Category: Judiciary

Posted on

Why “Separation of Church and State” Was Never the American Way

In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case that most Christians have never heard of—Everson v. Board of Education. Yet that ruling, more than any other, reshaped the place of Christianity in American public life. In fact, the very idea that our Constitution demands a strict “separation of church and state” was essentially invented by that decision. But what if this idea wasn’t true to America’s founding? And what if it ran counter to the biblical role of government itself?

A recent Harvard Law Journal article by Timon Cline, Josh Hammer, and Yoram Hazony—three voices from both Christian and Jewish traditions—argues that the time has come to overturn Everson and restore the original vision of the First Amendment. Christians seeking to understand the world through a biblical lens, should pay close attention.

Government’s Biblical Responsibility: Promoting the Public Good

Romans 13 tells us that civil authorities are ordained by God to uphold justice and punish evil. First Peter 2 commands rulers to “praise those who do good.” This biblical principle was historically recognized by Christian thinkers and undergirded America’s early political structure. The Founders never imagined a government stripped of moral and religious foundations. Instead, they understood—as Proverbs 14:34 puts it—that “righteousness exalts a nation.”

The Harvard Law Journal scholars point out that America’s original constitutional design reflected this reality: under the First Amendment, the federal government was prohibited from establishing a national church or interfering with religious establishments at the state level. In other words, individual states were expected to shape public morality—including support for Christianity—as they saw fit.

The Great Distortion: How Everson Rewrote the First Amendment

How, then, did “separation of church and state” become national dogma?

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black reinterpreted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment using Thomas Jefferson’s offhand metaphor of a “wall of separation.” But Jefferson’s phrase came from a personal letter written 14 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified—and Jefferson wasn’t even in the country when the First Amendment was drafted.

This metaphor, the authors argue, was never meant to create a religiously neutral state. Yet Justice Black’s ruling applied this separationist vision to the states, effectively barring them from supporting religion in any public form. Ironically, the First Amendment’s clear limitation on federal power was transformed into a federal prohibition against state-level religious expression.

From a biblical worldview, this distortion matters deeply. Scripture never envisions the civil order as “neutral” toward the things of God. Rather, rulers are called to “kiss the Son” (Psalm 2:12)—to govern with justice that acknowledges God’s authority.

The Fruits of Everson: A Secular Public Square

What followed Everson is all too familiar. Prayer and Bible reading were banned from schools. Christian moral teachings were sidelined. Secularism—the active removal of religion from public life—became the assumed posture of government. As the legal scholars argue, this didn’t create neutrality; it created a functional state-sponsored religion of secularism.

Romans 1 describes what happens when a society “suppresses the truth” about God: moral confusion and cultural decay. We’ve witnessed this firsthand as public life—once broadly shaped by biblical norms—has become a vacuum filled by alternative ideologies.

A Forgotten American Principle: Local Freedom to Support Religion

One of the most insightful arguments from Cline, Hammer, and Hazony is that American federalism originally allowed each state to shape its religious character. States like Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire maintained various forms of Christian establishment well into the 19th century. This wasn’t forced religion. Alongside these establishments, states protected freedom of conscience.

The genius of this system was local accountability. Each state, as a community, had the freedom to uphold religious practices appropriate to its people. This echoes the biblical principle of local leadership seen in Exodus 18, where Moses is told to appoint “capable men from all the people…to serve as officials” over groups at different levels.

What Christians Should Hope For

The Harvard Law Journal article calls for overturning Everson and returning decisions about public religion to the states. From a Christian worldview, this proposal aligns with key scriptural principles:

  • Civil rulers should promote the public good, including moral and religious formation.
  • Religious instruction should not be coerced but encouraged.
  • Parents and local communities should shape children’s moral education (Deuteronomy 6:6–7)1And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise..

Imagine a future where states once again have the freedom to support prayer in schools, Bible instruction, and moral formation—not by force, but by communal choice. Such a restoration would acknowledge the biblical truth that faith in God strengthens public virtue.

Caution: Supporting Truth Without Coercion

While we should hope for a return to public religion, Christians must remember that authentic faith cannot be imposed (2 Corinthians 4:2)2But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.. Government should create conditions favorable to righteousness, but not attempt to compel belief. This balance—supporting religion while protecting conscience—was wisely preserved in many early American states. It’s a biblical balance worth recovering.

Conclusion: A Time for Restoration

In their closing words, Cline, Hammer, and Hazony argue that Everson has become “the principal obstacle to the restoration of a genuinely conservative public life.” From a biblical worldview, they’re right. Removing Everson would not guarantee national renewal, but it would remove a legal barrier that suppresses the public expression of biblical faith.

In the end, Scripture calls both individuals and nations to acknowledge the Lord. As Psalm 33:12 declares, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.”

