The separation of church and state is a founding principle of the United States of America. It is an important cornerstone of democratic governance of the American constitutional framework. 

It is important to the human right of freedom of religion.

The separation of church and state is a principle that ensures government neutrality toward all religions and does not officially recognize or favor one religion. This concept is rooted in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The phrase “separation of church and state” was coined by Thomas Jefferson in an 1802 letter. 

This principle aims to protect religious freedom by preventing government interference in religious matters and ensures that religious groups do not wield undue influence over government parties. 

The separation of church and state goes both ways. The government can not interfere in religious beliefs such as practices, traditions, and worship. Places of worship and religious organizations cannot look to the government for funding or any other government funded benefits.  

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State

There are many organizations within the United States that are dedicated to protecting the founding principles of the United States. The separation of church and state is one of those founding principles. Americans United is an organization that specifically protects religious freedom for everyone. They do this by protecting the separation of church and state, which in turn protects freedom and fairness. They do this through advocacy, changing policy, and litigation.

In 2024, Americans United sued the Oklahoma State Department of Education (Rev. Lori Walke V. Ryan Walters). Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Ryan Walters, is wanting to spend millions of tax-payer dollars to put Bibles in every fifth through twelfth grade classroom. He also is trying to force Oklahoma teachers to incorporate the Bible into everyday lessons. Americans United is arguing that the Oklahoma State Department of Education has grossly overstepped their authority. They are arguing that they are violating the Oklahoma State Constitution that has freedom of religion provisions that prohibit the use of state funds to support religious items or ideals.

For this article, I interviewed Rob Boston from Americans United. He is a Senior Advisor at the American United for Separation of Church and State. He is also the chief writer for American’s United “Wall of Separation” blog. He has worked at American United since 1987.

Separation of Church and State as a protective measure

The separation of church and state is the best way to protect freedom of religion, according to Boston. The organization Americans United is dedicated to maintaining the separation of church and state. Both religious and non-religious people benefit from the separation of church and state. It prevents religious interference from the government, which means the government cannot force a religion onto anyone. 

Separation of church and state is essential for guaranteeing religious freedom.

The concept of separation of church and state was founded in the U.S.; many countries have followed suit. The United Kingdom, for example, does have an established state religion (The Church of England), but nowadays they maintain some level of separation between church and state. State churches in the UK serve more as a symbolic function now. For example, the State Church is still used for state ceremonies, such as coronations and royal weddings. 

There are also plenty of countries that do not have separation of church and state. One prominent example of this is Iran. Iran is a theocratic republic which was the result of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This revolution replaced a monarchy for a supreme leader, which is a religious figure who holds significant power in all of Iran’s branches of government. The change of state has resulted in persecutions of religious minorities as well as restrictions on freedom of speech.

Contemporary Issues regarding the Separation of Church and State

There are various Church-State issues in the United States. Boston listed the role of religion in public education and placement of religious symbols in public places as the most prominent of those issues.

Recently, a big topic of discussion in the U.S. has been about book banning. According to the American Library Association, there has been a 65% increase in book challenges from 2022-2023. Many of these books being banned and challenged deal with issues such as race, gender identity, and sexuality. Book banning can limit students’ access to diverse perspectives and stories. In some places within the U.S., book banning has even reached public libraries and bookstores, which not only affect students, but also the public.

The separation of church and state is a unifying principle for issues like reproductive freedom, LGBTQ+ rights, and the freedom of information and being able to read whatever you want to read. In these cases, the separation of church and state is necessary to prevent religious organizations from taking away people’s rights.

Supreme Court Rulings and Impact

A conservative shift in the Supreme Court has had a large impact which includes the change of interpretation of the Establishment Clause.The current Supreme Court has an “inflated view” of the Free Exercise Clause, Boston says. This means that the Supreme Court has extended its protections beyond the Free Exercise’s Clause original intention. These judgements are heavily criticized for allowing discrimination and special treatment for religious organizations. There is an erosion of historical precedents by more recent Supreme Court decisions.

Some recent well-known examples of overriding historical precedent include business arguing for the right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals. Masterpiece Cakeshop V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) is a very popular case where the Supreme Court ruled on the side of a baker who denied a cake to a same sex couple. Since then, there have been some lesser-known cases that have had a similar outcome. In Fulton V. City of Philadelphia (2021),  the Supreme Court ruled on the side of a religious organization discriminating against a same-sex couple. A Catholic adoption agency refused to work with same sex couples. One of the most recent examples is 303 Creative LLC V. Elenis (2023). A Colorado web designer refused to create wedding websites for same sex couples. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the web designer.

