When studying the most basic premises of American history, the aim is often to understand how we’ve improved on the fundamental rights and liberties fought for during the founding of the United States. However, in examining one right that makes America particularly unique, it’s alarming to notice how it has begun to disintegrate over time, with the most rapid escalation of decay taking place in the past twenty years. One of the foundational principles that made America so unique at its inception was its commitment to being a secular nation where religious freedom could flourish. 

Public attention has shifted to this concerning pattern of policy recently, with public outcry over recently approved Texas curriculum guidelines allowing Christianity-infused lessons in public schools. From the layman’s perspective, it may seem that this obvious breach of the separation of church and state has come out of left field. However, this bill followed in the footsteps of a string of attacks on the fundamental right to religious freedom that the Constitution protects.

Examining the long, tumultuous history of the separation of church and state in the United States, it’s difficult to pinpoint what exactly went wrong. It’s necessary to consider the beginnings of this fundamental divide to understand how it has shifted since. 

The notion of freedom of religion and, concurrently, the separation of church and state, began at the conception of America. Thomas Jefferson believed strongly in the principle of separating church and state, and wrote in a letter to the Danbury Baptists that “religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God” and “the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions.” These principles were present in Jefferson’s authoring of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which laid the groundwork for the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom.

The Supreme Court, in its long history of major decisions addressing the freedom of religion, has mostly upheld the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, which directly state that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

These clauses have been poked and prodded throughout the last century, with a wide array of Supreme Court cases through a variety of SCOTUS benches. Everson v. Board of Education (1947) included the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” in its decision and was the first case to mandate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause. Notably, however, is that around this time in American history — the late 50s — the United States was beginning to insert more religious language into sections of life that the government had influence over amidst the historical context of the Red Scare: in 1954, “one nation, under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance, and in 1957, “in God we trust” was added to US currency. However, the Court continued to maintain separation, demonstrating the balance of power among a cultural shift in the country. Engel v. Vitale (1962) declared prayer in public schools unconstitutional, setting an important precedent of separation of religion and education that would be attacked in the decades to come. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) set the framework for cases on the freedom of religion to follow, requiring laws to abide by the “Lemon Test” by ensuring they have a secular purpose, do not advance or inhibit religion, and avoid excessive entanglement between the church and the state. Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000) ruled student-led prayer at public high school football games unconstitutional — an important specific situation to consider when observing the cases of the following 20 years.

From 2002 onward, the Supreme Court became increasingly, and alarmingly, lackadaisical on issues of Establishment and Free Exercise Clause infringement. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the Court ruled in favor of a school voucher program that allowed public funds to be used for private religious schools, arguing that the funds technically went to individuals rather than directly to the institutions themselves. In Van Orden v. Perry (2005), the Court allowed the display of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol, despite it being a religious symbol on government property. In Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), the Court ruled that a Christian prayer could be said at the beginning of town hall meetings as long as participation wasn’t coerced. In Carson v. Makin (2022), the Court ruled that public funding for tuition assistance could be used at religious schools.

It’s not out of the ordinary for the Court to adapt its views over time on an issue; what is abnormal is the direction the Court is taking and how it is directly opposite the principles of the Constitution that the Court strives to follow.

Even more intriguing is the common denominator between these numerous cases of infringement or attempted infringement: schools. Louisiana’s recent Ten Commandments bill comes into mind, Oklahoma's Superintendent’s mandate to educators to teach the Bible, or three states’ (Louisiana, Florida, and Texas) laws allowing and encouraging schools to hire religious chaplains. Schools are the most dominant medium of those who are toeing the line between church and state, and schools aren’t as protected by today’s Court as they were just forty years ago: In the 1980 case of Stone v. Graham, the Court ruled against a Kentucky law mandating the Ten Commandments be displayed in every classroom. It’s eerie to see how history repeats itself, but this time, with the once-structural wall between church and state having been cracked.

Yes, things change over time. But the concern over the narrowing divide between church and state isn’t just because of a strong desire to adhere to the Constitution or the Founders’ intentions, it comes from a desire to hold together the liberty of American citizens. If our government promotes or favors one religion over another, this action might deepen the cracks of religious discrimination already emerging in our country. Such favoritism risks diminishing the rich diversity of religion and culture that defines the uniqueness of the United States. It may discourage or even prevent individuals from freely deciding the faith they choose to practice.

The United States is tumbling down a dark path, and if it continues at this rate, the once solid wall of separation between church and state will crumble at our feet.