- Share via
The 1st Amendment, and the separation of church and state, America’s best idea, is at risk as never before.
The notion that church and state should be discrete entities was unprecedented when the founders decided to embark on what one historian has called the “lively experiment” of disestablishment. The founders were well aware of the Wars of Religion and the English Revolution, conflicts largely over religious differences.
In addition, as the founders surveyed the religious diversity in the colonies — from Puritans and Baptists in New England to Quakers, Jews, Dutch Reformed Protestants and Presbyterians in the Middle Colonies to more Baptists in the South and Anglicans, Catholics and even Muslims throughout — they realized that designating any one faith or denomination as the American religion would be contentious.
The Scopes “Monkey trial” in 1925 in Tennessee wasn’t supposed to be about Genesis versus Darwin, but that’s the way it evolved.
So the founders chose the road not traveled. The 1st Amendment, drafted by James Madison and ratified in 1791, said “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” while guaranteeing free exercise for all. Another way to understand this unique configuration is economic. As Adam Smith predicted in his 1776 brief for free-market capitalism, “The Wealth of Nations,” religion will thrive if the government refuses to intervene or favor one faith over another.
American history has more than vindicated Smith’s prediction. Religion has flourished in the United States as nowhere else precisely because the government has stayed out of the religion business.
But the corollary is also true. Religious factionalism has not impeded the functions of government. In other words, the 1st Amendment has worked remarkably well.
President Trump is not just unraveling a system of government, he’s denying the American Creed, the truths we have considered self-evident since 1776.
As Thomas Jefferson noted in 1808: “We have solved, by fair experiment, the great & interesting question Whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government, and obedience to the laws[.] & we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely & openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason, & the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”
Others noticed as well. “Half the wars of Europe, half the internal troubles that have vexed European states,” James Bryce, an Oxford University historian, observed in 1893, “have arisen from theological differences or from the rival claims of church and state. This whole vast chapter of debate and strife has remained virtually unopened in the United States.”
The current court has deemed history and tradition to be central to the interpretation of our constitutional rights. Two centuries of history on this topic is clear.
The United States has survived numerous attempts to jettison the 1st Amendment. During the Civil War, an organization called the National Reform Assn. sought to amend the Constitution with a revised preamble: “We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government, and in order to form a more perfect union… .”
The group took its proposal all the way to the White House, where Abraham Lincoln wisely temporized, averring that “the work of amending the Constitution should not be done hastily.”
Other attempts include those proposed by the Christian Amendment Assn., which emerged during the Cold War. Members of Congress failed to pass that amendment, but they did add “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 and replaced E pluribus unum (“out of many, one”) with “One Nation Under God” as the national motto in 1956.
The justices announced they were split 4-4 in a test case heard last month from Oklahoma, which blocks the new Catholic charter school in the state.
More recent attempts to eviscerate the wall of separation between church and state have focused not so much on constitutional amendments as on incremental attacks by way of legislation, with the collusion of the judiciary. The posting of the Ten Commandments in public schoolrooms in Louisiana and Texas and, more important, the use of taxpayer money for religious education represent clear violations of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.
Ever since the 19th century, using public money for religious education was a bright line separating church and state. The so-called Blaine amendments, named for James Blaine, speaker of the House of Representatives, senator, secretary of State and Republican nominee for president in 1884, were adopted by 37 states. The amendments originated in anti-Catholic fervor, but their prohibition of public support for religious schools was constitutionally axiomatic for nearly a century.
For more than 50 years, the court has ruled that prayer in public schools violates the 1st Amendment’s prohibition against the establishment of religion.
That seems quaint now, as red states rush to dole out taxpayer-funded vouchers so parents can send their children to religious schools at public expense. Sadly, Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” provides tax-credit funding for religious education, and the majority on the Supreme Court is complicit in efforts to undermine the separation of church and state.
If only the Supreme Court had half as much deference for the 1st Amendment as it does for the 2nd Amendment, we’d be in much better shape.
As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in her final Supreme Court opinion on church-state matters, “Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?”
Randall Balmer, one of the expert witnesses in the Alabama Ten Commandments case, teaches at Dartmouth College. His latest book, “America’s Best Idea: The Separation of Church and State,” will be released Aug. 5.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The separation of church and state represents America’s most innovative and successful constitutional principle, functioning as an unprecedented “lively experiment” in disestablishment that has served both religious and secular interests remarkably well throughout American history[1]. The First Amendment’s establishment and free exercise clauses have created a unique system where religion flourishes precisely because government stays out of the religion business, while religious factionalism does not impede governmental functions[2].
Historical evidence demonstrates the founders’ deliberate intent to avoid the religious conflicts that plagued Europe, as they recognized the extraordinary religious diversity across the American colonies made establishing any single faith as the national religion inherently contentious[1][2]. The founders, including figures like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, explicitly supported this separation, with Jefferson describing it as building “a wall of separation between Church & State” and Washington noting the absence of religious regulation from the nation’s founding charter[2].
Contemporary threats to this separation represent the most serious challenge in American history, manifesting through incremental legislative attacks rather than constitutional amendments[1]. These attacks include the posting of Ten Commandments in public schools in Louisiana and Texas, and most significantly, the use of taxpayer money for religious education through voucher programs that violate the long-standing prohibition against public funding of religious institutions[1][2].
The Supreme Court’s current majority actively undermines church-state separation while showing insufficient deference to First Amendment protections compared to their treatment of Second Amendment rights[1]. Recent judicial decisions have enabled these violations of the establishment clause, representing a departure from nearly a century of constitutional precedent established by state Blaine amendments that prohibited public support for religious schools[2].
Different views on the topic
Christian nationalist movements argue that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that the founders themselves were Christians or evangelical Christians who intended religious influence in government[3][4]. These groups advocate for greater integration of Christian principles into public policy and governance, viewing current separation as an impediment to proper religious expression in the public sphere[3].
Supporters of taxpayer-funded religious education contend that school choice programs and voucher systems serve legitimate educational purposes regardless of their religious components, representing parental rights rather than establishment clause violations[4]. This perspective views public funding of religious schools as expanding educational opportunities rather than compromising church-state separation.
Some contemporary political figures and organizations promote the idea that religious freedom requires accommodation of faith-based practices in public institutions, arguing that strict separation actually discriminates against religious expression[4]. These advocates suggest that posting religious symbols like the Ten Commandments in public spaces represents cultural acknowledgment rather than governmental establishment of religion.
Christian nationalist leaders and organizations, including figures associated with groups like the Family Research Council, argue that America’s Christian heritage should be more prominently reflected in public policy and institutional practices[3]. This movement sees the traditional separation model as hostile to Christianity and seeks to “renegotiate the boundaries between church and state” to allow greater religious influence in government[3].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
It turns out you can burn down a neighborhood and not destroy a community. We’ve seen evidence of this all across L.A. and so we will head back to one neighborhood that’s a good example of that bond: West Poppyfields Drive in Altadena.
Today we discuss one of the pivotal events of the 1960s: the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Though the gunman was caught at the scene, confessed at trial, and even bragged about the shooting, his motives have largely been forgotten.
Modern LA earned its first smoggy nickname 450 years ago, as the “bay of smokes.” At the La Brea tar pits, we take a short walk through a long history with curator Regan Dunn, who explains how and why the first Angelenos would have set fires that filled the broad bowl of LA and foretold the curse of smog.
