- George Korda is a political analyst for WATE-TV, hosts “State Your Case” from noon to 2 p.m. Sundays on WOKI-FM Newstalk 98.7 and is president of Korda Communications.
The First Amendment to the Constitution begins, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
A few years ago, I paid an after-school visit down memory lane to my fourth-grade classroom at Harbor City Elementary School in Melbourne, Florida. An assistant principal escorted me to the room. The teacher was in there.
I stood at about the spot where in 1962 my desk had been, and said, “My family moved here from California. This is where I learned the Lord’s Prayer.” They looked at each other, and then at me, with the startled expression of someone who’s stuck their finger into a light socket.
“That’s right,” I said. “Each morning, we recited the Lord’s Prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance.” They both laughed a “Can you believe that?” laugh.
Before going further, please understand that I don’t want to see a return to those days. A state-mandated or state-composed prayer in public schools is out of constitutional bounds. However, the then-to-now transition illustrates an attitudinal change that has occurred in society toward expressions of faith – Christianity, particularly – in the public square.
It’s quite often hard to pin down what some Americans mean when they demand separation of church and state. The “wall of separation” between church and state is frequently cited as why people of faith – again, Christians in particular – should keep their faith to themselves when it comes to politics. But it’s not in the U.S. Constitution, which may surprise people who take “wall of separation” as an article of faith. Attitudes often reflect a view that has little or nothing to do with constitutional freedom and everything to do with politics.
Thomas Jefferson's description of the 'wall of separation'
The “wall of separation” description is found in a Jan. 1, 1802, letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist Association: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & State.”
Jefferson was correct: in the United States there must be no mother (or state) church, as there was in England, the former mother country. There could be no head-of-state “defender of the faith” in a nation established with the motto “e pluribus unum,” Latin for “out of many, one.” People could not be told by government how, or when, or with whom to worship.
But here’s how Jefferson ended his letter to the Danbury Baptists: “I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.”
Church and faith are different things.
In the view of some Americans, separation of church and state is a wall that means that Christians (particularly) shouldn’t attempt to influence voters or elected officials; Christians shouldn’t advocate or lobby for laws consistent with conservative beliefs because such support, if based on their faith, violates the “wall of separation” between church and state. In some ways, the wall of separationists’ position is that faith in the public square be non-existent, as in the former Soviet Union or today’s communist China and North Korea. Neither the Constitution, nor Jefferson’s letter, says such a thing.
Christians, voting and Donald Trump
The topic of Christians and voting is the focus of a July 21, 2023, Associated Press story about Donald Trump, who is every day the dominant personage and subject in American politics. The headline: “Some critics see Trump’s behavior as un-Christian. His conservative Christian backers see a hero.”
The lead sentence: “For eight years, Donald Trump has managed to secure the support of many evangelical and conservative Christians despite behavior that often seemed at odds with teachings espoused by Christ in the Gospels.”
This is as opposed to every other politician, whose behavior is so rarely at odds with Christ’s teachings? Should Christians who wished to do so have avoided voting for Bill Clinton, Barack Obama or Joe Biden for inconsistencies in their respective histories? Who gets to decide when, and for whom, Christians can vote? Christians, that’s who, just like everyone else.
In a recent social media exchange with a “progressive” (politically liberal) person, she brought up separation of church and state: Christians should keep their personal religious feelings to themselves and not try to promote their thinking through voting or running for office while declaring their religious faith. If holding public office, they must not allow those beliefs to influence their decisions.
I said it wasn’t rational or fair to say that everyone else can impose their thinking or beliefs on Christians, but Christians must be silent because of their faith. I shared with her an example of President Joe Biden speaking at a Black church about his faith, and asked if this, too, was offensive. All I can figure is that person’s computer must have crashed, there was a severe medical emergency, or the White House called to tell her to back off, because she didn’t share another word.
When Democrats, primarily, campaign for office by speaking in Black churches, the criticism from the left side of the political aisle of mixing church and state tends to be as silent as an ancient Egyptian pharaoh’s tomb. In fact, Biden was recently criticized for not holding a meeting in a Black church.
Christians vote for the same reason as Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists and everyone else: their own interests. Those interests may be economic; philosophical; theological; security-related, either personal or national; dislike of a candidate or political party; support for a candidate or political party; or some other reason. But it’s their business, and their right. Just like everyone else.
Separation of church and state is different from separation of faith and state. The Constitution says nothing about prohibiting the free exercise of faith in how people vote, or for what they advocate. And that goes for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike. That’s because we, the people, are one, out of many.
George Korda is a political analyst for WATE-TV, hosts “State Your Case” from noon to 2 p.m. Sundays on WOKI-FM Newstalk 98.7 and is president of Korda Communications, a public relations and communications consulting firm.
