Beyond the Breath: Separation of Church and State

This episode explores the intricate nuances of the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment, establishing a foundational understanding of its significance in contemporary society. Host Heather Hester articulates the historical backdrop against which this clause was formulated, drawing attention to the experiences of early American settlers who sought refuge from religious oppression. This historical narrative not only elucidates the rationale behind the clause but also serves to emphasize its dual purpose: to prohibit the government from establishing an official religion while safeguarding the individual's right to worship freely. By referencing Thomas Jefferson's influential correspondence to the Danbury Baptist Association, Heather reinforces the critical notion of a separation between church and state, a concept that remains a cornerstone of American jurisprudence.

Furthermore, the episode navigates through recent judicial interpretations of the Establishment Clause, highlighting significant Supreme Court cases that illustrate the evolving legal landscape surrounding this issue. The analysis of landmark rulings, such as Everson v. Board of Education and Lemon v. Kurtzman, demonstrates the court's commitment to maintaining a secular government, while also addressing the nuanced challenges posed by contemporary movements advocating for a merger of religious and national identities. The speaker expresses a deep concern regarding the rise of Christian nationalism and its potential to undermine the principles of pluralism and equality that are embedded within the fabric of American democracy.

In summation, the episode calls upon listeners to engage critically with the implications of the Establishment Clause in their own lives and communities. By fostering an informed public discourse on the matter, Heather urges a collective commitment to uphold the values of religious freedom and governmental neutrality, ensuring that the diverse tapestry of beliefs within the nation can coexist without interference or prejudice. The exploration of these themes serves not only to educate but also to inspire proactive participation in the ongoing discourse surrounding constitutional freedoms.

Takeaways:

• This episode emphasizes the critical importance of understanding the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
• We discuss how historical interpretations of the Establishment Clause have evolved over time in American jurisprudence.
• The implications of recent Supreme Court decisions on the separation of church and state are thoroughly examined.
• We highlight the dangers posed by Christian nationalism and its impact on American democracy.
• The episode provides a comprehensive overview of the role of religion in public life and its legal ramifications.
• We stress the necessity of remaining informed and engaged in discussions about constitutional freedoms.

Connect with Heather:

Join the Kind Space on Patreon

Give a copy of Heather's book, Parenting with Pride.

Join Heather's Substack and Mid Week Breath weekly newsletter

Share More Human. More Kind. Please

Episode Transcript

(01:42):
Hi friends and welcome back tobeyond the Breath.
I am Heather Hester and I amso grateful that you are here today.
I have a quick announcementbefore we get into today's episode.
I am so excited to share thatnext week I will be reintroducing

(02:02):
this podcast under a new name,More Human, more kind.
A lot has gone into thisdecision and I will share it with
you over the next few weeksover time.
But the most important thingfor you to know right now is that
it will remain connected tothis catalog.

(02:26):
This catalog of Just Breathe,parenting, your LGBTQ teen episodes,
beyond the Breath episodes,which means that you will not need
to go searching for it as longas you are subscribed, subscribe
to or following the show.
So your homework right now isto pause and hit that subscribe or

(02:47):
follow button so you do notmiss anything.
So welcome back to what Irealized kind of midweek is becoming
my Foundations to Freedomseries where we explore the core
liberties enshrined in theFirst Amendment.
In our previous episodes, wereally got into the freedoms of speech

(03:11):
and press since thisadministration, the current administration,
is whipping through thegovernment, the institutions, the
lives of Americans with littleregard for due process, rule of law,
or principles that areotherwise enshrined in the Constitution.

(03:33):
There are so many real timeexamples and actions that challenge
free speech and a free presson a daily basis.
So I wanted to just bring up acouple of those before we get into
today, just to keep you on topof and paying attention to what's

(03:54):
going on.
Most notably is Harvardrefusing to back down to Trump's
demands even in light of ofthe loss of millions of dollars in
federal funding and the threatto their tax free status.
Now I want to be clear that Ihave never been a huge cheerleader

(04:16):
for Harvard until now.
Their pushback is steeped intheir First Amendment rights and
we all need to keep talkingabout it and cheering them on.
The second most notable iswhat is happening with regard to
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, theMaryland father who was granted protected

(04:40):
status from an immigrationjudge in 2019.
I think that right there aloneshould be I want you to hear that
because I'm sure you werehearing a lot of different things
on the news, on social media,which is why one of the reasons I
bring this up, the fact isthat Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a father

(05:06):
who lives in Maryland who wasgranted protected status from an
immigration judge in 2019.
Those are all facts.
Now we should all be furiousabout the lack of due process in
his case and all of the otherpeople who were rounded up and sent
off to an El Salvadoran death camp.

