Americans like to think our national arguments are original. Every generation likes to believe it is living through uniquely calamitous times, utterly disconnected from what has gone before. Few debates are more stubbornly cyclical -- or more willfully misunderstood -- than the struggle between religion and government. The battle over church and state didn't suddenly erupt in the twenty-first century. It wasn't created by modern secularists, or contemporary "culture warriors," or even activist judges. It's as old as the republic itself -- and it was intentionally written into the nation's political DNA by people who had seen firsthand what happens when faith and power sit together on a throne.
By Allan R. Ellenberger
The United States was not founded in opposition to religion. It was founded in opposition to religious coercion. That distinction matters, and its erasure has fueled more historical distortion than perhaps any other single idea in American civic life. The Founders were not hostile to belief; many were believers themselves. But they were deeply suspicious of institutions that claimed divine authority while wielding civil power. In Europe, state churches enforced doctrine with law, punished dissenters, and aligned kings with God in ways that made political rebellion a theological crime. In the colonies, dissenting sects had fled persecution only to reproduce it once in power. This was not abstract philosophy—it was lived experience.
The First Amendment’s religion clauses were not accidental, nor were they vague compromises. They were a calculated firewall. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” was revolutionary not because it privileged Christianity, but because it denied any religion the machinery of the state. The government would not define orthodoxy. It would not enforce belief. It would not compel worship. And in return, religion would be protected from government interference precisely because it was independent of it.
This balance—between establishment and free exercise—has never been simple. It was not simple in 1791, and it is not simple now. But it has been consistently misrepresented, especially by those who argue that America was founded as a “Christian nation” whose secular character is a modern corruption. That narrative did not emerge in the founding era. It gained traction much later, particularly in the twentieth century, when religious identity became a political mobilizing tool during periods of social anxiety, war, and cultural change. History was retrofitted to serve ideology.
The task of refereeing that tension has fallen largely to the courts, especially the Supreme Court of the United States. To the rage of those who mistake judicial restraint for hostility toward faith, when the Court says schools can't sponsor prayer or the government can't put up religious displays, it's not banning belief. It's maintaining the neutrality that keeps the government from speaking as God, and citizens from being made insiders or outsiders by creed. That neutrality safeguards minority religions as much as it does nonbelievers, even if its most immediate impact is on the majority.
What makes things difficult is that religion in America has never been constant. It has shifted, splintered, aligned with political parties, and reacted to cultural chaos. Churches have led fights for abolition, labor reform, civil rights, and anti-war protests at certain times. Churches have also fought to preserve hierarchy, exclusion, and the power of the state at others. Any discussion about church and state ignores this history at its peril. Faith has been used to question authority as much as it has enforced it.
Today we fight culture wars over education, reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ equality, public funding, and religious exemptions. This isn't evidence that separation has failed. It is evidence that it is being tested, exactly as it always has been. Any pluralistic society is going to generate conflict when deeply held beliefs come into conflict with shared rules of civic engagement. The question is not whether religion belongs in public life—it always has—but whether government may privilege any one religious worldview over others, or enforce belief through law.
Peril occurs when faith becomes licence to legislate. Where policymaking is positioned as God-given, opposition becomes blasphemy. Where citizenship depends on creed, fellow Americans become only conditional. History is littered with the consequences of this course. Look how they all turn out. America was founded in part to ensure we did not go that direction. Not by removing religion from public life but by refusing it the power of government.
Church and State is not about mocking faith or reveling in atheism as a triumph. It's about standing up for a precious, radical notion: that conscience is strongest when unfettered, and that faith cannot help but flourish when it is freely chosen. It's about questioning dogmas that support the powerful, looking at history without rose-colored glasses, and asking hard questions about who wins when church and state become one.
The debate will not end. It never has. But neither should the inquiry. In an era when certainty is marketed as virtue and nuance as weakness, examining the real history of church and state is not an academic exercise—it is a civic one. The wall between them was not built to divide Americans from their faith. It was built to protect both faith and freedom from the corrupting influence of absolute power.
I invite readers to share their thoughts and perspectives in the comments—how do you see the balance between church and state today, and why do you think this debate continues to endure?
Add comment
Comments