Since the founding of the United States of America, the separation of church and state has protected both civil and religious freedom. This so-called “wall,” however, is facing increasing scrutiny and opposition, most recently from the Presidential Religious Liberty Commission. Its Draft Report, released in June of 2026, attempts to weaken and dismantle the concept of the “wall of separation between church and state.” The reasons for this effort center on deep concern over numerous recent attacks from secular and woke ideologies against Christians and Christian institutions. Many of these attacks have been excused and defended in court and in the popular media by claims that the “wall” separating church and state permits this “soft persecution” of Christians. The proposed solution found in the Draft Report is to eradicate the wall and thereby to hopefully strengthen the legal opposition to these attacks. The arguments in support of this solution, however, are drawn from incomplete or faulty history and a misunderstanding of the original purpose of the “wall of separation.”
The Draft Report states on page 42, “Jefferson had coined the phrase ‘wall of separation’ in a private letter to the Danbury Baptists to delineate that the state could not establish a religion.” This statement overlooks or ignores numerous earlier uses of this metaphor. The concept of a wall of separation between church and state was clearly expressed at least as far back as 1648 by Roger Williams who wrote about a “wall of separation, between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.”[1] Nine years before the Declaration of Independence was signed, and twenty-four years before the Constitution’s Bill of Rights was ratified, the Scottish-born politician and political theorist James Burgh similarly argued that free societies should “build an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil.”[2] The writings of both Williams and Burgh were well known to the founding fathers, including James Madison, who likewise argued for the “separation between religion and government.”[3] Therefore, the suggestion that the metaphor of a wall of separation between church and state was a private invention of Thomas Jefferson is historically misleading.
It is true that the phrase “wall of separation” does not appear in the Constitution. However, this does not mean that the writers of the Constitution did not intend to guarantee a separation of church and state. Such an intent actually conforms with the broader purpose of the Constitution to provide an effective and enduring separation of governmental power into distinct parts. James Madison, chief architect of the Constitution, wrote that “[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”[4] In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson echoed a similar sentiment when he wrote, “The principle of the Constitution is that of a separation of Legislative, Executive and Judiciary functions, except in cases specified. If this principle be not expressed in direct terms, it is clearly the spirit of the Constitution, and it ought to be so commented and acted on by every friend of free government.”[5] To admit that the nation’s founders recognized the need to separate powers within government, yet claim that these same men did not seek to provide for the separation of church and state, suggests historical carelessness.
Numerous United States Presidents have repeated and endorsed the importance of the separation of church and state. President Fillmore said, “I would be tolerant to men of all creeds, but would exact from all faithful allegiance to our republican institutions. But if any sect or denomination, ostensibly organized for religious purposes, should use that organization, or suffer it to be used, for political objects, I would meet it by political opposition. In my view, Church and State should be separate, not only in form, but fact—religion and politics should not be mingled.”[6]
Ulysses Grant said, “Leave the matter of religion to the family circle, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contribution. Keep the Church and State forever separate.”[7] Upon his nomination, James Garfield said, “Whatever help the nation can justly afford should be generously given to aid the States in supporting common schools; but it would be unjust to our people and dangerous to our institutions to apply any portion of the revenues of the nation, or of the States, to the support of sectarian schools. The separation of the Church and the State in everything relating to taxation should be absolute.”[8]
The Draft Report also proposed tax-funded government financial support for faith-based non-profits[9] and religious education,[10] repealing the Johnson Amendment,[11] indoctrinating Americans in the ideology of the Commission,[12] and providing increased vigilance against anti-Semitism with no mention of the need to protect the religious liberty rights of other faiths and religious minorities.[13]
History has proven that government-provided funding often brings with it explicit or implicit pressure to conform to government policies, standards, and ideologies. This was demonstrated during the global pandemic in the early 2020s when educational institutions and healthcare organizations—among many other entities—experienced intense pressure to deny religious liberty exemptions to those opposed to receiving the heavily-promoted vaccines. The Commission acknowledged the negative results of this government-funded pressure on page 222 of the Draft Report: “The Commission recommends that the Department of Health and Human Services’ and Department of Justice’s Offices of Civil Rights, along with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission open civil rights investigations into—or file strategic litigation against—federally funded educational, medical, and governmental entities that may have violated religious freedom rights by denying religious exemptions to vaccine mandates.” While the Commission rightfully recognizes the negative effects that government funding has exercised in the public health arena, it fails to admit the potential danger that government funding of distinctly religious activities could have in the religious arena. These potential dangers should be considered and the related recommendations modified accordingly.