(05:28):
Make no mistake about whatthis is.
It is a prison death camp.
And furthermore, we should beon high alert about Trump's casual
suggestions that he wants todo this to American citizens as well.
Have you noticed the not sosubtle thing that Trump's talking

(05:53):
heads have been doing inresponse to all of those who are
advocating for Garcia's release?
Remember last week when wetalked about the difference between
misinformation and disinformation?
That part of media literacyand learning to hone your critical
thinking skills is recognizingthe difference between the two.

(06:16):
Disinformation is purposefuland with mal intent.
And that is exactly what whatthey have been doing at every turn,
purposely spouting and seedingfalse narratives, lies, knowing that
if people hear it enoughtimes, they will believe it to be
true and not do their ownresearch or due diligence.

(06:40):
Now, to be clear here, freespeech says they have a right to
do that, and it is incumbentupon us to call them out on their
lies to to hold themaccountable and to push for consequences.
I'm sure you can think of atleast a half dozen more examples

(07:01):
of how free speech and thefree press are being assaulted.
But for today, we are going toturn our attention to the Establishment
Clause part of the FirstAmendment, which is a pivotal component
that addresses therelationship between ra religion
and government.
Next week, in the fourth andfinal episode in this series, we

(07:24):
will look at the freedom topeacefully assemble.
So this phrase is what you'veprobably most often heard when talking
about the EstablishmentClause, which is the separation of
church and state.
And it's often invoked in alltypes of discussions around religious
freedom.
But what does it really mean?

(07:45):
Where did it originate?
How has it been interpretedover time?
Here's why it matters and whyit's really important to understand.
This clause is particularlyrelevant in current debates over
religious freedom, governmentneutrality and public policy.

(08:07):
The First Amendment of the U.S.
constitution begins, Congressshall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion or prohibiting thefree exercise thereof.
This clause serves as a veryimportant dual purpose, preventing
the government fromestablishing an official religion

(08:29):
and protecting individualsrights to practice their faith freely.
I'm going to say this againbecause it is so, so important that
you commit this to memory.
This clause serves as a veryimportant dual purpose, preventing
the government fromestablishing an official religion

(08:51):
and protecting individualsrights to practice their faith freely.
You may remember from gradeschool history class that many early
settlers of the Americancolonies came here specifically to
escape Religious persecutionin their countries of origin.

(09:12):
They came here seeking a landwhere they could worship without
interference.
However, what happened?
After a few years, somecolonies then established official
churches, forgetting theiroriginal hopes for this new land.
These actions of establishingofficial churches led to tensions,

(09:33):
conflicts, and persecution,the very, very things that they had
fled from.
So the Founding fathers, awareof these issues, created a framework
that ensured religious libertyfor all and prevented government
establishment of religion,which led to the inclusion of the

(09:55):
establishment clause.
One of the most influentialinterpretations of this clause came
from Thomas Jefferson in his1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist
Association.
And the Baptists at that timewere a religious minority in Connecticut,
and they had expressed concernabout the lack of explicit protections

(10:18):
for religious freedom in theirstate constitution.
Jefferson's response provideda profound insight into the intended
separation between church and state.
I have often heard this letterreferenced when discussing the first
Amendment, But I have toconfess that it has probably been
since 11th grade Americanhistory class that I last read it,

(10:41):
which was more than a fewyears ago.
So I want to read the fulltext of Jefferson's letter right
now.
It's not long, so we canunderstand why it is a cornerstone
in the discussion of religious liberty.
So he addresses this to misters.
Dodge, Robbins, Nelson, whoare the committee of the Danbury

(11:05):
Baptist association in thestate of Connecticut.
Gentlemen, he begins and I quote.
The affectionate sentiments ofesteem and approbation which you
are so good as to expresstowards me on behalf of the Danbury
Baptist Association.
Give me the highest satisfaction.
My duties dictate a faithfuland zealous pursuit of the interests

(11:29):
of my constituents, and inproportion as they are persuaded
of my fidelity to theseduties, the discharge of them becomes
more and more pleasing.
Believing with you thatreligion is a matter which lies solely
between man and his God, thathe owes account to none other for
his faith or his worship, thatthe legislative powers of government

(11:52):
reach actions only and not opinions.
I contemplate with sovereignreverence that act of the whole American
people which declared thattheir legislature should, quote,
make no law respecting anestablishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof,thus building a wall of separation

