Meaning: The constitutional authority for ‘separation' in church-state separation has two historical foundations. First, the concept of keeping religion separate from the mundane and morally compromised machinations of politics in government in order to protect the purity of religion has a long theological tradition. Roger Williams, the founder of the Rhode Island colony, took this position in his Queries of Highest Consideration (1644) and in his arguments with the civil authorities of the Massachusetts Bay Company. 221
   Second, the idea that civil government should be separate from proselytizing clergy and the political aspirations of ecclesiastical authorities was not a new idea in the 1790s. John Locke supported this concept of separation. He was one of the most widely read political theorists of his day, and his writings had a significant influence on the thinking of the founders of this country.222 In regard to the authority of the clergy, Locke wrote in 1688, "... it [the ecclesiastical authority] ought to be confined within the bounds of the church, nor can it in any manner be extended to civil affairs, because the church itself is a thing absolutely separate and distinct from the commonwealth. The boundaries on both sides are fixed and immovable."223 Another writer with a perspective similar to Locke's was Marquis de Condorcet, a French intellectual whom Thomas Jefferson most likely read when he was in France as the United State's representative from 1785 to 1789. In 1786, Condorcet wrote, "The interest of the princes was not to seek to regulate religion, but to separate religion from the state, to leave to the priests the freedom of sacraments, censures, ecclesiastical functions; but not to give any civil effect to any of their decisions, not to give them any influence over marriages or over birth or death certificates; not to allow them to intervene in any civil or political acts ..."224
   Both reasons for separation, the state from religious institutions as Williams would have it, and clergy from the state as Condorcet and Locke argued, were reflected in the writings of important founders of our government.
   "For Madison and Jefferson, freedom of conscience meant the freedom to exercise religious liberty [as an individual] – to worship or not, to support a church or not, to profess belief or disbelief – without suffering civil penalties or incapacity. It had nothing to do with a right to choose one's beliefs," because, according to Jefferson, "the opinion and beliefs of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their own minds."225 According to Jefferson and Madison, this goal for religious freedom was best achieved by the means of church-state separation. For example, James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, wrote in 1785 that religion is "... not within the cognizance of civil government. ... the general government is proscribed from interfering, in any manner whatever, in matters respecting religion."226 As the First Amendment scholar Leonard Levy notes, Madison "led the fight in Virginia against the ‘general assessment' bill of 1784, which would have imposed taxes to subsidize religion. ... Madison opposed ... any kind of establishment of religion, no matter how inclusive or exclusive. ... he shared Jefferson's belief in a high wall of separation. Madison spoke of a ‘perfect separation' and believed that ‘religion and Government will exist in greater purity, without ... the aid of government.' "227
   In 1789, George Washington wrote that he "... would labor zealously ...to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution."228 Also in 1789, the Constitution of the United States was adopted with no reference to God, a radical act for the day, that separated any suggestion of religious authority from the foundational document of the United States government. Finally, various drafts for the wording for the First Amendment were debated by Congress before the proposed draft was sent to the states for ratifications in 1789. All 13 state legislatures approved the wording of the First Amendment before it became part of the Constitution on December 15, 1791.229
   In summary, not only were both reasons for separation known at the time; we have evidence that those ideas were expressed by the Founders of the United States government in their various writings, and these ideas were discussed in all 13 state legislatures. In brief, freedom of religion guaranteed in the First Amendment needed the prohibition of the Establishment Clause, and for this clause to be realized in practice, it required separating not only state from church but also church from state. This meaning of the Establishment Clause was understood by the founders.
   Given this historical record, President Jefferson's famously expressed position that there was a "wall of separation between church and state"230 is likely a fair reflection of the sentiments of the majority of the state and federal legislators who voted to adopt the First Amendment in 1791.
   States such as Pennsylvania had, and other states would subsequently adopt, their own version of the Establishment Clause. For example, by the end of 1790, the Pennsylvania legislature had adopted separation language in Article VIII of the Pennsylvania Constitu-.tion that was very similar to that which would appear in the Establishment Clause: "... no one could be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship. ... no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishments or modes of worship."231
   The original purpose of the First Amendment in 1791 was to restrict the relationship between organized religion and the Federal government. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in various decisions232 that the First Amendment also applied to state governments, thus expanding the protections for citizens' civil rights in states without a First Amendment type of protection or where states had not enforced those protections.

Language: Despite the historical record showing that church-state separation is the essential concept of the Establishment Clause, one of the most frequently repeated challenges to this concept, whether expressed as ‘church-state separation,' ‘separation of church and state,' or ‘wall of separation,' is that none of these phrases appears in the Constitution of the United States. If this objection is intended to be taken seriously, its advocates have the epistemological burden of explaining how a person understands the meaning of what others say. Our common understanding of what words mean is one of the primary ways by which we affirm, dispute, or reconcile our observations with the reported perceptions of others. The phrase ‘wall of separation' is a metaphor which expresses in just three words the purpose of the Establishment Clause. Common synonyms of this include ‘church-state separation' and ‘separation of church and state.'
