The Separation of Church and State

 

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible…” In 1892, when Francis Bellamy wrote the version of the Pledge of Allegiance that would be formally adopted by the United States Congress fifty years later, he wanted to uphold the enduring vision of “true Americanism” and the universal principles of liberty. In fact, it wasn’t until 1954, near the height of the Cold War, that the phrase “under God” was added to the Pledge to avow America’s religious identity in the face of McCarthyism and “godless communism.” But when the Founding Fathers set out to establish the foundations of the country, they did not envision the creation of a religious ethno state or endorse a national religion, as many other states such as the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain had at the time. Instead, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to maintain religious neutrality by asserting a line between freedom of religion and freedom from government-institutionalized religion under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, which protects the right of all individuals to practice their religion, and the Establishment Clause, which prevents the establishment of an official religion by the U.S. government.

 

Today, the separation between church and state has increasingly come under challenge by multiple U.S. states and has been weakened by a string of recent Supreme Court decisions. Since 2025, public schools in Texas and Louisiana have been allowed to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms. The same year, the Supreme Court decided in Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) that parents can opt their children out of lessons involving material that they disagree with on religious grounds. Previously, in Masterpiece Cake shop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), the Supreme Court found that a Colorado cake shop did not violate anti-discrimination laws when the owner refused to serve a same-sex couple because of his religious beliefs. These cases have stoked controversy for allegedly violating the separation of church and state, and raised concerns that the United States is being molded into a Christian ethno state.

 

The debate over the separation of church and state is not new. The Supreme Court has heard cases regarding the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause since Reynolds v. United States (1878). In Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the sentence of a Mormon man convicted of bigamy. The Reynolds case established a separationist approach to conflicts involving the religious liberty granted by the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and government interference. The separationist approach focused on separating personal religious beliefs, which are absolutely protected under the First Amendment, from the government’s ability to regulate religious conduct that may violate laws or societal mores.

 

Over time, the Supreme Court started to emphasize the Free Exercise Clause and the role of government in accommodating religious customs rather than completely walling off religion from public life. The shift toward this accommodationist approach was established in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), which ruled that Amish parents were permitted under the First Amendment to remove their children from public schooling to preserve their religious way of life. In its accommodationist approach, the Court has used a strict scrutiny test under which the government must prove a law is warranted by a “compelling state interest” and that said law is “narrowly tailored” using the “least restrictive means” possible to achieve its goal. After the Supreme Court briefly suspended the strict scrutiny test in its ruling in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law in 1993, which requires the government to fulfill the strict scrutiny test when federal laws significantly hinder religious customs.

 

Similar to its interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, the Court had long maintained a separationist view regarding its interpretation of the Establishment Clause before becoming increasingly accommodationist in its approach. Up until 2022, courts employed the Lemon test established under Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) to determine if a government law or action violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Under the Lemon test, a law or action must meet three conditions to remain constitutional: (1) the law or action must serve a legitimate secular legislative purpose, (2) the law or action must maintain neutrality and neither advance nor hinder religion, and (3) the law or action must not cause any excessive government interference with religion. Since Justice John Roberts became Chief Justice in September 2005, the Supreme Court has prioritized the Free Exercise Clause over the Establishment Clause. Subsequent decisions under the Roberts Court in Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014) and Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022) have weakened the divide between church and state and officially abandoned the Lemon test in favor of interpreting the Establishment Clause by “reference to historical practices and understandings.”

 

Beyond legal arguments circulating in the court system, the shift away from secularism has been driven by Christianity in America. Even though America’s founding documents do not mention Christianity, many proponents pushing for the removal of the barriers separating church and state argue that America is and has always been a Christian nation. Mandates have been enacted in several states (including Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, and Louisiana) requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in public classrooms. Supporters of the mandates have argued that the Ten Commandments have underpinned America since its founding, especially given the religious demographics of the founders themselves. As a result, display of the Ten Commandments is not viewed as an overt mandate of religion, but as an embodiment of a historical tradition. As Stanford law professor and constitutional expert Michael W. McConnell argues, although the First Amendment protects against government involvement in religion, it does not assert that religion should be separate from culture and public life, thus leaving room for people to freely express their religious beliefs in public settings.

 

The fundamental moral and belief systems of Christianity also play a role in the debate. According to a study on Christian nationalism (which opposes the separation of church and state), researchers using Moral Foundations Theory evaluated participants’ moral intuitions and found that those who wanted to strengthen the bond between church and state expressed higher levels of loyalty and sanctity to God. These findings suggest that for many Christians, adherence to religion and support for the church are important priorities in line with their beliefs. Others believe that the survival of their religious heritage is at stake. Christianity has been the predominant religion in America for over 200 years, with a supermajority of Americans identifying as Christians. However, over the past fifty years, the number of Americans who label themselves as Christians has trended downward as the country has become more secularized. A 2023 Gallup poll found that 68% of Americans identified as Christians, compared to 87% in 1973. Secularization in politics and society can serve to threaten the beliefs of Christians and cause the church and other forms of organized religion to lose some of their power and influence. As a result, proponents of Christianity and other religions may seek to integrate or bind the functions and positions of the church within government institutions as a means to preserve religion in society.

 

Amid rising debates over secularization and the separation of church and state, religion and politics do not necessarily have to be incompatible. Political candidates like James Talarico have leveraged their faith in their campaigns to build solidarity and connect with constituents. During his Texas Senate primary campaign, Talarico said, “Politics is just another word for how we treat our neighbors. And we should treat each other a lot better than this. Not a politics of fear, not a politics of division, but a politics of love.” Talarico has centered his platform on depolarizing partisan divides and employing radical compassion toward people to build a fairer and more just system based on his own faith.

 

Pope Leo XIV, one of the leading religious authority figures as head of the Catholic Church, has promoted principles of Catholic social teaching, which aims to form consciences in public and political life. He has spoken out about immigration, war, and LGBTQ rights, emphasizing care and compassion for the vulnerable and continually reinforcing the importance of human dignity in guiding actions. In his address to lawmakers on April 25, Pope Leo said that “‘the primary task of any political action is to offer an ideal vision,’ which requires ‘a broad view of the future’ and a readiness to make ‘difficult and even unpopular choices when necessary for the common good.’” The Pope also went on to say that “pursuing an ideal does not mean glorifying an ideology [which is] the result of a distortion of reality and a kind of violence imposed upon it.”

 

The ongoing conflict over the role of religion in government and politics can be understood as one between religious ideology and religious faith. Attempts at spreading and institutionalizing religious ideology and dismantling the separation of church and state through movements like Christian nationalism may exacerbate faith-based political polarization, which can erode and undermine American democracy. If organized religious groups gain more political power and establish a faith-based society, it could potentially create an in-group and out-group dynamic where people who do not belong to the dominant religion are discriminated against. Religion itself could also lose its spiritual integrity as it becomes politicized and weaponizes belief and faith against others, rather than acting on the principles of care and love for others it was established on.

 

At the same time, the fundamental principles of religion offer guidance on working toward the common good and promoting unity. While negotiating tensions over the separation of church and state, fostering interfaith collaboration and understanding can help build a more constructive balance between faith and governance. At an institutional level, it is important to strengthen both the Freedom of Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause to shield both government and religion from the threat of extreme ideology and ensure that all Americans are free to pursue their religious faith and devotion without undue interference from the government. In protecting both these tenets of the First Amendment, we can continue to uphold America as a nation with strong moral governance that is truly inclusive and embraces liberty and justice for all.