Separation of Church and State: Why the First Amendment Still Matters | More Human More Kind

Hi friends, and welcome back to Beyond the Breath. I am Heather Hester, and I am so grateful that you are here today. I have a quick announcement before we get into today's episode. I am so excited to share that next week I will be reintroducing this podcast under a new name, More Human, More Kind. A lot has gone into this decision and I will share it with you over the next few weeks over time, but the most important thing for you to know right now is that it will remain connected to this catalog, this catalog of Just Breathe Parenting Your LGBTQ Teen episodes, Beyond the Breath episodes, which means that you will not need to go searching for it as long as you are subscribed. Subscribe to or following the show. So your homework right now is to pause and hit that subscribe or follow button so you do not miss anything. So welcome back to what I realized kind of midweek is becoming my Foundations to Freedom series, where we explore the core liberties enshrined in the First Amendment. In our previous episodes, we really got into the freedoms of speech and press. Since this administration, the current administration, is whipping through the government, the institutions, the lives of Americans with little regard for due process, rule of law, or principles that are otherwise enshrined in the Constitution, there are so many real-time examples and actions that challenge free speech and a free press on a daily basis. So I wanted to just bring up a couple of those before we get into today, just to keep you on top of and paying attention to what's going on. Most notably is Harvard refusing to back down to Trump's demands, even in light of the loss of millions of dollars in federal funding and the threat to their tax-free status. Now, I want to be clear that I have never been a huge cheerleader for Harvard until now. Their pushback is steeped in their First Amendment rights, and we all need to keep talking about it and cheering them on. The second most notable is what is happening with regard to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland father who was granted protected status from an immigration judge in 2019. So I think that right there alone should be— I want you to hear that because I'm sure you were hearing a lot of different things on the news, on social media, which is why one of the reasons I bring this up. The fact is that Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a father who lives in Maryland who was granted protected status from an immigration judge in 2019. Those are all facts. Now, we should all be furious about the lack of due process in his case and all of the other people who were rounded up and sent off to an El Salvadoran death camp. Make no mistake about what this is. It is a prison death camp. And furthermore, we should be on high alert about Trump's casual suggestions that he wants to do this to American citizens as well. Have you noticed the not-so-subtle thing that Trump's talking heads have been doing in response to all of those who are advocating for Garcia's release. Remember last week when we talked about the difference between misinformation and disinformation, that part of media literacy and learning to hone your critical thinking skills is recognizing the difference between the two? Disinformation is purposeful and with malintent, and that is exactly what they have been doing at every turn, purposely spouting and seeding false narratives, lies, knowing that if people hear it enough times, they will believe it to be true and not do their own research or due diligence. Now, to be clear here, free speech says they have a right to do that, and it is incumbent upon us to call them out on their lies, to hold them accountable and to push for consequences. I'm sure you can think of at least a half dozen more examples of how free speech and the free press are being assaulted, but for today we are going to turn our attention to the Establishment Clause part of the First Amendment, which is a pivotal component that addresses the relationship between religion and government. Next week, in the fourth and final episode in this series, we will look at the freedom to peacefully assemble. So this phrase is what you've probably most often heard when talking about the Establishment Clause, which is the separation of church and state, and it's often invoked in, in all types of discussions around religious freedom. But What does it really mean? Where did it originate? How has it been interpreted over time? Here's why it matters and why it's really important to understand. This clause is particularly relevant in current debates over religious freedom, government neutrality, and public policy. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution begins Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This clause serves a very important dual purpose: preventing the government from establishing an official religion and protecting individuals' rights to practice their faith freely. I'm going to say this again because it is so, so important that you commit this to memory. This clause serves a very important dual purpose: preventing the government from establishing an official religion and protecting individuals' rights to practice their faith freely. You may remember from grade school history class that many early settlers of the American colonies came here specifically to escape religious persecution in their countries of origin. They came here seeking a land where they could worship without interference. However, what happened? After a few years, some colonies then established official churches, forgetting their original hopes for this new land. These actions of establishing official churches led to tensions, conflicts, and persecution— the very, very things that they