(12:15):
between church and state.
Adhering to this expression ofthe supreme will of the nation in
behalf of the rights ofconscience, I shall see with sincere
satisfaction the progress ofthose sentiments which tend to restore
to man all his natural rights.
Convinced he has no naturalright in opposition to his social

(12:36):
duties, I reciprocate yourkind prayers for the protection and
blessing of the common fatherand creator of man, and tender you
for yourselves and yourreligious association.
Assurances of my highestrespect and esteem, Thomas Jefferson,
dated January 1, 1802.
So this letter, particularlythe phrase and the paragraph preceding

(13:01):
a wall of separation betweenchurch and state has been pivotal
in shaping the understandingof the Establishment Clause, and
it has been used in numerousSupreme Court decisions.
So I want to just share a few examples.
The first is Everson versusBoard of Education.

(13:22):
In 1947, this case addressedwhether public funds could be used
for transportation toparochial schools.
The court upheld the fundingbut emphasized the importance of
maintaining a separationbetween church and state.
In the case Lemon vs Kurtzmanin 1971, the court established the

(13:46):
Lemon Test to determine if alaw violates the Establishment Clause.
The test examines whether thelaw has a secular purpose, neither
advances nor inhibitsreligion, and whether it fosters
excessive governmententanglement with religion.
So there's three pieces there.

(14:08):
The third, then, that I'mgoing to bring up is the Town of
Greece vs Galloway.
In 2014, the court ruled thatopening town meetings with sectarian
prayers did not violate theEstablishment Clause, emphasizing
historical practices and traditions.
So these three casesillustrate the evolving interpretation

(14:30):
of the Establishment Clauseand highlight pieces of this ongoing
debate about the role ofreligion in public life.
In recent years, thisdiscussion around the separation
of church and state hasintensified, part in due to a group

(14:51):
of people who are growing inpower who believe that this country
was founded as a Christian nation.
A recent commentary byAmericans United for the Separation
of Church and State discussesfindings from an Associated Press
Newark center for Publicaffairs poll which revealed that

(15:12):
84% of Americans considerreligious freedom to be extremely
or very important to thenation's identity.
The article points out thatdespite claims from Christian nationalist
groups alleging governmentalhostility toward religion, the US
Government is not attemptingto suppress religious practices.

(15:36):
However, concerns arise whencertain groups advocate for a version
of quote, unquote religiousfreedom that permits individuals
to bypass laws, discriminatein secular businesses, or harm others
based on religious beliefs.
In other words, Christiannationalists and those aligned with

(15:58):
them believe that religiousfreedom means they can ignore laws
and discriminate or even harmother human beings based on their
religious beliefs.
The commentary criticizesorganizations like the American Family
association, the afa, forpromoting interpretations of religious

(16:23):
freedom that effectively allowfor discrimination under the guise
of religious expression.
It emphasizes that while manyAmericans endorse the principle of
religious freedom, there issignificant division over its implementation,
particularly when itintersects with issues of equality

(16:45):
and anti discrimination.
So let's look at a few currentexamples, things that have just happened
in the past 1, 2, 3 yearsLouisiana recently passed a law requiring
the Ten Commandments to bedisplayed in public school classrooms.

(17:05):
While this seems like a clearviolation of the Establishment Clause
of the First Amendment, ithighlights what happens when an ideology
of a people is allowed tosupersede the Constitution, when
those in power have themegaphone to spread their belief
systems and or opinions as ifthey were truth or fact and good

(17:30):
orators, self promoters andsalespeople can do this in a way
that is believable and so veryharmful and misguiding Another current
legal battle, which isactually many battles across many
states, is whether religiousinstitutions can operate publicly
funded charter schoolschallenging traditional interpretations

(17:53):
of the Establishment Clause.
I would like to highlight thephrase publicly funded that means
tax dollar funded.
So what do you think?
Should your tax dollars or thetax dollars of your Muslim neighbor,
your Jewish co worker, youragnostic therapist fund a charter

(18:14):
school operated by aparticular religious institution?
A recent Supreme Court rulingcreated a pathway for this to happen.
There are dozens of nuancedarguments in the broader discussion
of publicly funded charterschools, and adding religious affilia
is just one of them for you tobe aware of.

(18:38):
Again, this is just a samplingof the ongoing relevance of Jefferson's
insights and the importance ofunderstanding the historical context
of the First Amendment.
As I stated earlier, there isa dual purpose or guiding principle
behind the separation ofchurch and state, which is the aim
to protect both religiousfreedom and government neutrality.