   How words are used in daily life is the criterion lexicographers employ to determine the meaning of words and phrases. By this criterion, the ‘church-state separation' phrase has entered the English language as an accepted and widely understood phrase expressing the intent of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
   "Separation first clearly entered public debates as a demand in the election of 1800," Philip Hamburger, John P. Wilson Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, noted, "when some leading Republicans employed a version of the idea to elicit anti-establishment votes and to criticize and even intimidate the Federalist clergymen who spoke or wrote against Jefferson."233 By the end of the 1800s, the idea of church-state separation was widely accepted as one of the most important, defining features of the United States.
   In 1875, both the Republican and Democratic political parties adopted political planks endorsing church-state separation for their presidential campaigns. Ulysses S. Grant supported this position by saying, "Keep the church and the state forever separate."234 In 1876, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Blaine amendment 109 to 7 to amend the Constitution in order to make the concept of church-state separation more explicit, and to have it apply to the states as well as the relationship between the Federal government and religions.235 This proposed amendment failed in the Senate by only two votes. However, by then many states, such as Pennsylvania, had adopted language providing for church-state separation in their state constitutions. Seventy seven years later, in 1952, Congress approved the constitution of Puerto Rico which includes the phrase "complete separation of church and state."
   Public awareness of and support for church-state separation grew during the 1800s as a result, in part, of the growing endorsements of the clergy. In 1843, the Presbyterian minister Thomas Smyth asserted, "... that Calvin taught ‘the spiritual independence of the Church, its entire separation from civil government.' "236 In an 1852 sermon by the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Boston, Rollin H. Neale said, "... it is to the entire separation of the church from the state, and the perfect freedom we enjoy in our religion, that the pulpit is indebted for much of the powerful good with which it is here invested."237 In 1855, William Seward proclaimed to Congregationalists, "... separation of Church and State may therefore be regarded as a contribution made by the Puritans towards perfecting the art of government."238 In 1855, Thomas Curtis, professor of theology at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, wrote, that "Baptists had long sought to ‘awaken a spirit in favor of perfect liberty of conscience and the separation of church and state.' "239
   In 1871, the Unitarian minister Henry W. Bellows noted, "Happily our founders were compelled, and by a blessed necessity, to introduce at the very beginning a truly scientific principle into the foundation of the national law and life. They declared a complete and perpetual divorce between church and state."240 In 1875, the Methodist minister John P. Newman offered, "Let us to-day thank God that while the Divine Author of Christianity has declared the mutual and reciprocal relations of church and state for the well-being of our race, yet has authorized their separation and announced their independence."241 In 1890, in the Seventh-Day Adventist publication, American State Papers Bearing on Sunday Legislation, William Addison Blakely wrote, "It is to set forth the true American idea - absolute separation of religion from the state - absolute freedom for all in religious opinions and worship - that these papers are collected and republished."242 Regardless of whether you agree with the theological perspectives expressed in these quotes, these fit the tenor of their day.
   As the 1800s came to a close, members of the judiciary began to speak in favor of church-state separation. In 1870, "a former judge of the New York Supreme Court, Elisha P. Hurlbut, argued that there was an irreconcilable conflict between ‘Democracy and Theocracy' - a conflict ‘stronger and fiercer' than that between freedom and slavery."243 As the 20th Century progressed, the Federal courts began using church-state separation language in their opinions. In Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Lafayette Black wrote, "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable."244 "It is my belief," said Justice Black in an interview in 1962, "... there are ‘absolutes' in our Bill of Rights, and ... they were put there on purpose by men who knew what words meant and meant their prohibitions to be ‘absolutes.' "245
   For two centuries, the language of church-state separation has been and continues to be used in newspapers and books. On November 18, 2002, The New York Times reported, "[Federal] Judge Thompson issued a 93-page opinion today, saying Justice Moore had violated the separation between church and state."246 Book titles include these phrases, .e.g., Separation of Church and State: Historical Fact and Current Fiction, 1982, by Robert Cord.
   Even those authors who object to the intent of the Establishment Clause find themselves using the terms ‘church-state separation,' ‘separation of church and state,' or ‘wall of separation' to explain themselves. The meaning of these phrases is so well established that these terms are used in book indexes to cross-reference subject matter. The Columbia Encyclopedia (1963) defined separation of church and state on page 416. Similar language is used in Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia: a Comparative Study of Churches and Religions in the Modern World AD 1900 - 2000, p. 718: "...the United States has been clearly defined as a secular state in which church and state are legally separated." The index of Robert Wuthnow's authoritative, two-volume The Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion, (1998) includes "Separation of church and state." An internet web search for ‘church-state separation' generated 17,200 hits on November 8, 2002.
