Skip to main content

Separation of Education and State

Don’t you mean, “Separation of Church and State?”

No, although they are related more closely than one might think. Here’s a quotation from the First Amendment of the Constitution with respect to religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This amendment prohibited Congress from creating a national religion, such as “The Church of the United States.” It also prohibited Congress from passing laws restricting the free exercise of religion.

Was this done because the Founding Fathers didn’t feel that religion was important?

Actually, it was just the opposite. The Founding Fathers felt that our country could not survive without strong religious and moral principles. But they felt that such personal beliefs about one’s faith should be up to the individual, and not dictated by the government. Additionally, they wanted to avoid infighting caused by differences in people’s beliefs, which would only be exacerbated by having laws related to religion.

Religion was too important to the Founding Fathers to have government involved in it.

How does this view relate to education?

The Founding Fathers felt that religion was essential to education. After all, how could one get a good education without a religious basis? Since all things flow from our Creator, so should all aspects of our lives.

What did the Founding Fathers actually say about religion and its role in education?

Sit back for a moment and enjoy the following quotations, some of which may surprise you.

In 1787, the year the Constitution was approved by Congress, they also passed the Northwest Ordinance. In it they outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territory, enumerated some basic human rights and also said:

“Article 3: Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

George Washington said in his Farwell Address:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion or religious principle.”

In order to exclude the dissensions of individual denominations so as to make the teaching of religion a unifying cultural adhesive rather than a divisive apparatus, Thomas Jefferson wrote a bill for the “Establishing of Elementary Schools” in Virginia in which he wanted to emphasize that the only religious tenets that could be taught in public schools were those that were universally accepted by all faiths:

“No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination.”

Jefferson later proposed that the University of Virginia extend its facilities to the various denominations so that each student could worship and study in the church of his choice. He wrote:

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed, by eliminating religious instruction, their only firm basis – a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?”

Benjamin Franklin wrote to the President of Yale University:

“Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion.”

These basic beliefs were shared by almost all of the Founding Fathers, and they sometimes referred to them as the “religion of America.” Samuel Adams said that “the religion of America is the religion of all mankind.” Thus they could be taught in schools without be offensive.

John Adams called these beliefs the general principles on which the American civilization had been founded.

Jefferson called these basic beliefs the principles “in which God has united us all.” With respect to the University of Virginia, he suggested that the responsibility for teaching:

"The proofs of the being of God, the creator, preserver, and supreme ruler of the universe, the author of all the relation of morality, and of the laws and obligations these infer, will be within the province of the professor of ethics.”

Doesn’t this contradict the idea of “Separation of Church and State?”

Not at all. The clauses of the Constitution given above were meant only to prohibit the federal government from passing laws interfering with religion. And the federal government has no authority with respect to education. The Founders expected that the States would deal with education and that schools would teach the basic religious principles given above.

So why don’t we teach these principles in our public schools today?

That’s a long story and has mainly to do with a number of Supreme Court decisions that restricted what public schools could teach with respect to religion.

Furthermore, even though Franklin’s general religious principles would be accepted by most Americans today, they would not be accepted by all. So between the decisions of the Supreme Court and the beliefs of the current U.S. population, it doesn’t appear that such religious principles will be taught again in public schools.

And to make my position clear, even though I agree with Franklin’s religious principles, I don’t want to force them (or any other belief system) on those who don’t agree with them. So it is no longer proper to teach such in public schools.

So what’s the problem? After all, parents can teach their children about religion, and so can churches.

It’s true that parents and churches can teach their children religion. The problem is that most children spend a great deal of time in school. And if their school doesn’t incorporate religion, children are put into an artificial position of keeping education separate from religion. This, frankly, is ridiculous. We are here as children of God to grow toward God, to love one another, and to help make the world a better place. These are the basic premises of most Americans and yet not a word of this can be taught in our public schools. This leads to a complete disconnect between our true, spiritual selves, and what we are being taught in schools. Without God, what is even the purpose of education?

So what should we do about this?

Because public schools are no longer a place where spiritual principles can or should be taught, and because it is not possible to separate spirituality from education, there is only one realistic answer.

And that answer is to separate out two different functions of government: that of subsidizing education and that of running schools. When we say "public education" we usually mean both, but this does not have to be so. Indeed, it should not be so.

Let government subsidize education by giving parents vouchers to send their child to the school of their choice. Then, if a school taught spiritual principles, there would be no reason for anyone to complain, because parents could send their child to a school that teaches whatever belief system they wish. Thus, there would be true freedom in education.

