The history of the intertwining of religion and the government in the United States is a fascinating one that extends from one extreme to the other.

In 1630, John Winthrop, a preacher for Massachusetts Bay colony, famously gave his sermon

"A Model of Christian Charity” where he wrote that it was the duty of the new Americans to shine like an example to the world, a "City on a Hill."

Years later, as the United States progressed from a government loosely organized by the Articles of Confederation to the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, religion continued to be a controversial topic.

In his Letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802), then-President Thomas Jefferson responded to the Virginia Danbury Baptist’s fear of a designated national religion, saying the famous line that there must be a “wall of separation” between Church and state.

However, the first time the Supreme Court made a definitive statement about religion in education was in the case Epperson v. Arkansas (1968).

In 1859, Charles Darwin published the Origin of Species, the first book popular in the Western world that truly contradicted the traditionally-accepted role of God in the narrative of history. As Darwin’s Theory of Evolution became more well-known, it led to controversies such as the Anti-Evolution Act of 1925 - or the “anti-monkey law” - which made it unlawful for public schools to teach any theory that denies the story of divine creation of man as taught in the Bible.

It took almost a century for Evolution to catch on, but in 1965, a new wave of Biology textbooks were pushed out that included the Theory of Evolution, which led to Epperson. In Epperson, an Arkansas teacher was placed in a difficult position as she was told by her school not to teach the Theory of Evolution, despite it being a subject in the Biology textbook for the class. Epperson turned to the First Amendment of the Constitution to answer whether teaching of this theory might be restricted.

The Court opinion cited the First Amendment, saying that Arkansas’ law expressly wrote that it was unlawful for a teacher to teach evolution because it contradicted the Biblical version of history and so the law expressly supported the establishment of a particular religion.

The Court held that either forbidding explanation of the theory OR teaching a theory was true violated the religion clause.

Following this court decision, the debate between Creationists and Evolutionists flourished, which begs the question: why the controversy?

Today, many Christians claim to also be Evolutionists. Are these two belief-systems contradictory? (To hear an excellent podcast asking this very question, click here!)

This question is so fundamental because it goes to the basic assumptions about history and anthropologies: where did humanity come from?

A few theories to consider:

• Young Earth Creationists argue that the earth and life were created in six 24-hour periods, 6,000-10,000 years ago.
• Intelligent Design-ers would argue, not inconsistent with Fundamentalists, that there is intelligent design evident in the history of the world. Most intelligent designers do not pitch specific conclusions and are not inconsistent with either creationists or evolutionists.
• For more on Intelligent Design in court, read the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (M.D. Pa. 2005), a fascinating case where proponents actively pushed Intelligent Design theory into schools as a subtle way, a “wedge strategy,” to bring Christianity back into the classroom.
• Evolutionists propose that modern humans evolved within the past 200,000 years from earlier primate ancestors in Africa, gradually developing traits such as complex language through natural selection (the dying off of less competent species, leaving only specimens with adapted and advanced traits). Typically, Evolutionists prescribe to the belief - supported by radiometric dating - that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

Mozert v. Hawkins (E.D. Tenn. 1986) is another, more recent case where the court had to determine whether a book series with themes contrary to certain religious beliefs ought to be allowed in the classroom. The judges in this case expressed a variety of opinions on religion in the school system:

• Justice Lively writes that by exposing children to different books, we are not requiring them to deny their religion or act a certain way. There is no government compulsion and “exposure isn’t indoctrination.”
• Justice Kennedy concurred,* stating that there is a compelling government interest in exposing children to different social dynamics, controversial issues, and practicality.
• Justice Boggs points out that questions of whether religion ought to be tied into school touch on the question of the salvation of the eternal soul in relation to school education, a serious question. However, the court cannot ban certain topics from schools purely because the bench disagrees with a certain religious opinion. There is no “but I don’t want to see it” line in the Constitution.

*For a justice to concur means that he agrees with the court's decision, but for different reasoning.

These opinions are particularly relevant today in light of issues such as Ron DeSantis' removing certain books from schools, in particular books which “depict or describe sexual conduct” or are “inappropriate for the grade level and age group.” Media has condemned DeSantis for dipping into the school system, alleging that he is banning many classics. On the other hand, many parents are relieved not to have to discuss heavy topics with their children prematurely.

The bottom-line question: Is the regulation of ideas in the education system the job of the state government or for school boards and teachers?

For more information about the so-called "book ban," you can read this Florida government publication which debunks popular social media arguments and accusations.

All of this to say, the fundamental question boils down to: To what extent is it the government’s place to teach what is truth?

United States v. Ballard (1944) is a Supreme Court case where the Court wrote that “man’s relation to God was made no concern of the state” and we should “answer to no man for the variety of his religious views.” This is a far cry from Winthrop’s sermon to the early Massachusetts colonists.

Today, the protection of our beliefs is absolute. The right to believe whatever you will is the only absolute rights enshrined in the Constitution through the Bill of Rights (amendments to the Constitution), despite what popular opinion might lead you to believe.

The government may, however, restrict practice that is dangerous or a threat to public welfare. This is where we get the more specific court cases and questions.

So, what do you think? Should there be a separation of Church and state? Should the government be able to restrict or allow certain beliefs in the education system? Should morality play into the law?

Visit my Substack Newsletter HERE or click the link below to comment your opinion and let's start a conversation!