had fled from. So the Founding Fathers, aware of these issues, created a framework that ensured religious liberty for all and prevented government establishment of religion, which led to the inclusion of the Establishment Clause. One of the most influential interpretations of this clause came from Thomas Jefferson in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. And the Baptists at that time were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they had expressed concern about the lack of explicit protections for religious freedom in their state constitution. Jefferson's response provided a profound insight into the intended separation between church and state. I have often heard this letter referenced when discussing the First Amendment, but I have to confess that it has probably been since 11th grade American history class that I last read it, which was more than a few years ago. So I want to read the full text of Jefferson's letter right now. It's not long, so we can understand why it is a cornerstone in the discussion of religious liberty. So he addresses this to Mr. Dodge, Robbins, Nelson, who are the committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the state of Connecticut. Gentlemen, he begins, and I quote, the affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to these duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing. 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 should quote, make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my highest respect and esteem. Thomas Jefferson, dated January 1st, 1802. So this letter, particularly the phrase and the paragraph preceding, a wall of separation between church and state, has been pivotal in shaping the understanding of the Establishment Clause, and it has been used in numerous Supreme Court decisions. So I want to just share a few examples. The first is Everson versus Board of Education in 1947. This case addressed whether public funds could be used for transportation to parochial schools. The court upheld the funding but emphasized the importance of maintaining a separation between church and state. In the case Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971, the court established the "Lemon Test" to determine if a law violates the Establishment Clause. The test examines whether the law has a secular purpose, neither advances nor inhibits religion, and whether it fosters excessive government entanglement with religion. So there's 3 pieces there. The third, then, that I'm going to bring up is the Town of Greece v. Galloway in 2014. The court ruled that opening town meetings with sectarian prayers did not violate the Establishment Clause emphasizing historical practices and traditions. So these three cases illustrate the evolving interpretation of the Establishment Clause and highlight pieces of this ongoing debate about the role of religion in public life. In recent years, this discussion around the separation of church and state has intensified part and due to a group of people who are growing in power who believe that this country was founded as a Christian nation. A recent commentary by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State discusses findings from an Associated Press NORC Center for Public Affairs poll, which revealed that 84% of Americans consider religious freedom to be extremely or very important to the nation's identity. The article points out that despite claims from Christian nationalist groups alleging governmental hostility toward religion, the US government is not attempting to suppress religious practices. However, concerns arise when certain groups advocate for a version of quote unquote religious freedom that permits individuals to bypass laws discriminate in secular businesses, or harm others based on religious beliefs. In other words, Christian nationalists and those aligned with them believe that religious freedom means they can ignore laws and discriminate or even harm other human beings based on their religious beliefs. The commentary criticizes organizations like the American Family Association, the AFA, for promoting interpretations of religious freedom that effectively allow for discrimination under the guise of religious expression. It emphasizes that while many Americans endorse the principle of religious freedom, there is significant division over its implementation, particularly when it intersects with issues of equality and anti-discrimination. So let's look at a few current examples, things that have just happened in the past 1, 2, 3 years. Louisiana recently passed a law requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public school classrooms. While this seems like a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, it highlights what happens when an ideology of a people is allowed to supersede the Constitution. When those in power have the megaphone to spread their belief systems and/or opinions as if they were truth or fact, and good orators, self-promoters, and salespeople can do this in a way that is believable and so very harmful and misguided. Another current legal battle, which is actually many battles across many states, is whether religious institutions can operate publicly funded charter schools, challenging traditional interpretations of the Establishment Clause. I would like to highlight the phrase publicly funded. That means tax dollar funded. So what do you think? Should your tax dollars, or the tax dollars of your Muslim neighbor, your Jewish coworker, your agnostic therapist, fund a charter school operated by a particular religious institution? A recent Supreme Court ruling created a pathway for this to happen. There are dozens of nuanced arguments in the broader discussion of publicly funded charter schools, and adding religious affiliation is just one of them for you to be aware of. Again, this is