Since 1954, the Johnson Amendment has forbidden 501(c)3 non-profits, which includes most churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates.[14] It has served as a barrier against the “buying” of religious votes by politicians and the undue influence of faith leaders and religious organizations on the political process. Simultaneously, religious leaders must remain free to discuss public policies that deal with moral issues and address questions of justice without fear of intimidation and retaliation. The Commission rightly recognizes the danger posed by too close of a relationship between ecclesiastical and political power when it warns against “advocating ‘theocracy’.”[15] The Johnson Amendment has been and should continue to be an effective safeguard against the development of such a situation in the United States.
Minimizing the importance of the separation of church and state while simultaneously indoctrinating Americans into the Commission’s interpretation of religious liberty, promoting government funding of religious organizations in general, and protecting one specific religious viewpoint (Zionism) without mention of the rights of other religions or religious minorities, could set the stage for unintended and unforeseen consequences. The separation of church and state has served this country well for nearly 250 years. If morality is declining, let the churches start preaching truth once again. If attacks against Christians continue, let the courts fulfill their appointed duty and administer justice. But don’t eradicate the separation that has protected both church and state from each other, and granted religious liberty to millions of people of all faiths.
[1] Roger Williams, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, for Cause of Conscience (London: Hanserd Knollys Society, 1848), p. 435; accessed on July 12, 2026 at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65739/65739-h/65739-h.htm.
[2] James Burgh, Crito, or, Essays on Various Subjects, vol. 2 (London: Messrs. Dodsley, 1767), ; accessed on July 12, 2026 at https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/LYhFlMDvjMUC?hl=en&gbpv=1.
[3] James Madison. Detached memorandum, ca. 1823. Manuscript. James Madison Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (133.01.00) [Digital ID# us0133_01] accessed on July 12, 2026 at https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/ext/transcription92.html
[4] James Madison, “The Particular Structure of the New Government and Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts,” The Federalist, no. 47; accessed July 12, 2026, from https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-41-50#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493412
[5] Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison (Jan. 22, 1797) https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.020_1107_1108/?sp=1&st=text.
[6] Millard Fillmore, The Ovation to Mr. Fillmore, Speeches of Mr. Fillmore (1856), p. 1-2; accessed July 12, 2026 from https://distantreader.org/stacks/pamphlets/pdf/005195677.pdf
[7] Ulysses Grant, “Remarks at the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Army of the Tennessee in Des Moines, Iowa” (1875); accessed July 12, 2026 from https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-ninth-annual-meeting-the-army-the-tennessee-des-moines-iowa
[8] James Garfield, Letter Accepting the 1880 Republican Presidential Nomination (1880); accessed July 12, 2026 from https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/james-a-garfield-s-letter-accepting-the-1880-republican-presidential-nomination.htm
[9] Draft Report on page 14, “Guarantee faith-based institutions an equal opportunity to participate on an equal basis in funding opportunities without requiring them to renounce their religious identity; issue guidance that religious discrimination in federal funding programs is unconstitutional.”
[10] Draft Report on page 15, “Ensure the constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and parental rights are enjoyed by families of all socioeconomic means by promoting a robust and universal system of school choice where funding follows the child.”
[11] Draft Report on page 23, “Repeal the Johnson Amendment which purports to give the government authority to regulate religious leaders’ sermons and spiritual guidance to their communities.”
[12] Draft Report on page 22, “Instruct the Department of Justice to issue guidance clarifying the proper understanding of the Establishment Clause and separation of church and state.”
[13] Draft Report on page 23, “Combat anti-Semitism through enforcement of civil rights laws, litigation of credible allegations of anti-Semitic discrimination and violence, and civic education.”
[14] 26 U.S.C.§501(c)(3)
[15] Draft Report on page 42, “To be clear, this does not involve or require advocating“theocracy” or even the total elimination of any separation between church and state.”