We now live in a society where public policy denies basic realities:

  • That God created humans male and female (Genesis 1:27).3So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
  • That marriage is designed to unite one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24).4Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
  • That children are a gift to be welcomed, not commodities to be engineered (Psalm 127:3).5Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.
  • That human life, from conception to natural death, bears the image of God (Genesis 1:26).6Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

When a society suppresses these truths, it suppresses the very foundation of human dignity and moral order. Christians should not respond with apathy or with abstract appeals to “religious freedom” alone. We should desire what these scholars recommend: a restoration of public religion—not to coerce belief, but to witness to truth.

It is time for our laws, schools, and public institutions to once again affirm what creation itself teaches. This does not mean a return to coercive state churches. It means restoring the freedom of communities to encourage what is true, good, and life-giving—and removing federal barriers that prevent states from doing so.

+++

Posted on

Return to Reality in the UK

This is such a huge, huge win for sanity.

“The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom unanimously ruled Wednesday that a woman is someone born biologically female, a move that now excludes transgender women from the legal definition of a woman.

Trans women can be excluded from some single-sex spaces and groups under the U.K. Equality Act, the five judges of the top court ruled. These spaces and groups include changing rooms, homeless shelters, swimming areas and medical or counseling services provided only to women.”

“The ruling means that even a transgender person with a certificate that recognizes them as female should not be considered a woman for equality purposes.”

Fox News

I can’t believe we’ve come to this point in the Western world, that a ruling like this is required.  But it is welcomed nonetheless.  Stop the insanity!  And while we are at it, stop the mutilation and sterilization of our confused youth.

+++

Stay Human

Posted on

Birthright Citizenship: Time for a Good-Faith Review

Yesterday, a good friend of mine—who is not a fan of the current administration—sent me links to two articles on the hot-button issue of birthright citizenship (see links below).

One was by Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, and the other by former NY Times columnist, Anand Giridharadas. Both passionately advocate for an “inclusive” birthright citizenship policy. However, Robinson accuses Trump—and by extension, anyone else questioning this policy—of racism.

President Donald Trump’s executive order purporting to abolish birthright citizenship is unambiguously and profoundly racist. We can conclude only that this is the whole point. The order plainly violates the Constitution and seeks to overturn crystal-clear Supreme Court precedent.

Eugene Robinson

I’ve followed Eugene Robinson’s work at The Washington Post over the years and am well acquainted with his point of view. I’ve always enjoyed reading his perspective, even when I disagree—which I often do. I believe we should all strive to consider perspectives from commentators and media voices that differ from our own. Over the years, I’ve made this a personal habit.

A central theme in Robinson’s writing is race, often framed as a critique of Republican policy initiatives. This is especially true when discussing Donald Trump, a politician who, to be fair, provides ample material for criticism. But in the debate over birthright citizenship, Robinson and others who take a similar approach reduce a complex legal and policy issue to a simplistic “crystal-clear” narrative centered on race. And that’s wrong.

Our allies ‘across the pond’ in the United Kingdom disagree with Robinson on this issue. Would he call their policy racist?

The British Nationality Act (1981)

The British Nationality Act 1981 fundamentally reshaped the UK’s approach to birthright citizenship by ending the principle of unconditional jus soli–the principle that anyone born on their soil automatically becomes a citizen. Prior to 1983, anyone born on British soil automatically acquired citizenship, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. However, this changed with the 1981 Act, which took effect on January 1, 1983, and established new eligibility requirements for citizenship by birth. Under the revised law, a child born in the UK is only automatically granted British citizenship if at least one parent is either a British citizen or legally settled in the UK with indefinite leave to remain or permanent residency. Importantly, the law was not retroactive, meaning that those born in the UK before 1983 retained their citizenship, but children born afterward became subject to the new rules. Additionally, the 1981 Act explicitly excluded children of diplomats from birthright citizenship, aligning with international norms by recognizing that such individuals are not subject to British jurisdiction. These legal changes reflect the UK’s deliberate move away from automatic citizenship by birth, reinforcing the principle that nationality should be tied to legal status and long-term commitment to the country rather than merely birthplace.

Most of our allies in the developed world do not recognize unrestricted birthright citizenship. Would Robinson argue that their policies stem from racial animus? The fact is, the United States is an outlier in this regard, and there is ample reason for a good-faith discussion about whether this policy continues to serve the national interest.

Trump, whatever one may think of him, is trying to invite a reasonable legal challenge to a policy that has gradually evolved beyond its original intent (see argument below).  To frame such a challenge as inherently racist, as Robinson does, is both untruthful and harmful to public discourse. If we’re ever going to have real discussions about immigration, national identity, or any other important issue, we need to drop the automatic cries of racism and focus on the actual arguments.

I believe Mr. Robinson overlooks crucial aspects of the history and legal rulings surrounding birthright citizenship in the United States. With that in mind, here is my more detailed perspective on the issue that moves beyond reflexive accusations.