just a sampling of the ongoing relevance of Jefferson's insights and the importance of understanding the historical context of the First Amendment. As I stated earlier, there is a dual purpose or guiding principle behind the separation of church and state, which is the aim to protect both religious freedom and government neutrality. This ensures that individuals can practice their faith without government interference and that the government doesn't favor or establish a particular religion. Understanding the origins and the interpretations of the Establishment Clause helps us to navigate current debates and uphold the values of religious liberty and pluralism. The Supreme Court's approach to the Establishment Clause has undergone significant changes over the years. I just mentioned the Lemon Test from Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971, which assessed whether a government action had a secular purpose, neither advanced or inhibited religion, and avoided excessive entanglement with religion. However, recent decisions have shifted toward a quote-unquote history and tradition framework. In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District in 2022, the court upheld a public school coach's right to pray on the field, emphasizing historical practices over the Lemon Test. Similarly, in American Legion v. American Humanist Association in 2019, the court allowed a longstanding cross monument on public land citing its historical significance. This evolution reflects a broader trend of the court favoring historical context and tradition in Establishment Clause cases, potentially allowing more religious expressions in public spaces. Not surprisingly, judicial appointments have a profound impact on the interpretation of the Establishment Clause. The current Supreme Court has a conservative majority, and they have shown a tendency to accommodate religious expressions in public life. This shift is evident in decisions that have expanded the scope of permissible religious activities in public institutions. For instance, the court's willingness to hear cases like Oklahoma, Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board Brewster v. Drummond, which indicates an openness to reevaluating the boundaries between church and state. Such cases could redefine the application of the Establishment Clause in education and other public sectors. The future of the church-state jurisprudence in the United States is poised for further transformation. Upcoming cases may address issues such as public funding for religious schools, religious displays in public spaces, and the extent of religious accommodations in various sectors. The court's decisions in these areas will likely continue to shape the balance between respecting religious freedoms and maintaining government neutrality. As societal values for those in power evolve, the interpretation and application of the Establishment Clause will remain a dynamic and contested area of constitutional law. So this is clearly, clearly one of many hot-button topics that are swirling around right now, and I just want to take a moment to make a few things clear. I believe strongly that church and state should remain separate, period. Because here is, here's how I see it. Here is what happens if they don't remain separate. You have the religious equality people, i.e., those who believe all religions should have an equal voice and representation. Then you have the Christian nationalists, those who believe that America was a Christian nation from its founding, among other beliefs. Then you have those who are balancing the protection of religious freedom and government neutrality, and you have all of the nuances in between. And surrounding all of that is the fighting, the manipulating of truth and the interpretation of law that is ultimately going to reshape the trajectory of this country. As I know you know and feel to your core the dire place we are in, that America is on the precipice of imploding and losing her democracy, freedom, and what once made her exceptional. And I say this with the full force of my voice: the Christian nationalist ideology and those who embody it are the leaders of this disaster. I could do an entire episode on the dangers of Christian nationalism, but for the sake of this episode on the Establishment Clause, know this: Christian nationalism is an ideology that seeks to merge Christian identity with national identity, advocating for the government to promote or enforce Christian values only as central to the nation's character. Proponents, those who support it, believe that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that its laws and policies should reflect conservative Christian beliefs. Critics, those against it, argue that this perspective undermines the constitutional principle of separation of church and state and poses challenges to religious pluralism and democratic governance. I want you to really think about the information I shared with you today and the way I shared it. I shared facts and I interjected my opinion. I'm so, so grateful that you joined me today on this exploration of the origins, the interpretations, and evolving applications of the Establishment Clause and the concept of the separation of church and state. State. In our next and final episode, we will explore the Free Exercise Clause and the right to petition the government, completing our deep dive into the First Amendment. I encourage you to reflect on the role of religion in public life and engage in informed discussions about constitutional freedoms. Understanding the nuances of the First Amendment is essential to appreciating and upholding the complexities of American democracy. Stay informed, stay engaged, and continue to cherish the freedoms that form the bedrock of our democracy. Until next time, take care of one another.