace and good order. And, so, for 145 years, the Supreme Court maintained the "wall of separation," a wall that prevented the government from interfering with and infringing upon religious expressions and actions.
However, in 1947 the Supreme Court began reversing what was a 145 year old interpretation of the First Amendment related to the "wall of separation." In Everson v. Board of Education SCOTUS for the first time interpreted the "separation" phrase in a manner which empowered the federal government to remove religious expressions in the public arena. Rather than using the "separation" phrase to limit the federal government's incursion into religious expressions and actions, SCOTUS began using the phrase to limit those expressions and actions.
Later SCOTUS cases continued this disturbing trend. In Engel v. Vitale (1962) the court redefined the word "church" as found in the phrase "separation of church and state" to include public religious activities. In Abington v. Schempp (1962) the court determined that it could be psychologically harmful for students to read the Bible in public schools. In Stone v. Graham (1980) the court determined it unconstitutional for students to see a copy of the Ten Commandments, even if done so voluntarily.
Let us move forward to 2016. We live in a time where SCOTUS reversals related to the First Amendment and the phrase "separation of church and state" long ago deprived us as Christians of so many of our religious freedoms. Void of biblical instruction, our secularized schools so often teach a "revisionist" view of history that blatantly refuses to acknowledge that a biblical worldview was integral to the founding and development of our nation. In this environment students are brainwashed into believing that the current perspective related to the phrase "separation of church and state" has been that which always was. Few even realize that the phrase "separation of church and state" is not even in the Constitution. Fewer still know that the phrase related to the First Amendment as used by President Thomas Jefferson was intended to assure Christians that the federal government was restricted by that "separation" from infringing upon religious expressions and actions.
And where do we go from here? Like Job, those of who are ignorant of the "separation" phrase's original intent and the integral role that a biblical worldview played in our nation's founding and development, need to put a hand over our mouths. That means instead of habitually regurgitating that which was based on lies and non-reality, as was so often drilled into us in the public educational institutions we attended, instead need to be quiet and diligent to learn the truth. Then, with God's intervention, we too may speak with authority the very words that Job spoke when confronted with his ignorance, "Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand" (Job 42:3).
Quotations taken from Separation of Church & State, by David Barton
