Story behind the phrase

From football players kneeling during the national anthem, to hate-filled groups marching through cities; from teaching evolution in public schools, to greeting each other during the Christmas season, animated discussion turns upon the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment:

“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.”

One delightful September day at the Grange fairgrounds, I was involved in the First Amendment displays at Constitution 230 Fair. Our display focused on the two religion clauses:

Establishment clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Free Exercise clause: “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (of religion).

Neither mentions a “wall of separation between church and state.” The phrase isn’t in the First Amendment, nor anywhere in the Constitution. This is its story:

In October 1801, the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association wrote President Thomas Jefferson expressing concern about religious oppression, and begging his assurance that religious freedom was real. These Baptists were concerned other Christians — Episcopalians or Congregationalists — could use governmental power to push their own practices and discriminate against Baptists.

This may seem absurd to those unfamiliar with divergence among Christians. Outside observers may see Christians much alike, or believe Christianity is pretty unanimous, but this is not the case. Differences in belief and practice between Orthodox and Catholics; Lutherans; Reformed; and Anglicans, Methodists and Baptists, originally led to wars and persecutions, and tore apart families and communities. Thousands died over such religious differences.

In replying to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson explained the First Amendment thus:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

President Jefferson interpreted the establishment clause’s freedom of religion as freedom from coerced religion, and this has been the standard understanding for more than 200 years.

Questions arise today regarding prayer in public places — particularly in schools. If there is freedom of religion, one could ask, why is prayer banned from public schools? The answer is that prayer is not banned from public school. Compulsory prayer is what the Supreme Court prohibited.

This is the reasoning: Since law compels children to attend school, and public schools are government entities, children in public schools are thus “compulsorily taught by government.”

So, if the school (government) makes children pray — prescribing or leading an official prayer — the government is forcing particular religious practice on them.

Government-mandated prayer is entirely different from individual prayer. If individual students want to pray before meals, before tests, before a football kickoff, there is no constitutional problem! Students may assemble at recess or lunchtime for prayer or Bible study. Moreover, schools can teach about religion. The only prohibition is against mandatory, or school-led, prayers: That would be “establishment of religion” by government.

Why is a little prayer such a big deal? Are not most prayers pretty benign? Don’t most religious people believe the same basic things? Besides, what’s the problem with teaching children how to pray?

The answer is that different religions have significantly different beliefs. Many religions do not want their children to pray other religions’ prayers — or be forced to pray them.

Two hundred years ago, the Baptists’ concern was that other Christians would force their own religious practice, or discriminate against, Baptists, but today our country has much more complex religious texture. Jews, Muslims and Hindus have been in America since well before 1776, but their numbers are now far greater. They have been joined by many, many new Americans who are Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Bahia’s, Shinto, Wiccans, Santeria and Rastafarians. Not forgetting the many atheists and agnostics.

• 1) Should their non-Christian children be forced to pray Christian prayers?
• 2) Or, is it OK to force Christian children to pray Jewish, Muslim or Hindu prayers?

Voluntary prayer by individuals and groups is always protected by the First Amendment. The issue with prayer in public schools is the compulsory nature of public education. Prescribing prayer for students is thus considered an establishment of religion and is prohibited. Remember that Jefferson described a wall of separation between church and state: Freedom of religion means freedom from coerced religion.

This story was originally published November 11, 2017 at 4:23 PM with the headline "Story behind the phrase."