"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 the government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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 church and State."1 This is the famous controversial quotation of Thomas Jefferson. This phrase, more commonly known as "separation of church and State," is not stated in the Constitution of the United States. It should not be the basis for making the Constitution of none effect through the Justice's new interpretations, just as the Pharisees made the Word of God of none effect through their tradition.2

Nowhere in the first amendment does the phrase "separation of church and State" appear. It originated from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote on January 1, 1802, in reply to a letter to him from the Danbury Connecticut Baptist Association. Jefferson agreed with the Association that the government should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." He did not believe in government involvement in religion, but that the people should obey God rather than men.3 This is evident in his reply to the Danbury Association. The Statute for Religious Freedom also supports this idea. The statute is a Virginia law that Thomas Jefferson proposed (which was passed in 1786). It states "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."4 However, Supreme Court rulings since 1947 have added their own interpretation.

Wallace v. Jaffree is an example of how the Supreme Court misapplies this phrase. The Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision that the state of Alabama can not institute a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day to pray or meditate. Justice Stevens states, "Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); finally, the statute must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion." Chief Justice Rehnquist in his dissenting opinion states "one would have to say that the First Amendment Establishment Clause should be read no more broadly than to prevent the establishment of a national religion or the governmental preference of one religious sect over another," and " These difficulties arise because the Lemon test has no more grounding in the history of the First Amendment than does the wall theory upon which it rests. The three-part test represents a determined effort to craft a workable rule from a historically faulty doctrine; but the rule can only be as sound as the doctrine it attempts to service." The majority of the Court ruled that the Alabama law was unconstitutional, despite the wise counsel of Chief Justice Rehnquist.5

The Constitution does not contain the phrase "separation of church and State," so the Supreme court should not use this phrase as a basis for their decisions. They should cease fabricating laws that restrict our religious freedom, accomplishing the adverse of what Thomas Jefferson wrote. The Supreme Court should return to the strict interpretation of the Constitution instead of substituting their version of what our forefathers meant when they were writing the Constitution.

---

1 http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.jeffers.2.html