(19:02):
This ensures that individualscan practice their faith without
government interference andthat the government doesn't favor
or establish a particular religion.
Understanding the origins andthe interpretations of the Establishment
Clause helps us to navigatecurrent debates and uphold the values

(19:24):
of religious liberty and pluralism.
The Supreme Court's approachto the Establishment Clause has undergone
significant changes over the years.
I just mentioned the Lemontest from Lemon versus Kurtzman in
1971, which assessed whether agovernment action had a secular purpose,

(19:45):
neither advanced or inhibitedreligion, and avoided excessive entanglement
with religion.
However, recent decisions haveshifted toward a quote unquote history
and tradition framework.
In Kennedy vs.
Bremerton School District in2022, the court upheld a public school

(20:07):
coach's right to pray on thefield, emphasizing historical practices
over the Lemon test.
Similarly, an American Legionvs American Humanist Association
In 2019, the court allowed alongstanding cross monument on public
land, citing its historical significance.

(20:28):
This evolution reflects abroader trend of the Court favoring
historical context andtradition in Establishment Clause
cases, potentially allowingmore religious expressions in public
spaces.
Not surprisingly, judicialappointments have a profound impact

(20:48):
on the interpretation of theEstablishment Clause.
The current Supreme Court hasa conservative majority, and they
have shown a tendency toaccommodate religious expressions
in public life.
This shift is evident indecisions that have expanded the
scope of permissible religiousactivities and public institutions.

(21:11):
For instance, the Court'swillingness to hear cases like Oklahoma
Statewide Charter School Boardversus Drummond, which indicates
an openness to reevaluatingthe boundaries between church and
state.
Such cases could redefine theapplication of the Establishment

(21:32):
Clause in education and otherpublic sectors.
The Future of the Church Statejurisprudence in the United States
is poised for further transformation.
Upcoming cases may addressissues such as public funding for
religious schools, religiousdisplays in public spaces, and the

(21:54):
extent of religiousaccommodations in various sectors.
The Court's decisions in theseareas will likely continue to shape
the balance between respectingreligious freedoms and maintaining
government neutrality.
As societal values for thosein power evolve, the interpretation
and application Application ofthe Establishment Clause will remain

(22:17):
a dynamic and contested areaof constitutional law.
So this is clearly, clearlyone of many hot button topics that
are swirling around right now.
And I just want to take amoment to make a few things clear.
I believe strongly that churchand state should remain separate,

(22:42):
Period.
Because here is, here's how Isee it.
Here is what happens if theydon't remain separate.
You have the religiousequality people, I.
E.
Those who believe allreligions should have an equal voice
and representation.
Then you have the Christiannationalists, those who believe that

(23:03):
America was a Christian nationfrom its founding, among other beliefs.
Then you have those who arebalancing the protection of religious
freedom and government neutrality.
And you have all of thenuances in between.
And surrounding all of that isthe fighting, the manipulating of
truth and the interpretationof law that is ultimately going to

(23:25):
reshape the trajectory of thiscountry, as I know you know and feel
to your core, the dire placewe are in that America is on the
precipice of imploding andlosing her democracy, freedom, and

(23:47):
what once made her exceptional.
And I say this with the fullforce of my voice, the Christian
nationalist ideology and thosewho embody it are the leaders of
this disaster.
I could do an entire episodeon the dangers of Christian nationalism,

(24:08):
but for the sake of thisepisode on the Establishment Clause
know this.
Christian nationalism is anideology that seeks to merge Christian
identity with nationalidentity, advocating for the government
to promote or enforceChristian values only as central

(24:29):
to the nation's character.
Proponents, those who supportit, believe that the United States
was founded as a Christiannation and that its laws and policies
should reflect conservativeChristian beliefs.
Critics, those against it,argue that this perspective undermines

(24:51):
the constitutional principleof separation of church and state
and poses challengeschallenges to religious pluralism
and democratic governance.
I want you to really thinkabout the information I shared with
you today and the way I shared it.
I shared facts and Iinterjected my opinion.

(25:13):
I'm so, so grateful that youjoined me today on this exploration
of the origins, theinterpretations and evolving applications
of the Establishment Clauseand the concept of the separation
of church and state.
In our next and final episode,we will explore the Free Exercise
Clause and the right topetition the government, completing

(25:34):
our deep dive into the First Amendment.
I encourage you to reflect onthe role of religion in public life
and engage in informeddiscussions about constitutional
freedoms.
Understanding the nuances ofthe First Amendment is essential
to appreciating and upholdingthe complexities of American democracy.

(25:58):
Stay informed, stay engaged,and continue to cherish the freedoms
that form the bedrock of our democracy.
Until next time, take care ofone another.