logo
Why Americans won't stop debating the separation of church and state

Why Americans won't stop debating the separation of church and state

Yahoo04-05-2025

President Donald Trump launched a new commission on religious liberty on Thursday with some polarizing comments about church-state separation.
Speaking at a Rose Garden ceremony, the president questioned whether a gap between the government and religious organizations is a good thing and praised the people of faith working with his administration.
'They say separation between church and state. ... I said, 'All right, let's forget about that for one time,'' he said near the beginning of his remarks.
He later added, 'Whether there's separation or not, you guys are in the White House where you should be, and you're representing our country, and we're bringing religion back to our country, and it's a big deal.'
Trump's remarks were celebrated by many more conservative religious leaders, who thanked the president for making more room for religion in the public square.
But more liberal people of faith criticized Trump's comments and the new commission, arguing that the president's skepticism about the separation of church and state will hurt religion in the long term.
'Make no mistake, this new commission will do more to increase bullying in schools, workplace conflict, and religious discrimination than it will protect our constitutional rights or our churches,' said the Rev. Shannon Fleck, executive director of Faithful America, in a statement.
The reactions to Trump's remarks should sound familiar if you follow faith-related legal debates.
Multiple times in recent years — and multiple times this week — religious freedom advocates in the United States have clashed over what the Constitution says about separating church and state and what role the concept should play in policy debates.
So what does the Constitution actually say?
It doesn't include the phrase 'separation of church and state,' according to the Freedom Forum.
The First Amendment does include the line 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,' which bars the government from naming an official religion or otherwise privileging one faith group over another.
The First Amendment also protects people of faith with its free exercise clause, which prevents Congress from passing laws that interfere with religious expression.
Religious freedom experts generally agree the First Amendment's free exercise and establishment clauses work together to keep the government from disrupting religious people and organizations.
Thomas Jefferson said as much in a famous letter to a religious minority group in 1802.
'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 legitimate 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 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State,' Jefferson wrote.
But religion experts don't agree if the government is supposed to steer clear of religion altogether — or if church-state separation is good for people of faith.
That disagreement fuels ongoing conflict over issues like Ten Commandments displays on government property, school vouchers and prayers during government meetings.
'This whole area of law is really a mess,' said an attorney to the Deseret News in 2019 before the Supreme Court heard an establishment clause case.
More conservative legal scholars and religious leaders say the establishment clause — and the phrase 'separation of church and state' by extension — only applies to a limited range of issues.
They believe government officials can't name a state religion and also can't mandate religious participation, by, for example, forcing Americans to send part of their paychecks to a church.
But these more conservative thinkers do not believe the establishment clause justifies other types of limits on church-state relationships, which is why they're typically more supportive than their more liberal colleagues of, among other things, church-state funding partnerships, Christmas displays at statehouses and Trump's approach to religious freedom.
More liberal legal scholars and religious leaders, on the other hand, apply the establishment clause more broadly. They typically believe government agencies and officials must avoid even passive endorsement of religious messages, whether it comes in the form of Ten Commandments posters or a state-funded scholarship used at a religious school.
The Supreme Court hasn't done much to resolve the tension between those two viewpoints over the years.
In the 1970s and 1980s, some justices raised concerns about excessive entanglement between church and state and about government endorsement of religion, lending support to a broader interpretation of the establishment clause. But the related rulings created new issues, since judges across the country disagreed on how to decide if a faith-related display or public prayer had a secular purpose and what a neutral observer would say.
More recently, the Supreme Court has embraced a more conservative interpretation of the establishment clause, although they've done so by putting a focus on the free exercise of religion.
In three cases in the past eight years, the court has cleared the way for more public money to go to religious schools, with rulings that described policies based on the establishment clause as violations of the free exercise clause, as the Deseret News recently reported.
This spring, the Supreme Court has another opportunity to clarify the relationship between church and state in a case focused on the nation's first religious charter school.
Oklahoma's Republican attorney general filed the lawsuit to stop the school, which is called St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, from participating in his state's charter school program. He says such a partnership would violate Oklahoma law and the establishment clause.
St. Isidore is defending itself with the free exercise clause and the three recent funding rulings. It says Oklahoma's effort to block the formation of religious charter schools amounts to religious discrimination.
Religious groups have reacted to the case in much the same way they reacted to Trump's comments on Thursday. Some believe the school clearly violates the principle of church-state separation, while others say Oklahoma has erected a wall that doesn't need to exist.
The Trump administration intervened in the case to offer support to the religious charter school.
During oral arguments on Wednesday, the justices, for the most part, seemed to sort themselves along the familiar conservative-liberal divide. More liberal justices emphasized potential establishment clause problems, while more conservative justices raised free exercise concerns.
Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to be the closest to the middle among the eight justices who took part in the arguments. His decision in the case may ultimately determine where the debate over the separation of church and state goes from here.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Vance on LA unrest: Newsom should ‘look in mirror' and stop blaming Trump
Vance on LA unrest: Newsom should ‘look in mirror' and stop blaming Trump