The Historical and Legal Foundations of US Birthright Citizenship

Lawmakers drafted the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 to secure citizenship rights for freed slaves, ensuring they were recognized as full members of American society. However, its phrasing—”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens”—has since been debated in contexts beyond its original intent.

The drafters of the amendment did not intend to extend citizenship to children of foreign nationals without full legal allegiance to the United States. The 1866 Civil Rights Act, which laid the groundwork for the Fourteenth Amendment, explicitly granted citizenship to “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power.” This wording suggests that Congress sought to exclude from automatic citizenship those whose parents owed allegiance to another country.

Misinterpretation of Wong Kim Ark

Proponents of universal birthright citizenship (the more inclusive kind) often cite United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) as definitive proof that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil. However, this is a misreading of the case. Wong Kim Ark concerned the U.S.-born child of legal permanent residents, not of undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors. The ruling did not directly address the modern issue of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens.

Further, early Supreme Court decisions like Elk v. Wilkins (1884) held that being born within U.S. territory was not sufficient for citizenship; one had to be fully subject to the country’s jurisdiction, meaning complete political allegiance.

Practical and Policy Implications of Birthright Citizenship

Unlike the United States, most developed nations have restricted or eliminated automatic birthright citizenship. I’ve already mentioned the UK. Other countries like France and Germany once granted citizenship based on jus soli—the principle that anyone born on their soil automatically becomes a citizen—but later abandoned it due to concerns over abuse and unintended consequences. The U.S. remains one of the few advanced economies where individuals can acquire citizenship simply by being born on its soil, regardless of their parents’ legal status.

This policy creates incentives for illegal immigration, as individuals recognize that having a child in the U.S. can provide an anchor for legal status and benefits. The term “birth tourism” describes cases where foreign nationals travel to the U.S. specifically to give birth, securing citizenship for their children despite having no lasting ties to the country.

The Moral and Cultural Counterarguments

Many contend that birthright citizenship defines American identity. Anand Giridharadas, in his article “The Idea of Birthright Citizenship,” presents an emotional and cultural argument: that America is a nation of becoming, defined not by blood or lineage but by inclusion. He contrasts this with European countries that define citizenship by ancestry, arguing that America’s model is superior because it embraces newcomers as equals from birth.

While compelling, this vision overlooks the crucial role of legal processes in maintaining a functioning nation-state. Immigration is a cornerstone of American success, but it should be orderly and lawful, ensuring that new citizens share the values and responsibilities of the country they join. A system that effectively rewards illegal entry undermines this principle.

The Path Forward: A Balanced Approach

Rather than maintaining universal birthright citizenship, the U.S. should adopt a policy that ties birthright citizenship to legal status. A possible approach:

  • Citizenship should be granted at birth only if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
  • Children of non-citizens could be eligible for citizenship through a streamlined naturalization process, rather than automatically.
  • Clear guidelines should be established to prevent birth tourism and other abuses while maintaining protections for those who come to the U.S. legally and contribute positively.

Supreme Court Direction

For decades, birthright citizenship has expanded far beyond its original intent, not through congressional action or explicit judicial precedent, but through administrative policy creep. This drift occurred “silently through the back door” because executive agencies and immigration authorities passively adopted an overly broad interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than enforcing it as originally understood. Courts, too, have failed to clarify the issue, allowing bureaucratic inertia to dictate a policy that was never explicitly sanctioned.

It is not the role of unelected officials to redefine constitutional meaning through gradual reinterpretation, yet that is precisely what has happened. The Supreme Court must finally take up this case and settle the matter—preferably by reaffirming the original intent of the amendment, as was written and understood by its framers.

This, I believe, is Trump’s intent with this controversial executive order (he’s had a few!).

Conclusion – Returning to the Personal

This debate is about more than legal technicalities—it’s about how America defines itself. Is citizenship a mere accident of birth, or is it a commitment to a shared national identity and legal order?

I respect those who argue passionately for universal birthright citizenship, and I understand their concerns about exclusion and fairness. However, America’s history and legal traditions argue that citizenship should be reserved for those who are truly part of the nation, not extended indiscriminately.

At the very least, this is a debate worth having, rather than allowing bureaucratic reinterpretation aided by a few lower court decisions to override the original meaning of the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment must be understood as it was intended by its framers, not reshaped to fit modern political preferences. In that light, we should critically examine whether birthright citizenship, as currently applied, aligns with the amendment’s original purpose and serves the best interests of the country and its future generations.

Debating birthright citizenship is a matter of law and principle, not racism.

Sources:

Richard Epstein – The Case Against Birthright Citizenship (Legal scholar, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law)

Amy Swearer & Hans von Spakovsky – Birthright Citizenship Clause Too Many Forget, But Trump is Right to Question (Legal and policy experts at The Heritage Foundation)

Eugene Robinson – The Real Reason Trump Wants To End Birthright Citizenship (Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist at The Washington Post)

Anand Giridharadas – The Idea of Birthright Citizenship (Author and political analyst, former New York Times columnist)

+++