The History of Separating Church and State in America

On June 26, 2026, the Religious Liberty Commission released its final report on religious freedom in the United States. The commission declared that religious liberty is under attack. This group was created in May 2025 with a clear mission. Its goals were to find new threats to religious liberty. It also aimed to protect federal laws that help citizens participate in a diverse democracy. Most importantly, it sought to protect the free exercise of religion.

However, the commission faced criticism right away. Many observers said the group was biased. They argued the members held a conservative Christian perspective. Over the next year, the commission held seven hearings. About 100 witnesses gave their testimony. The draft report lists many stories of people claiming they faced bias because of their faith. It blames government workers for showing disdain toward public displays of religious belief.

A key argument in the report focuses on the phrase "wall of separation between church and state." The commission argues that critics use this phrase to keep religious Americans out of the public square. As the author of the book Separating Church and State: A History, I believe this criticism is wrong. However, this is not a new argument. Critics have called the idea of separation anti-religious and lacking historical basis since the Supreme Court used it in 1947.

In the 1947 case Everson vs. Board of Education, the Supreme Court decided on public money for religious schools. In this decision, justices said they would use the idea of church-state separation. They used it to guide how they interpret the religion parts of the First Amendment. These parts say Congress cannot make laws about establishing a religion or stopping its free practice.

In the same decision, the justices used the metaphor of a "wall of separation." This phrase came from an 1802 letter by President Thomas Jefferson. He wrote to a Baptist group in Connecticut. At that time, Baptists were a small minority. Their state still had an official religion. Jefferson felt sorry for their difficult situation. He used the wall metaphor to show that religion is between a person and God. It is not a matter for the government to decide.

The idea of separate roles for spiritual and secular leaders was supported by both religious and secular thinkers. They believed this separation helped both religion and the state.

In his work City of God from the fifth century, St. Augustine described two separate worlds. One was spiritual, and the other was earthly. Each had its own authority. Augustine used an image of two walled cities. He used this to protect the church from outside corruption.

During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, Martin Luther and John Calvin also separated spiritual and earthly power. They wanted a clear division of work. Luther spoke of two kingdoms: a spiritual one and a temporal one. They had different authorities. Similarly, Calvin wrote that Christ’s spiritual kingdom and civil power are completely different. He said they must always be kept separate.

While religious reformers discussed separation, they also used ideas of walls and hedges. They wanted to keep the secular and religious worlds apart.

Protestant groups like the Mennonites, Hutterites, and Brethren took this idea seriously. They wanted to stay away from what they saw as the bad parts of the world. These groups refused to swear loyalty oaths to civil leaders. They also avoided most civic duties.

Menno Simons, the early leader of the Mennonites, used the term "separating wall." He used it to show how separate their faith was from civil authority.

Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island, also supported total religious liberty. He was a Puritan who became a Baptist. He called for a hedge or wall between the church and the world. He saw the world as a wilderness and the church as a garden.

Thinkers from the Enlightenment, like John Locke, also supported separating church and state. In 1689, Locke wrote that the church must be completely separate from the government. He said the boundaries are fixed and cannot move.

British writer James Burgh called for an impenetrable wall between sacred things and civil matters. He argued that the less the church and state mix, the better it is for both. Scholars think Burgh’s writing likely influenced Jefferson’s 1802 letter.

People in America’s founding generation knew about separate spheres of authority. They understood that keeping these functions separate was necessary. Even though Jefferson used the wall metaphor only once, he worked hard his whole life to advance religious freedom. James Madison used similar images. He called for a big barrier between the two spheres.

This separation was not just a metaphor. Many people truly believed in it. Madison wrote that religion and government would both be purer if they were not mixed together.

To this day, many religious groups support church-state separation. Groups like many Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and Reform Jews see this separation as essential. They believe it keeps religious freedom safe.

And the public still supports it. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2026, 54% of Americans say the government should enforce church-state separation. This number has stayed steady. Only 13% believe it should stop enforcing it. This is down from 19% in 2021.

Despite this long history, the Religious Liberty Commission’s report dislikes the wall metaphor. The report notes that the phrase is not in the First Amendment or the Constitution. It calls the metaphor overused. It argues the phrase wrongly implies that church and state are enemies. It suggests the phrase makes people think they must remain completely apart.

The report also has a narrow view of the religion clauses. It says the government cannot prefer one religion, take over church functions, or force religious practice. This narrow view would allow other mixes of church and state. For example, it might allow government funding for religious schools.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor reflected on this in 2005. As a conservative judge, she emphasized that separation is crucial for true religious freedom. She noted that the First Amendment shows the nation’s commitment to liberty. It does this with two rules. One protects free exercise. The other bars establishment.

She challenged those who wanted to change the system. She asked why anyone would trade a system that works well for one that has failed others. It is troubling that the commission’s report ignores the benefits of church-state separation for American society.