What Does Separation of Church and State Mean? | 5 Minute Video

Nearly every American knows the phrase “separation of church and state.” Do you know where it's from? Here’s a hint: it’s not in the Constitution. John Eastman, professor of law at Chapman University, explains how and why this famous phrase has played such an outsized role in American life and law.

FOLLOW us!

SHOP!

JOIN PragerFORCE!

Script:

Almost everyone has heard of the doctrine of the "separation of church and state." Most Americans believe that it's in the United States Constitution.

But there is no such phrase in the Constitution.

And there never was—for a simple reason: The Founding Fathers never intended for church and state to be completely separate. They saw religion—specifically, religions based on the Bible—as indispensable to the moral foundation of the nation they were creating.

So where does that phrase come from? It comes from one brief letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.

At the end of a very long sentence in which Jefferson affirms his conviction that religious belief should be a private matter, and that the government should not interfere with such matters, he uses the phrase, “building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

And that’s where the phrase lived, undisturbed—lost in Jefferson’s voluminous correspondence—for almost 150 years. But more on that in a moment.

First, let’s discuss what the Constitution actually does say about religion and its role in public life. The answer is found in the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

It’s plain what those words mean. The federal government could not establish a national religion, the common practice in Europe. The United States was going to be different. Americans would be free to follow the religion of their choice.

When James Madison first proposed what eventually became the First Amendment, his original wording was that "no religion shall be established" by Congress. But that language was later modified after it was pointed out that this might be taken to mean that the government, including the state governments, had no interest in religion at all. The Founders did not want this.

As George Washington said in his Farewell Address, "Religion and morality are indispensable supports of our political prosperity." Washington’s view remained the nation’s view throughout the 19th century and into the twentieth. But that changed in 1947.

In that year, in the case of Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that under the First Amendment, neither a state nor the federal government could "pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."

For the first time in American history, the First Amendment was not only about the prohibition of establishing a national religion, it was also about not giving any encouragement to any religion.

The modern “strict separation” view was born. And where did the five justices look for support for their argument? Not the Constitution—because there was nothing in the Constitution to help them, but to that one phrase Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802.

How ironic that the author of the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the proposition that human beings have inalienable rights from their “Creator,” and not from government, was now being used to separate religion from the public square.

For Jefferson and the other Founders, religion was central to the entire American project. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are just two of countless examples where the government acknowledges its debt to God.

As the famously liberal Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in the case of Zorach v. Clausen just five years after the Everson decision, "We are a religious people, whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."

[jamesdoran]

Here's PragerU's argument: The Constitution doesn't say separation of church and state, it's just an outside statement by a founding father. Now, to prove the Constitution wants religion in government, here are a bunch of outside statements by founding fathers.

[jamespolland]

It means that the state has no place telling churches/religion what to do, and religion/churches have no place telling the state what to do. Not that difficult to understand.

[LordNinja]

I like how on multiple occasions, this video is like "let's see what someone wrote on a personal level and use that as evidence" when it agrees with them and other occasions "we shouldn't go by the personal letter" when it disagrees with them.

[thomasb]

It means I don’t want the state to endorse one religion or denomination over another and persecute other churches.

[brockbah]

Guys, we need SOURCES and graphs with DATA. Scary phases like 'crime rates increased dramatically" accompanied by the graph bar tripling in size means nothing without reference points, and it makes you look as bad as CNN. Well maybe not that bad... but get it together!

[jamesdoran]

Here's another part of PragerU's argument: The country used to be one way. Now it's another. And that's bad.

[dinohall]

This is a highly misleading video (shocking from PragerU, I know). The Supreme Court had already cited the term "separation of church and state" from Jefferson's letter (which was talking about the First Amendment anyway) in 1878, 69 years before the Everson v. Board of Ed case which this video says was the first resurrection of it. And even if the term isn't in the Constitution, it still applies since the First Amendment says no official religion can be established.

[nyt]

Jefferson also said,
"to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy."

[Ayo]

That’s quite a Stretch to blame those 6 things on one Supreme Court decision

[cademiclips]

Speration of church and state does not mean the separation of God from society.

[ibah]

As a professor, he should have noticed that his graph made absolutely no sense.

[Xsetsu]

This is so bad. Separating church and state is a good idea. The state lead by the majority religion is dangerous.

[yougonedunit]

Can you guys just say you want a theocracy, because you aren't subtle.

[LovingPrinceTamayuki]

We should want marriage to be separated from Government.

[stevenday]

There’s a little thing called the anti-establishment clause in the first amendment of the constitution. Read it.

[JJMcCullough]

Does separation of church and state place any limitations on religion at all?

[grapejellly]

i normally like and agree with these videos but this one made some pretty big assumptions. Religion should not influence our day-to-day lives unless we choose to, it's our right to practice (or not practice) whatever religion we please.

[benjamindam]

I love how even your supporters are saying this is a dumb take.

[freeamerican]

Simple answer: We are NOT A THEOCRACY.

[charlesmerritt]

This video is proposing an attack on our basic freedoms. It is proposing that the government should force religion on those who don't want it. That "generic" prayer is a creed that some in school believe, and some don't. It hurts to be forced to say a creed you don't believe in. Would you want to be forced to declare your dependency on Lord Vishnu? No, because you don't believe that. In the same way, why should others be forced to declare their dependency on a monotheistic god? Freedom for all is clearly more moral than theocracy, so why do you want to force your belief system, which is not based on evidence or facts, onto the rest of us?