   The durability of the language of separation since 1802, when President Jefferson proclaimed a "wall of separation," is testimony to the productive utility that these phrases have had in summarizing in a few words the meaning of the Establishment Clause.

"Christian Nation": The evidence presented in this Appendix supports the constitutional validity of church-state separation, which is, nevertheless, opposed by some religious leaders. They claim that "America is a Christian nation," and therefore church-state separation has no place in our form of government.
   This claim has been made by televangelist ministers Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, and James Kennedy, of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, both of whom oppose church-state separation.247 Their assertion is promulgated from some pulpits, appears in letters-to-the-editor of local papers, and is advanced in a variety of web sites.
   Is it reasonable to claim "America is a Christian nation?" To answer this question, I will first start with a few definitions. A "nation" is defined by its form of government and the characteristics of its legal system. The seminal event of 1787 that distinguished the newly formed "nation" of the United States from all preceding and existing nations of that era was the adoption by the Continental Congress of a secular constitution, with no mention of God, and the Constitution explicitly states in Article VI, Clause 3: "... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution and the adoption of the First Amendment in 1791, were watershed events in the history of world politics; a new paradigm of government was created that had no formal or legal connection to organized religion. As a result, the "nation" of the United States is, and has always been, secular by Constitutional definition. Therefore, our nation is not a Christian theocracy as suggested by the statement "America is a Christian nation."
   Second, perhaps Robertson and Kennedy assume that the population of this secular nation is Christian to such an extent that Robertson and Kennedy believe America248 might fairly be characterized as a "Christian" country. This raises the two questions, how is "Christian" defined, that is, what set of beliefs are common to Christians; and how do we determine if a person is Christian? Answers to these will help us determine whether there is a reasonable justification for claiming "America is a Christian nation?"
   As to the first question, there appears to be little agreement about which beliefs define a Christian. Today, some self-identified Christians dismiss the validity or relevance of central Christian doctrines, such as being born in sin, the importance of forgiveness, or even the essential role of Christ. For example, "In some polls, you have Christians saying, ‘Yes, Jesus is the only way,' and also, ‘Yes, there are many paths to God,'" notes Egon Mayer, a sociologist at City University of New York.249 These unorthodox beliefs have occurred, in part, as a result of the inconsistencies among the stories in the Gospels, the current administrative needs of some Christian denominations, and modern concepts of justice. For example, in a 2000 New York Times survey, 73% of Americans disagree that we are born in sin.250 Although for many forgiveness is a defining attribute of Christianity, the four Gospels do not consistently support forgiveness as a virtue.251 The divinity of Christ252 and origins of the Eucharists253 are not consistently explained in the books written by the Apostles.
   Among Catholics in 1965, "the idea of female priests was unthinkable. Today, over 6o percent favor the idea," notes Peter Steinfels.254 In contrast to the New Testament's admonition against homosexuality, Paul M. Weyrich, a religious conservative and a founder of the Heritage Foundation has said, "I don't think sodomy laws could be resurrected, because even most Christians believe that what is done in the privacy of one's home is not the government's business. I've had a couple of my own kids say that to me."255
   A Gallup poll in 1978 reported that 80% of Americans agreed that "... an individual should arrive at his or her own religious beliefs independent of any churches or synagogues."256 This finding is consistent with the results of another survey 23 years later, in 2001: "There is a moral majority in America," reports Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College. "It just happens to be one that wants to make up its own mind."257 For example, self-proclaimed Christians are on both sides of such important issues as the place of women in society, contraception, a woman's right to choose abortion, medically assisted suicide, prayer in public schools, teaching evolution in public schools, gay and women clergy, and equal civil rights for gays.
   Such differences are not limited to the laity. In 1987, only 5% of Episcopalian clergy agreed that "... the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters," compared to 33% of American Baptist clergy, according to a poll conducted by Jeffery Hadden of 10,000 American clergy.258 Christian clergy hold different beliefs about the theological importance of the Biblical prophets, the Pope, Mary Baker Eddy, or Joseph Smith who founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). Leaders among the different sects of the Mormons have sharp differences over the "divine principle" of polygamy.259
   On church-state separation, the Unitarian Universalists Association adopted a resolution in 1985, "... to make manifest their commitment to the separation of church and state... ."260 At the other end of the theological continuum is dominion theology, which holds "... that Christians, and Christians alone, are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns."261 Randall Terry expressed this idea as follows, "Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country."262 In A Christian Manifesto, 1981, the evangelical Francis Schaeffer advocated that Christians engage in "... civil disobedience to restore Biblical morality."263 Similar dominionist theological sentiments have been expressed by the evangelical ministers Pat Robertson, James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell, and Dr. James Dobson. Publically elected and appointed government officials including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R) and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft have expressed dominion theology sentiments many times.