These types of rulings go against many cases that set historical precedent that ruled against any favoritism toward any religion. One of the more prominent cases is Lemon V. Kurtzman (1971). The Supreme Court ruled that the states of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island could not give state funding for teacher’s salaries, textbooks, and other materials to private Christian Church-run religious schools. This was deemed unconstitutional as they violated the Establishment Clause. States cannot favor any religion over another. After this case, the Supreme Court established the “Lemon Test”. The test has three prongs. The first is that a statute must have a secular purpose. The second is that the primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit any religion. The third is that the statute must not result in an excessive government entanglement with religion. This test was used in numerous cases, but now with a conservative Supreme Court, its application for future cases is being debated.

Balancing Religious Freedom with Civil Rights

There have been numerous examples where religious organizations have advocated against civil rights for many groups but largely the human rights of the LGBTQ+ community. Many states have passed Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, which allow businesses to deny services to the LGBTQ+ community. There is much debate on whether these Religious Freedom Restoration Acts promote religious freedom or enable discrimination. Many religious organizations have sought out exemptions from anti-discrimination laws, which would allow these organizations to deny service, housing, and employment to LGBTQ+ individuals. 

Boston pointed out that, “during the colonial period of the United States, people did not have the right to worship as they saw fit. James Madison wrote very powerfully about seeing Baptist preachers in prison, for example. The Anglican establishment in Virginia did not want to extend religious freedom to Baptists.” Historically, certain groups of people being left out of the human right to freedom of religion has happened before.

Religious Freedom should not be used to discriminate or harm others. The Free Exercise Clause should not be interpreted to allow for discrimination in secular businesses.

Misconceptions of the separation of church and state

There are many misconceptions about the Separation of church and state. Here are a few examples provided by Boston:

“Separation of church and state means that religion has no place in public life.”
The purpose of church and state is to prevent the government from endorsing or supporting a certain religion. All people are free to express their religious beliefs and values in the public sphere.

“The U.S. is a Christian Nation, so church and state should not be separate.”
It is true that the most common religious identification in the U.S is Christian. The U.S., however, was founded on religious freedom and pluralism. All religions are treated equally under law.

“The separation of church and state is a modern concept.”
The idea of separation of church and state has deep historical roots. In Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, he described the First Amendment as creating a “wall of separation between Church and State.” 
At the time, many people were not allowed to worship freely, so this founding principle was very important to the founding fathers of the U.S.

The Biggest Threat to Separation of Church and State

There is a movement, especially from the Christian Nationalism movement, within the U.S. to undermine the founding principle of the separation of church and state. This movement is largely based on misconceptions, including the ones listed before, of the separation of church and state.

The idea of separation of church and state is an historic and uniquely American Principle. Everyone, whether they follow one of the Abrahamic religions, a minority religion, or no religion, has benefitted from the separation of church and state at some point in history.

The biggest threat to the human right of religious freedom, as Boston puts it, frankly, is Christian Nationalism. The Christian Nationalism movement has strong political influence and is well-funded. The Christian Nationalism movement is a form of religious nationalism that seeks to promote the integration of Christian beliefs and values into the political and social fabric of a nation. Not all Christians are a part of the Christian Nationalist Movement.

The agenda of Christian Nationalists is opposing the separation of church and state, attacking reproductive freedom, and pushing efforts to ban books.

There is deep concern in the U.S. over the ongoing influence of Christian Nationalism and its impact on various civil rights issues.

In the United States, the actions of the Christian Nationalist movement and a very conservative Supreme Court have put the first amendment-mandated separation of church and state in danger. Luckily, there are organizations such as Americans United that are dedicated to protecting this founding principle. 

Separation of church and state is a protective measure that protects the human right of freedom of religion within the United States.

Please click the photo below for a collection of my Human Rights and Religious Freedom columns:

Rebecca Clark is the Human Rights and Religious Freedom Editor at Wandering Educators. She is currently studying a master’s degree in Human Rights and Diplomacy at the University of Stirling. This degree is taught in partnership with the United Nation Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). During this program, she is learning how to use diplomacy to help ensure religious freedom around the world. Her career goal is to ensure that everyone is free to practice their religions and beliefs without persecution.