The Hill

time9 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Vance on LA unrest: Newsom should ‘look in mirror' and stop blaming Trump

Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday tore into California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) for suggesting the unrest in Los Angeles is a consequence of federal involvement in state and local law enforcement efforts. 'Gavin Newsom says he didn't have a problem until Trump got involved,' Vance wrote in a post on X, attaching two photos that he said were taken before Trump ordered the National Guard to protect border patrol agents in California. One depicted rioters appearing to attack a 'border patrol' van, and another depicted a car set ablaze. The Hill was not able to verify the authenticity of the photos. 'Does this look like 'no problem'?' Vance asked. Vance suggested Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass 'fomented and encouraged the riots,' with the goal of promoting mass migration into the U.S., adding, 'It is their reason for being.' 'If you want to know why illegal aliens flocked to your state, stop accusing Donald Trump. Look in the mirror,' Vance said. 'If you want to know why border patrol fear for their lives over enforcing the law, look in the mirror.' Vance pointed to California's Medicaid expansion last year to low-income undocumented immigrants as an example of a policy that has 'encouraged mass migration into California.' Newsom has since proposed ending new Medicaid enrollment for undocumented adults, but his proposal faces resistance from the state legislature. 'Your policies that protected those migrants from common sense law enforcement. Your policies that offered massive welfare benefits to reward illegal immigrants. Your policies that allowed those illegal migrants (and their sympathizers) to assault our law enforcement. Your policies that allowed Los Angeles to turn into a war zone,' Vance continued. 'You sure as hell had a problem before President Trump came along. The problem is YOU,' Vance added. Vance's post is the latest in a back-and-forth between the administration and Newsom, who has resisted Trump's extraordinary steps to deploy 4,000 National Guard troops to the area and mobilize 700 active-duty marines. Newsom has insisted that the situation was under control before the Trump administration escalated tensions by making a provocative show of force. He accused Trump of 'intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities and endangering the principles of our great democracy.' After Trump suggested his border czar arrest Newsom, the California governor responded by saying, 'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America.' 'I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism,' Newsom added Monday afternoon. Vance then replied to Newsom, saying, 'Do your job. That's all we're asking.' 'Do YOUR job. We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. Rescind the order. Return control to California,' Newsom responded, prompting Vance's latest response.

Newsom denies Trump spoke to him before deploying more National Guards
Newsom denies Trump spoke to him before deploying more National Guards

Axios

time11 minutes ago

  • Axios

Newsom denies Trump spoke to him before deploying more National Guards

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Tuesday said President Trump did not speak with him, despite deploying national military personnel to respond to Los Angeles protests. Why it matters: Trump claimed that he had spoken with the governor and criticized his handling of the rallies against Immigration and Customs Enforcement's actions. "There was no call. Not even a voicemail," Newsom said on X. "Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn't even know who he's talking to." Driving the news: Trump, speaking to the media on Tuesday, said he last talked with Newsom "a day ago." "Called him up to tell him, got to do a better job," Trump said. "He's doing a bad job, causing a lot of death and a lot of potential death." Reality check: California authorities have not reported any deaths during the protests. A total of 72 people have been arrested over the past weekend, with five police officers being injured, according to local media report on Monday Context: The Marines deployed to LA have not yet responded to immigration protests.

Black Caucus chair says Trump's actions on L.A. are impeachable
Black Caucus chair says Trump's actions on L.A. are impeachable

Axios

time12 minutes ago

  • Axios

Black Caucus chair says Trump's actions on L.A. are impeachable

Congressional Black Caucus chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday she believes President Trump mobilizing the National Guard and deploying Marines to Los Angeles rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Why it matters: It's a break with House Democrats' general aversion towards impeachment from the head of one of their most powerful groups. The comment comes amid growing animosity between Democrats and the Trump administration over the president's use of law enforcement to carry out a campaign of mass deportations. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Driving the news: During a press conference, Clarke was asked if Trump's actions to quell protests in L.A. rise to the level of an impeachable offense "I definitely believe it is," she responded, "But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it." Clarke and other Democrats have argued that Trump has violated the U.S. Constitution by mobilizing the National Guard over Newsom's objections. Reality check: Democrats are highly unlikely to pursue an organized impeachment effort against Trump any time soon. Two rank-and-file members, Reps. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) and Al Green (D-Texas), have spearheaded their own rogue impeachment initiatives, but most Democrats have dissociated themselves with those efforts. Most Democrats are clear-eyed that impeachment would be doomed to failure with Republicans in control of Congress — and they often note that Trump won in 2024 despite previously being impeached twice. What they're saying: House Democratic Caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) told reporters at a subsequent press conference, "I've said before that ... House Democrats aren't focused on impeachment today."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store