(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Think Again about Church-State Separation [1] ['View Profile', 'Greg Dworkin'] Date: 2026-04-17 Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the chairman of President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission, is not correcting a constitutional misunderstanding. He is creating one. At the commission’s final hearing, Patrick declared that “there is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution” and treated the phrase as a fraud. It is historically shallow, constitutionally illiterate, and politically dangerous. Patrick’s argument depends on a cheap trick: if the exact phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the First Amendment, then the principle itself must be fake. But constitutional law does not work that way. The Constitution does not explicitly use the phrases “checks and balances” or “separation of powers” either, yet both describe real principles drawn from the document. The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Those two clauses belong together. The other prevents government from sponsoring, privileging, or coercively advancing religion. That dual structure is the constitutional foundation of what Americans commonly call the separation of church and state. The phrase is shorthand, not fiction. The American commitment to church-state separation was not born from hostility to religion. It was born from familiarity with what happens when civil power attaches itself to religious authority. The founding generation knew the history of established churches, religious tests, compulsory support for ministers, penalties for dissenters, and state favoritism toward preferred sects. The problem was not religion. The problem was government using religion as an instrument of power. That is why James Madison opposed even modest forms of state support for religion. In his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, Madison argued that religion can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. Faith loses integrity when it depends on state sponsorship, and citizens lose liberty when conscience is placed under political supervision. Thomas Jefferson’s language about a wall of separation between church and state came later, but it captured the same principle already at work in American political thought. Patrick and others like him then suggest that separation was invented by modern courts to drive religion from public life. That is false. Courts have long argued about how strict church-state separation should be. But the underlying commitment has remained clear. Government may not establish religion, favor one faith over another, or use public authority to pressure religious conformity. Those are not late inventions of secular liberalism. They are central features of the American constitutional order. Patrick’s rhetoric also collapses two ideas that the First Amendment keeps in balance. He speaks as though any limit on government endorsement of religion is an attack on religion itself. But protecting free exercise and preventing establishment are not opposing goals. They are companion protections. A government that can officially sponsor religion will eventually decide which religion deserves favor, which symbols should dominate public institutions, and which believers count as the real people of the nation. That is bad for democracy. One of the great ironies of American history is that church-state separation has often protected religion rather than weakened it. By denying government the power to act as theological referee, the Constitution has allowed religious communities to flourish without being turned into departments of the state. Separation has protected faith from political capture and corruption. It has made room for pluralism in which citizens of different traditions can coexist without fear that public power will be used on behalf of one creed against another. That matters now more than ever. The United States is not a religious monoculture. It is a diverse republic that includes Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Latter-day Saints, Buddhists, the nonreligious, and many others. Once leaders begin sneering at church-state separation as a lie, they are not defending liberty. They are weakening one of the few principles that protects minorities and dissenters from the will of the majority. The question always becomes: if government is going to favor religion, whose religion will it favor? That is why Patrick’s remarks are so irresponsible. He is trying to delegitimize a constitutional safeguard by recasting it as an anti-religious conspiracy. That encourages citizens to see every constitutional limit on religious favoritism as persecution. It turns equality into grievance and restraint into oppression. It invites the state to behave as though public power should affirm religion so long as the dominant religious constituency approves. Americans should reject that argument. The separation of church and state is not a lie. It is a constitutional principle rooted in the First Amendment, confirmed by history, and necessary to liberty in a pluralistic democracy. It does not mean religion must disappear from public life. Religious citizens have every right to speak, organize, vote, advocate, and bring their convictions into the public square. What it means is that the state itself cannot become the sponsor, enforcer, or preferred ally of religion. Dan Patrick is wrong because he mistakes religious liberty for religious privilege. The First Amendment protects the first by forbidding the second. That is not a myth. It is one of the wisest achievements of the American constitutional tradition. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/4/17/800021403/community/think-again-about-church-state-separation/ Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/