Furthermore, it would help to stop the artificial disconnect between our spiritual natures, and our other natures. Our bodies, minds and souls are meant to work together in our effort to grow toward God, and this cannot be done when we must forcibly keep spirituality out of schools. This has even spilled over into science, where it is frowned upon to even consider that God or his helpers might have been involved with the world. We have gotten to the point where Einstein’s idea that studying science was his attempt to understand the mind of God would today be considered prosaic, if not unscientific.

Yes, it is time now to separate government from education so that all parents (not just those who are well-off) may once again have their children taught as they deem best. For it is the parents who are ultimately responsible for their children’s moral, spiritual, and intellectual growth.

For detailed information about how school choice would work, click here for my blog post on this.


Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at


John said…
Why aren't these beliefs of the founding fathers taught in our schools? We're always hearing about the "separation of church and state", which are not words in the Constitution, but what the writers of the Constitution actually thought are barely considered. It's very frustrating.
Anonymous said…
Isn't home schooling an option for those who want their children to have a education and religion in one lesson/ topic? Also, where are we going to get this money from the government for people to send their children to private schools? It seems that it would be easier, and a better life lesson to teach your child, "This is what you're learning in school, and this is how it relates to our religion. " I feel that people placing their child in a private school that has just one dominant religion doesn't prepare them for the real world, where they're going to learn how to deal with the fact that not everyone believes the way they do.
Tim Farage said…
Here's an answer to some of your questions:

1) As mentioned in the blog, the money for education would come from the state, as it does now. The difference is that instead of the state providing the educational content, it is the parents that choose a school for their child, so that it's the parents that choose the educational content.

2) As far as being prepared for the real world with respect to learning about one religion, even though a parent may choose a school that teaches certain religious values, this doesn't mean that the school doesn't teach about the beliefs of other religions. I think that any good school should do that.

Nevertheless, since parents are responsible for their children, the decision about schooling should be left to the parents. This is already true for parents who are well-off. I'm just trying to make it true for all parents.
Anonymous said…
Good fill someone in on and this mail helped me alot in my college assignement. Say thank you you as your information.

Popular posts from this blog

Is it possible to program benevolence into an AI?

Benevolence is really an emotion, just as are anger, enjoyment, and other emotions. 
We have no idea as to how to program a computer (or AI which is a computer program possibly controlling some hardware) to have feelings. We have no idea as to how to program a computer to be self-aware or to care about anything.
There is a debate about this. Some computer scientists think that we’ll eventually be able to program AI’s to have feelings and be self-aware and some computer scientists don’t think so.
And if they do become self-aware, would that be bad? More than a few scientists think so.
Stephen Hawking, for example, has stated: “I think the development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.”
Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, is equally concerned: "I am in the camp that is concerned about super intelligence. First, the machines will do a lot of jobs for us and not be super intelligent. That should be positive if we manage it well. A few deca…

Save us from Leftists

By definition, Leftists want the government to control much of their money and lives. Governments are run by politicians, which have a favorability rating around 15–20%. Who wants them to control the economy or our lives?

If you do, look around at the numerous countries that have tried this. They invariably get corrupt and their people become poor.

I’m not against programs that give money to parents to educate their children as they see fit. I’m also not against programs that give money to each of us to provide for medical expenses. But this money should go to all equally so that we have ‘equal rights before the law’.

If structured properly, these programs don’t allow Congress to control our lives because parents would be able to choose the school for their children.

And adults could choose their doctors and hospitals for them and their children.

Leftists such as United States Senator Elizabeth Warren, “Unveiled a proposal (in February 2019) outlining the Universal Child Care and Earl…

Will mankind survive overpopulation, resource shortage and climate change?

I’m going to reduce the anxiety in your life. Here’s how: Overpopulation is not a problemWe’re not running out of resources“Climate Change” may be disruptive, and it may even be better for humanity Let’s take these one at a time. Overpopulation In 2017 world population is about 7.5 billion. Here is a UN graph of the projected population until 2100:

So it seems Earth’s population will top out this century between 9 to 10 billion people. Modern countries can easily feed, provide clothing and housing, etc., to its citizens. Developing countries have a problem because their governments are corrupt and don’t allow its citizens freedom, especially free markets. As countries modernize they get richer. Notice the growth of China, for instance, because its government has been allowing free enterprise. Natural Resources Reports of running out of natural resources have appeared for decades and maybe a century ago. Instead we’re finding more and more natural resources. Fracking has allowe…