Aren't "Test Oaths" Unconstitutional? [EndTheWall!] || [Home] || [Contents]

What About the "Separation of Church and State?"

This page is part of the "Christians for a Test Oath" website. This entire website is really about the "separation of church and state." The issue of "test oaths" is a perfect example of the problem. And yes, we believe the "separation of church and state" is a problem, not a solution. This website self-consciously repudiates the modern fiction of the "Separation of Church and State."

Nevertheless, we believe the position espoused here is quite consistent with what the overwhelming majority of the Signers of the Constitution believed and said. The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, and its modern meaning would be vigorously opposed by most of the Founding Fathers.

What "Separation of Church and State" Meant 200 Years Ago

The U.S. Supreme Court has declared in a number of cases that America is a Christian nation. One of the more noteworthy of these declarations is the case of Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. All the evidence indicates that the overwhelming majority of the Signers and Ratifiers of the Constitution intended to keep the nation Christian, and did not intend the Constitution to impose secularization on the nation. In this context, the phrase "separation of church and state" is easier to understand.

Americans -- public school graduates at the end of the 20th century -- are an embarrassingly ignorant bunch. A shockingly high percentage of Americans under the age of 30 cannot point to London or Rome on a map. But America's history has roots in both cities.

"Western Civilization is largely Christian Civilization." All of Europe was Christian, a part of the "Holy Roman Empire." When England broke away from the "Holy Roman Empire," it by no means meant to declare to the world that it was "un-holy." "Holier than thou" was still politically correct. In Britain there was a state church, a state denomination: The Church of England (Anglicanism). Taxes paid for the Anglican clergy.

After the American Revolution, nobody in America wanted their taxes to go to the clergy of the Church of England (understandably!). But if taxes were to finance any church, which church would it be? The Baptist? Presbyterian? Congregational? Years before the U.S. Constitution was ratified, every single state had agreed that there would be no more state-established church (denomination): Not the Methodist, not the Episcopalian, not the Roman Catholic. In some states, taxes went to all Christian denominations equally, but other states eliminated government church subsidies altogether, a "downsizing of government" that no one alive today disagrees with. The Founders' doctrine might better be called "the Separation of Denomination and State." Repeat: No one alive today disagrees with this concept. Not the Christian Coalition, not the Rutherford Institute, not the Chalcedon Foundation.

But this is not what "the separation of church and state" means today. Emphatically not.

What "Separation of Church and State" Means Today

The modern meaning of the phrase is "the Separation of Christianity and State." It argues that Christian political views should be kept private. Our nation should not be a nation "under God," according to this viewpoint, but under the guidance of autonomous Secular Humanist ideals. That's the real goal. In the name of that doctrine, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that public schools cannot even post a copy of the Ten Commandments on a classroom wall. If you can prove that a single signer of the Constitution believed in this kind of "separation," please send the proof to the author of this web page. The modern doctrine of "Separation of Church and State" is a myth. An evil, destructive lie. To be on the side of this doctrine is to be on the side of the destruction of our nation.

This website defends "test oaths" because it seeks to attack the whole secularist mentality, which will not permit even the most basic belief in God to be officially endorsed, much less required for oath-takers. The modern secular attack on "test oaths" is really an attack on the very nature of an oath. This in turn is an attack on civilization itself.

No country can subsist a twelve-month where an oath is not thought binding; for the want of it must necessarily dissolve society.[1]

Those who required Christian "test oaths" before the Revolution also envisioned America as a "City on a Hill," taking the Gospel to all the world. Those who despise Christian "test oaths" also despise the Puritan vision of a Christian America. This website is an attempt to restore both.

The Anti-Separation of Church and State Home Page


1. Imbrie v Marsh, at 71 A2d 353, 18 ALR2d 243, citing Omcychund v. Barker, 1 Atk 21, 34 (Ch 1744).  [Back to text]