Christian Nationalists spread a lot of misinformation about the separation of church and state. One of their most common arguments is that this constitutional principle is somehow anti-religion.
This argument betrays much ignorance of American history and contemporary life. Far from being anti-religion, church-state separation has been faith’s protector since our founders pioneered the concept. That’s why, throughout history and up to today, many religious leaders have embraced separation. They know that America’s protective wall of separation has been a great boon to religion, promoting diversity and allowing all religions to prosper.
Colonial-era minister Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, called for a “hedge, or wall of separation, between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.” Williams was convinced that this distance would mainly benefit religion, arguing that only by taking away government’s power over the spiritual lives of its subjects would faith flourish.
Hundreds of years later, Thomas Jefferson, in his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, succinctly laid out the threat state control posed to religion, noting that it tends “to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments.”
James Madison, in a document opposing church taxes, argued that government-supported religion harmed faith. “[E]xperience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation,” Madison wrote. “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
Many colonial-era pastors acknowledged this as well. John Leland, a Baptist minister and strong advocate of church-state separation, observed in 1791 that unions of religion and government “metamorphose the church into a creature, and religion into a principle of state, which has a natural tendency to make men conclude that Bible religion is nothing but a trick of state.”
These political and religious leaders understood a powerful truth: Combinations of church and state always end up hurting the church.
An interesting academic study provides further proof. In 2022, Dan Koev, a professor of government and criminal justice at Regent University, conducted a study of 174 countries to address the question of how state support impacted religious communities.
Koev concluded, “My findings suggest that … religious institutions that receive favorable treatment from the state lose ground relative to those that do not.” He theorized that government support for religion may create an “increasingly hollow, complacent, and inefficient church.” (It’s worth noting here that Regent University is no font of liberalism. The school was founded by TV preacher Pat Robertson.)
But you don’t have to rely on historical examples or academic papers for proof that church-state separation is not anti-religion. Simply look around you. The broad religious diversity of America and our lively religious communities are proof that church-state separation fosters religious freedom. Compare America to the Western nations that retain official churches. In those nations, churches play a largely ceremonial role as props for the state. They are devitalized and lifeless, with dwindling memberships.
Lacking government support, religious groups in America rely on the voluntary principle and have prospered. Church-state separation ensures the independence of faith communities and makes religion vital. Houses of worship in America long ago proved that they don’t need the government’s help to prosper.
The system of state support sought by Christian Nationalists would destroy that model of independence and freedom. It threatens to convert our religious communities into mere devices to be controlled, manipulated and used by political figures who would elevate the priorities of the state over those held by religious groups.
It’s difficult to think of anything more anti-religion than that.
