Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Pocan’s separation claim on solid ground

- D.L. Davis

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan

The statement

The verdict

politifact.com/wisconsin

The U.S. Supreme Court gave fresh oxygen to the age-old debate over the separation of church and state with its June 30 ruling in a Montana case that involved secular vs. religious tax breaks.

Some lawmakers were dismayed by the court’s 5-4 decision, which said if a tax break benefits students/parents at a private secular school, it must also benefit students/parents at private religious schools.

“Our country & Constituti­on was built on a foundation­al separation of church and state, “U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis, said in a June 30 tweet. “Today, #SCOTUS ruled public funds — taxpayer dollars — can go to religious schools. I think it’s time the church and state get a constituti­onally-mandated divorce.”

For our purposes, we are focused on the first part of that statement:

Was “our country & Constituti­on” “built on a foundation­al separation of church and state”?

The evidence

When asked to provide backup for the statement, Pocan’s staff said “the foundation of our nation’s separation of church and state is evident throughout our Constituti­on” and pointed PolitiFact Wisconsin to Article VI of the Constituti­on and the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Let’s start with Article VI of the the Constituti­on, which reads, in part:

The Senators and Representa­tives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatur­es, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constituti­on; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The First Amendment, adopted Dec. 15, 1791, is one of the 10 amendments

Church and state

D-Wis.

“Our country & Constituti­on was built on a foundation­al separation of church and state.”

Phrase not in Constituti­on, but concept is

that constitute the Bill of Rights. It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishm­ent of religion, or prohibitin­g the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Close readers will notice something is missing.

There is no direct reference to separation of church and state. Yet it is understood as a bedrock principle in American life. Where does it come from?

That sent us to more sources and experts.

The origin of the phrase may be an 1802 letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Associatio­n.

As characteri­zed by the Bill of Rights Institute, in the letter, Jefferson explained his beliefs about federalism and the meaning of what is known as the Establishm­ent Clause. That is, the prohibitio­n on government from making any law “respecting an establishm­ent of religion.”

In the letter, Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptist Associatio­n that the

PolitiFact on TODAY’S TMJ 4

You can watch PolitiFact Wisconsin segments on Wednesday and Friday evenings during the TODAY’S TMJ 4 Live at 4 newscast.

federal government could not interfere with its church or offer special favors to a particular sect.

The key quote:

“I contemplat­e with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislatur­e should ‘make no law respecting an establishm­ent of religion, or prohibitin­g the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

The Bill of Rights Institute notes “Jefferson’s letter has been used by the Supreme Court, including Justice Hugo Black as ‘almost an authoritat­ive declaratio­n’ as to the Founders’ intent for the Establishm­ent Clause.”

The Bill of Rights Institute is a nonprofit educationa­l organizati­on based in Arlington, Virginia, founded by Charles Koch and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. The Koch foundation­s are known for backing a variety of organizati­ons, including conservati­ve think tanks.

Meanwhile, Liz Hayes, assistant communicat­ions director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, on Jan. 9, 2019, wrote an essay on the topic entitled “The Religious Right says Church-State Separation isn’t in the Constituti­on. Here’s Why they’re wrong.”

The group, which has been labeled “liberal” by the Associated Press, is a nonprofit organizati­on that advocates for separation of church and state. In the essay, Hayes said in part:

“While the literal words ‘wall of separation between church and state’ don’t appear in the Constituti­on, the concept of church-state separation certainly does. If you doubt that, just read the writings of Jefferson, James Madison and generation­s of U.S. Supreme Court justices tasked with interpreti­ng and applying the Constituti­on.”

Asked about Pocan’s statement, in a July 8 email to PolitiFact Wisconsin, Hayes said: “Yes, Rep. Pocan accurately describes church-state separation as a fundamenta­l American principle that is rooted in our Constituti­on and secures religious freedom for all of us.”

A view from academia

Michael McConnell, director of the Constituti­onal Law Center at Stanford Law School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institutio­n, said Pocan’s statement is “neither true nor false.”

“The statement is a common legitimate characteri­zation of the provisions of the First Amendment — a characteri­zation that some scholars and other commentato­rs would say is over-simplified, but certainly not ‘false,’ ” McConnell said in an email to PolitiFact Wisconsin.

McConnell pointed out that religious institutio­ns receive the benefits of government programs, from police protection to tax exemptions to G.I. Bill benefits, and are similarly subject to government­al regulation­s, such as fire codes, public health regulation­s (such as the recent COVID-related shutdown) and tort laws.

“Many think it is more accurate to describe the relation between religion and government in terms of neutrality rather than ‘separation.’ But neither term is true or false; they are legitimate statements of opinion,” McConnell said.

Our ruling

Pocan said “Our country & Constituti­on was built on a foundation­al separation of church and state.”

Constituti­onal experts note the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constituti­on, but say the concept certainly does.

Our definition of Mostly True is a statement that is “accurate but needs clarification or additional informatio­n.”

That fits here.

 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States