Separation [of Church and State] Has Its Roots in Anti-Catholicism, Authors Say

WASHINGTON - When groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom From Religion Foundation fight for "separation of church and state," they're siding with historical bigotry against Catholics that was bestowed on American culture by the Ku Klux Klan.

So argue two new academic books about the First Amendment that come to nearly identical conclusions: The First Amendment set out to protect religion from government, not government and society from religion.

"One of the real dangers that arises from the metaphorical use of the 'wall of separation' is that a wall, by its nature, imposes restrictions on either side of the wall," said Daniel Dreisbach, professor of justice, law and society at American University in Washington, D.C. Dreisbach is the author of Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (New York University Press, 2002).

"The Constitution places no restrictions on religion - or religious expression - on private or public property," Dreisbach said. "The Constitution expressly imposes restrictions on government and on government only."

Dreisbach's conclusions mirror those of University of Chicago law professor Philip Hamburger, who wrote Separation of Church and State (Harvard University Press, 2002).

Both scholars argue the phrase "wall of separation" was gleaned from Jefferson's Jan. 1, 1802, letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut. They write that Jefferson used the metaphor in hopes of winning support of rival Federalists in New England, not as a definitive interpretation of the First Amendment.

"In a 1947 Supreme Court case, justices picked up this metaphor and elevated it to a virtual rule of constitutional law," Dreisbach explained. "This misinterpretation has become the central metaphor that's used to restrict the role that people in communities of faith can play in the public marketplace of ideas."

Dreisbach and Hamburger, who worked separately, blame the late Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black for erecting the wall and promoting the myth that the First Amendment regulates and restricts religious expression. They argue that Black was motivated mostly by a hatred of Catholics, cultivated while he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and his overt fear of Catholic schools becoming too dominant in American culture.

"Black, like John Dewey, saw public schools as the temple of democracy, the great equalizer in society, so he looked at Catholic parochial schools with great fear and disdain," Dreisbach said.

Dreisbach, a Presbyterian, said Black's KKK-inspired intolerance was popular because America has a history of Protestant bigotry against Catholics.

"The rhetoric 'separation of church and state' came into vogue in the 1820s and 1840s when we saw the first great waves of Irish Catholic immigrants," he said. "We see the same thing at the end of the 19th century when the second wave of Catholic immigrants came from Ireland, Italy, Poland and other central and southern European countries. … It was a separation of Catholics from the dominant Protestant society."

Arguments about separation of church and state come to the forefront every year, when local governments begin planning Christmas and Hanukkah displays that usually go up the day after Thanksgiving.

Some of the displays, found in every state in the union, are sponsored and funded by cities, counties or school districts. Others are privately sponsored displays that draw controversy when erected on public property, such as a courthouse lawn or in a civic center park. Both routinely result in protests and lawsuits by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

The Supreme Court has ruled such displays do not violate the First Amendment as long as they consist of secular symbolism, such as Santa and reindeer, and symbolism from various religions. Most displays, therefore, have Christian symbolism, secular commercial symbolism and Jewish symbolism.

The fuss over the religious content of public religious displays, Dreisbach said, represents an ironic affront to what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the First Amendment. He said they intended to protect religious expression from being singled out for special treatment or exclusion from the public square.

"The courts have consistently said that certain kinds of speech are not protected, and there are legitimate limitations to free speech," Dreisbach said. "We are not protected in using speech that promotes violence, for example. But if an expression does not directly result in violence, deemed lewd or pornographic, government must remain neutral regarding the content."

Laurie Gaylor, spokeswoman for the Freedom From Religion Foundation based in Madison, Wis., said Americans love the "wall of separation." They will continue to cherish the wall, she said, regardless of what scholars write about its questionable origins.

"The fact is, hordes of Catholics support this wall precisely because they have been a minority to Protestants in this country," she said. "Very typically, the earliest court cases arguing in favor of a wall of separation were brought by Catholics who didn't like the fact that their children were hearing readings from Protestant versions of the Bible in the public schools. Catholics, outnumbered by Protestants, wanted their children to learn from a Catholic version of the Bible at home and at church."

Even recently, Gaylor said, Catholics have fought for separation of church and state in court. In a federal case in Texas, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, a Catholic and Mormon family sued the school district because Baptist students were leading prayers over the school's public address system at sporting events.

Dreisbach said he understands that some people benefit from separation of church and state, and that it is popular among many Americans - secular, religious and atheist alike. That doesn't mean, however, that constitutional law should be twisted in such a way that religious expressions are sifted from the marketplace of free ideas.

"The strictest notions of separation - the idea that religion is an inappropriate thing for public schools - has really declined," said Tom Berg, law professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, Minneapolis, who specializes in constitutional law. "There has been a big movement away from this idea that secularism is neutral ground that serves the interests of separation of church and state."

Dreisbach and Hamburger, who worked separately, blame the late Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black for erecting the wall and promoting the myth that the First Amendment regulates and restricts religious expression. They argue that Black was motivated mostly by a hatred of Catholics, cultivated while he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and his overt fear of Catholic schools becoming too dominant in American culture.

