I never know what I'm going to get into whenever I post on something. And I always find it fascinating to see what issues emerge from the discussions, often subjects that are hardly related to the subject of the post. But that is exactly what I always hope for--that we can thoughtfully and passionately engage on various subjects so that we are are presumably challenged to think through our own perspectives on the issues under discussion.
My previous post on the fake Sarah Palin Facebook site is a case in point, which is why today's post is different (and longer) than my original intent earlier this morning. In that post, I raised the idea that the rhetoric used by Alex Grossman when describing his manipulative experiment was hardly the kind of engagement that promotes mutual respect and civility. From there the discussion on the comment board moved into the subject of the "separation of church and state". I was originally going to post a thought on that comment board, but have decided instead to bring it out to the main blog for further input from all of us on this critical issue. (To put this post in its proper context, I encourage you to go back and read the discussion here about that post.)
When considering this issue of the "separation of church and state", I think both Eric and Derek raise some issues that are worth our attention for a few minutes. Unfortunately, Eric's use of the national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance, distracted the discussion away from his main point that "the separation was meant to keep the government out of religion, not the other way around." Derek, on the other hand, believes that "separating church and state is more about keeping church out of government than keeping government out of churches." So, who's right? The answer to this question is very significant, given how often this question finds its way into the debates over any number of contemporary issues in our culture.
A number of years ago in a presentation I was making to a doctoral class, I asked the class, "Where in the Constitution do we find the phrase, 'the separation of church and state'?" Only one person got it right: It's not in there. Yes, we have the "establishment clause" in the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".
But the phrase itself is nowhere in the Constitution, despite the widespread belief that it is. The phrase actually originated in a letter that President Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists in Danbury Connecticut in which he described "a wall of separation between Church and State." The intent of Jefferson's letter was in fact to reassure the Baptist group that the wall of separation was meant to keep the government from intruding in the affairs of the church (and thus, establishing a State religion, as the Founders had experienced through the Anglican church in England).
William J. Federer, in America's God and Country, has put together a meticulously researched book which brings together a comprehensive series of quotes documenting the Founder's views on religion and government. As Federer writes in a related article on this subject, Jefferson went on to explain his view of the separation issue in a letter to Samuel Miller (dated January 23, 1808):
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States [10th Amendment].
Further on, Jefferson writes,
Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General [Federal] government...Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets.
Eric's examples of the national motto and the pledge don't necessarily apply to this issue, given the fact that the Founders had nothing to do with their establishment. And those two examples appear to support the claim that Derek is making that those insertions were merely a knee-jerk reaction to the spread of Communism in the mid-twentieth century. I would concur with Derek's suggestion that there have been many Christians who are quick to jump on a variety of issues that may actually be much less important than they would suggest. I think these discussions about prayer in school, posting the Ten Commandments, retaining "under God" in the pledge, etc. have their place. After all, in a country as presumably tolerant as ours is supposed to be, there should be room for such expressions (especially given the fact anywhere from 78-92% of Americans--depending on the particular poll--hold a belief in God, an often a Judeo-Christian God).
That said, I don't think our Republic is going to rise or fall on whether or not we keep "In God We Trust" on our pennies. It will, however, rise or fall on our proper understanding of who we are as a country, and as importantly, who our Founders intended us to be--that is, a nation that has plenty of room for a smorgasbord of beliefs (both religious and non-religious) that are inevitable in a melting pot such as ours.
Where the Christians have overreacted at many points in this debate, so the same could be said for the non-religious devotees among us, who have aggressively sought to remove the presence of God from the public square, almost as if somehow we may be tainted by the mere acknowledgement of Him. It is important for us to recognize that there is a distinction that can/should be made between the exercise of religion and the establishment of religion--a distinction that some of the atheist activists seem to overlook as they search for the next religious bogeyman under every granite rock on our national monuments.
The Founding Fathers were very much in favor of a nation which was built not on government mandate, but rather, on individual expression. (This strikes at the heart, in fact, of the resistance to government-run healthcare in our current debate.) The Founders did not shy away from the value of religion, and of religious expression. On the contrary, they endorsed it. Here is but a very brief sampling:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. (President George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796)
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (John Adams, 1798)
And regarding education in the early Republic, Dr. Benjamin Rush, wrote in 1786:
...the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this, there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.
Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is the religion of Jesus Christ.
The point here is not to argue that we should be preaching Christianity from the bully pulpits of every public institution. But rather, to simply demonstrate that the thread of religion exercised in public venues was intentionally woven throughout by our Founders from the birth of our nation. We can certainly push for the extermination of God from the public sector, but our American history indicates that we would presumably become a country that our Founders never intended, nor a place they would even recognize. The key, as always, is that those who choose to exercise their religious expression steward such expressions in a responsible way, that simultaneously advocates for religious convictions while also promoting equal freedom of expression for those of differing beliefs. And within that effort, I hope and trust we can all get along. 
Comments