   Another measure of how extensive the theological differences are today is reflected in the diversity of denominations and congregations. In 1776, there were 11 denominations in the United States. Today, there are over 2,000 denominations and over 325,000 congregations. This proliferation of organized religion resulted from disagreements within congregations that split churches and denominations apart,264 and also from the founding of many new religions such as the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and Jehovah's Witnesses.
   Given the wide range of conflicting religious beliefs held by self-identified Christians and the theological chasm separating many Christian denominations, it is difficult to imagine that there is or will ever be a consensus among Christians about what the phrase "America is a ‘Christian' nation" means.
   The second question was how do we determine if a person is Christian. In 1956, about 80% of the U.S. population surveyed claimed some religious identity or affiliation such as Jewish, Presbyterian, or Catholic. Most self-identified as Christian. However, church records indicated that only 62% of the adult population were members of a congregation, and less than that, 45%, attended church.265 Attendance dropped to about 35% nationally by 1995, and in a survey of New York City residents in 2000, 25% reported they attended a house of worship.266 For the largest Christian denomination, attendance at Catholic services dropped from 65% in 1965, to 35% in 2002.267
   If the old maxim "actions speak louder than words" has any merit, church attendance is the most compelling evidence of traditional religious commitment. Church membership, which does not necessarily require attending church, is the second best evidence, and religious self-identification as reported in surveys requires no effort at all. Although a majority of those polled self-identify as Christian, few of them go to any church. The disparities between reported religious self-identity, church membership, and church attendance further weakens the claim that "America is a Christian nation."
   A third justification for claiming that "America is a Christian nation" is the assertion that colonial Americans were Christian at the time when the United States was founded. However, in 1776, 83% of Americans were not members of any church. "...[W]hat is most noticeable about religion in the colonial era," notes Roger Finke, associate professor of sociology at Purdue University, "is how poorly the denominations were doing. To put it another way, these firms [churches] had failed to make any serious dent in the market ... the vast majority of Americans had not been reached by an organized faith."268 Of the remaining 17% who were members of churches, most were members of one of the 10 Christian denominations that existed at the time.269
   If the pattern of church-going in 1776 was similar to that in 1952, it is likely that church attendance was much lower than the number of people registered as members of congregations in1776. One of the concerns among pastors in the1800s was the lack of participation in church by local citizens. For example, in 1835, Rev. Bela Bates Edwards wrote, "A great majority of the members of our successive legislatures are not connected with the churches of any denomination."270 If church membership is a reasonable criterion to use, it is a stretch to say that "America was a Christian nation" in 1776.
   Finally, although the heritage of many colonists may have been nominally Christian, apparently it was not a sufficiently compelling heritage to motivate 83% of them to join churches. We don't know a great deal about the religious attitudes of most colonists. Opinion surveys about religious self-identification were not conducted in the 1700s, and we have few written records from that period documenting the religious preferences of the illiterate, barely literate,271 and literate but non-churched majority of the population.
   In contrast, the written record of that era was dominated by a small but educated population of clergy272 who were paid to preach, publish their sermons, keep the minutes of congregations, and otherwise promote their theology in pamphlets. From their historical records, one can get the impression that the entire population was deeply engrossed in their religion. If that was the case, why were only 17% members of congregations? Therefore, relying on the record of religious heritage of colonials as a justification for claiming "America was a Christian nation" is a flimsy proposition at best.
   In summary, the statement "America is a Christian nation" has no constitutional basis at all, little documented historic or sociological validity, and no specific Biblical foundation.273 However, it is important to note that the above analysis does not prove that colonial Americans were not, or Americans today are not, generally Christian. It only shows that those who claim colonial Americans were Christian have little evidence for this claim. Furthermore, the meaning of the term "Christian" is so defused today that it has little definitional value without extensive qualification. When it is qualified, the resulting definition leaves out many who consider themselves Christian. For example, in 2000, "the 8.4 million-member United Methodist Church declared that Mormonism [with 11 million members] ‘by self-definition, does not fit within the bounds of the historic, apostolic tradition of the Christian faith.'"274 Such definitional distinctions further compromise the claim that "America is a Christian nation."
   The attitude reflected in the claim that "America is a Christian nation" is at odds with the sentiment of 83% of Americans who agree that "... there are many different religious truths and we ought to be tolerant of all of them;"275 and it conflicts with the long-term, broad, public support for church-state separation.276 Americans do not want to give up their democracy for a fundamentalist, theocratic vision of the United States. That was true in 1791 when the First Amendment was adopted, and it continues to be the case today.