Dreisbach, a Presbyterian, said Black's KKK-inspired intolerance was popular because America has a history of Protestant bigotry against Catholics.

"The rhetoric 'separation of church and state' came into vogue in the 1820s and 1840s when we saw the first great waves of Irish Catholic immigrants," he said. "We see the same thing at the end of the 19th century when the second wave of Catholic immigrants came from Ireland, Italy, Poland and other central and southern European countries. … It was a separation of Catholics from the dominant Protestant society."

Pinging (as usual, if you desire to be added to or removed from my conservative Catholics ping list, just send me a FReepmail.)

Why would early Protestant want a "Wall"? They controlled most of the religious institutions. It was to take away this "control" that the SCOTUS acted. With the growth of the Democrat Party, historically a Catholic Party, Protestantism has been weakened. What was not expected was the weakening of The Christian Church. Today both Protestantism and Catholicism are declining in the Good Ole USofA.

Actually, no. The [Catholic] Church and the State have historically been at war. One of the reasons for the rise of the medieval "Bishop Prince" was the struggle of the Church to keep itself free from the local King. Certainly, there were many times when the Church and the State worked together so closely that it did not appear that there was any difference between them, until one or the other would do something that made them go their separate ways, often in a very dramatic and violent manner.

This was one of the reasons that the appointment of Bishops, a power that the State was always hankering after, became such an important matter in medieval and Rennaissance times. Henry VIII was the one who finally succeeded in making the Church subject to the State.

Later Protestant groups, in countries where they became established churches, simply followed Henry's lead.

I don't think there's much anti-Catholicism in the separation of Church and State. The Founders weren't even particularly worried about the Catholic Church, but more about situations they had seen with the Anglican and Protestant churches.

In any case, I think you could argue that separation of Church and State comes from the Gospels, where Jesus recognized that God and Caesar were two separate entities. Obviously, there's always been tension between the two realms, and there always will be! But contrast this with the evil Mohammed, who envisaged the political and the religious as simply joined in one massive form of domination.

Establishment is what was outlawed by the Constitution. That simply means there could be no "Church of the USA" (a la the Church of England).

However, it did NOT mean that there can be no state "Church of Virginia" (remember, the Constitution forbade federal "establishment" of a church, but it specifically reserved to the states the power to govern all areas not covered in the Constitution, thus states were free to establish a state church if they so desired - it was only later that ridiculous judicial maneuvering largely dismantled state sovreignty).

For over a half century after the Constitution was ratified, Federal and state funds/tax dollars went to directly support religious practices and institutions.

These are irrefutable facts.

For over a half century after the Constitution was ratified, Federal and state funds/tax dollars went to directly support religious practices and institutions.

And thankfully, they no longer do. Of course, socialist institutions like the RCC have figured out how to spread and aggrandize their influence through the use of social service dollars, but at least open proselytization can no longer be done with tax $$$.

You: "I don't think there's much anti-Catholicism in the separation of Church and State."

The history of this legal "doctrine" of "separation" in the USA is at odds with your view.

The judicial and legislative maneuvering that led us to where we are (which is not even close to where the founders placed us) has its root in fear that the massive waves of Catholic immigrants would destroy the protestant ethos of the USA.

In fact, the founders generally feared only epsicopally (hierarchical)organized religion that hitched its cart to the state. All other Christian religion was harmless and helpful - and in fact necessary for good governance. Which is why the first congress had a chaplain.

The founders (ordinary men who did some extraordinary things) were normal men of their times. They were used to a specific culture, so that didn't seem normal.

I realize that as a Catholic, you believe in the hierarchical "right" to dip into everyone's pocket to pay for palaces, even the pockets of non-Catholics.

The founders didn't get rid of slavery, either. Does that make slavery a good idea?

I realize that as a Catholic, you believe in the hierarchical "right" to dip into everyone's pocket to pay for palaces, even the pockets of non-Catholics.

Stop, please, before you get yourself into more hot water.

Truthfully, there wasn't enough Catholicism here at the time of the founding to be worried about Catholicism having any kind of power. And the anti-Catholicism people were worried about was more along the lines of the snide digs we see daily here on FR. Hey, it's a free country. We try to coccoon ourselves. Non-RC's seem to have a problem with this.

I realize that as a Catholic, you believe in the hierarchical "right" to dip into everyone's pocket to pay for palaces, even the pockets of non-Catholics.

And when we're done with your wallets, we'll condemn your soul to eternal damnation. And there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.

We're big, we're bad. Deal with it.

It is ALSO true that 'secular humanism' is a religion, as noted by the Supreme Court.

Hugo Black was a very evil influence. Bob (?) Ball, likely the best Constitutional lawyer this century, and a Catholic, warned Cardinal Krol about the problem---but Krol was unable to motivate the USCC, (headed by Bernardin at the time) to argue further on several germane cases.

See Fidelity/Culture Wars magazine, or read E Michael Jones' book on Cardinal Krol. Forced bussing, birth control, and Roe are all part of Black's legacy.

They were used to a specific culture,

Soooo....the 'historically conditioned' "living document" interpretation of the Constitution is YOUR idea of how to govern.

And how is your shrine to Earl Warren??

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.