Opinion ID: 1702560
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Separation of Church and State is Jurisdictional

Text: It is axiomatic that, to properly entertain a case, a court must have jurisdiction. Even our civil form of government is predicated upon a jurisdictional separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of civil government, and each branch is provided with its own realm of jurisdiction recognized by law. Likewise, the jurisdiction of civil government [19] does not encompass every dispute. See Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925) (Supreme Court affirmed injunction against the Oregon Compulsory Education Act, stating that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control). Nevertheless, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, [20] explained the difficulty in drawing the jurisdictional line between church and state: `I must admit... that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation, between the rights of the religious and civil authority, with such distinctness, as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points!' Adrienne Koch, Madison's Advice to My Country  43 (Princeton University Press 1966). Confronting a jurisdictional issue in another case involving church and state, the United States Supreme Court noted: There is, perhaps, no word in legal terminology so frequently used as the word jurisdiction, so capable of use in a general and vague sense, and which is used so often by men learned in the law without due regard to precision in its application. Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 732. [21] But just because it is difficult to determine the boundary between church and state does not mean that we should ignore our responsibility to determine that boundary carefully in each particular case. On the contrary, it is with due regard for the difficulty and importance of the task that I examine the jurisdictions of religious and civil authority. Indeed, the great legal philosopher, John Locke, esteem[ed] it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion and settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other. John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), 35 Great Books of the Western World 2 (Mortimer J. Adler, ed., University of Chicago 1971). The churchas an institutiondoes not have authority over the affairs of civil government, and the stateas an institutiondoes not have authority over the affairs of church government because the state has concern for the things of this world while the church has concern for the soul of man in the next. Although civil government has the authority to enforce its laws with physical punishment and/or a monetary fine, a church cannot enforce criminal sanctions. Acknowledgment of this separation comes from a recognition that God is the source of all power. In his letter concerning toleration, John Locke explained the practical significance of this separation: Every man has commission to admonish, exhort, convince another of error, and, by reasoning, to draw him into truth; but to give laws, receive obedience, and compel with the sword, belongs to none but the magistrate [civil government]. And, upon this ground, I affirm that the magistrate's power extends not to the establishing of any articles of faith, or forms of worship, by the force of his laws. ... . . . . ... This only I say, that, whencesoever their authority be sprung, since it is ecclesiastical, it ought to be confined within the bounds of the Church, nor can it in any manner be extended to civil affairs, because the Church itself is a thing absolutely separate and distinct from the commonwealth. The boundaries on both sides are fixed and immovable. John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration, Great Books 3-7. On the one hand, this separation protects the state's sphere of authority from intrusion by the church because religious institutions cannot enact civil laws or execute or interpret civil laws to bind the citizenry. On the other hand, this separation protects the church's sphere of authority from encroachment by the civil government because the state cannot dictate one's form of worship or one's articles of faith. In a letter to Edward Everett dated March 19, 1823, Madison explained: The settled opinion here is that religion is essentially distinct from Civil Gov[ernment] and exempt from its cognizance; that a connexion between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast, which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law .... The Writings of James Madison, 126-27. As it is unlawful for church-officers to meddle with the sword of the Magistrate, so is it unlawful for the Magistrate to meddle with the work proper to churchofficers. Cambridge Platform of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Chap. XVII, § 5 (1648), recorded in the Plymouth Colony Records IX, 1663, Williston Walker, The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism 236 (Pilgrim Press 1960). The Founders saw coercion in religious matters as an anathema to natural liberty and were deeply distrustful of `an alliance of civil and ecclesiastical power that would threaten religious liberty ....' Eric W. Treene, Religion, the Public Square, and the Presidency, 24 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 573, 585 (Spring 2001) (footnote omitted). However it is only the institutions of church and state that must be separate and independent from one another. Individuals serving in civil government obviously can participate in the church, and people who participate in the church are not prohibited from participating in civil government. In fact, they may do so without leaving their religious beliefs at the door. Separation of church and state does not mean separation from our public life of the acknowledgment of God. Indeed the author of the phrase wall of separation between church and State, Thomas Jefferson, attended a church service on January 3, 1802, at the United States Capitol, two days after he coined that phrase. Church services were held in the Capitol building throughout the rest of his administration. James H. Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic 85-87 (Library of Congress 1998). As history has shown, separation of church and state grew from a need for public peace. Indeed, separation between political and ecclesiastical institutions... has been attributed as a cornerstone in Western modernity. It was then, perhaps, by no mistake that the framers of the Bill of Rights chose the first of their ten amendments to draw a line between the two. And they prayed when it was done. John D. White, Constitutional LawEstablishment ClauseThe Seventh Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of School-Led Prayer at University Commencement Ceremony, 39 S. Tex. L.Rev. 165, 166 (Dec. 1997) (footnote omitted). Another common misconception is the belief that the state is merely the lesspreferred power for determining ecclesiastical and religious matters, or that the power of state may be wielded in the religious sphere whenever it is thought to be necessary or expedient. On the contrary, the state is simply without jurisdiction in such matters: `It belongs not to the civil power to enter into or review the proceedings of a spiritual court.' Watson, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 730, quoting Harmon v. Dreher, 2 Speer's Equity 87 (S.C.1843) (emphasis added). [I]t is a very different thing where a subject-matter of dispute, strictly and purely ecclesiastical in its character, a matter over which the civil courts exercise no jurisdiction,a matter which concerns theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals required of them, becomes the subject of its action.... But it is easy to see that if the civil courts are to inquire into all these matters, the whole subject of the doctrinal theology, the usages and customs, the written laws, and fundamental organization of every religious denomination may, and must, be examined into with minuteness and care, for they would become, in almost every case, the criteria by which the validity of the ecclesiastical decree would be determined in the civil court. This principle would deprive these bodies of the right of construing their own church laws, would open the way to all the evils which we have depicted as attendant upon the doctrine of Lord Eldon,[ [22] ] and would, in effect, transfer to the civil courts where property rights were concerned the decision of all ecclesiastical questions.  Watson, 80 U.S.(13 Wall.) at 733-34 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court of Alabama has previously recognized its own lack of jurisdiction in religious disputes. Moral and theological problems are often of most difficult solution. The broadest philosophy is unconsciously warped by one's own creed. We say one's own, because by adopting it, we furnish the highest evidence that our conscience approves it. Yet, another, having equal advantages and equal intelligence, will condemn it as sincerely as we advocate it. Who is right, and who shall judge between us? This precise liberty of consciencethis right to differ with our fellow-menour constitution not only tolerates, but guarantees to every man. Hence it is, that questions of polemic theology can never obtain a standing in our courts of judicature. Hence it is, that the religious aspects of this case must be entirely ignored by us. Desribes v. Wilmer, 69 Ala. 25, 27 (1881). As the Watson Court and this Court have warned, government intrusion into ecclesiastical matters is not only unauthorized, but dangerous. According to James Madison, the duties we owe to God and the manner of discharging those duties (i.e., our religion) are outside the province of the state and can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance; James Madison and Religious Liberty, I Annual Report of the American Historical Association 166 (1902). See also the Va. Const. of 1776, § 16. In his Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison expounded on this idea: The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable; because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men. It is unalienable also; because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Writings at 184-85. Madison understood that the higher duty of rendering to God those things which be God's superseded and was outside the sphere of the state's authority, leading him to conclude that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance, Writings at 185. The United States Supreme Court succinctly stated in Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 730, quoting Harmon v. Dreher, supra: The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasion of civil authority. That concept of respectful separation has historically been a hallmark of our laws, both federal and state. Additionally, Ala. Const.1901, § 3, provides: That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles. This Court has interpreted that clause as follows: Religious quarrels or persecutions find no warrant, or even palliating excuse, in our constitutions and jurisprudence. Desribes, 69 Ala. at 26. The method with which a certain church or religious denomination chooses to resolve disputes, including the election of church officers, falls clearly within the parameters of church authority not subject to interference from the civil government. Centuries removed from the abuses that predicated our founding principles, some have forgotten these historical lessons. But the founders of our country were acutely aware that usurpations of authority, particularly in the areas of church and state, would ultimately lead to the deprivation of liberty.