What's so great about 'separation of church and state'?
Freedom of expression, universal suffrage, and separation of church and state. Our country prides itself on these foundational principles.
In fact, for many Americans, the document enshrining these principles has become an object of almost religious veneration. The Constitution is no mere legal agreement, but a sacred covenant between people and power, a reminder that no king or cleric can rule over us without our consent.
The church historically has always possessed and asserted its temporal powers. It rebuked kings. It crowned emperors. It waged wars, both literal and spiritual.
But what if I told you that some of these foundational principles themselves are the root cause of the current tyranny you’re facing?
Fathers know best?
Let’s take the separation of church and state, for example. The founding fathers, influenced by the Enlightenment, were pioneers of the democratic republic system, meaning they harbored a strong distaste for the theocratic monarchies that populated the European nations for much of the medieval and early modern eras. They saw the union of throne and altar as a source of corruption and oppression.
Many, though not all, leaned toward a rationalist or deist conception of God, meaning they conceived of God as one who designed the universe but refrained from interfering in human affairs. They admired natural law, not revealed law. They were wary of ecclesial authority, especially when it mingled with politics.
So they did something radical: They stripped the church of temporal power. Their primary aim, we’re sometimes told, was the promotion of religious freedom. But that’s simply not the case. The primary objective was to remove the church’s power in government affairs.
RELATED: Yes, Ken Burns, the founding fathers believed in God — and His 'divine Providence'
Interim Archives/Boston Globe/Getty Images
Domesticating God
For this reason, they saw fit to design a country that domesticated God, keeping Him confined to the church building. The rest of society and the government, in turn, were to be packaged within a professional secularist framework. “God” was not to meddle with the affairs of men. Hence, the separation of church and state.
Except, that’s not what really happened. A separation never really occurred. It was more of a replacement.
Religious vacuum
Sure, the church lost its temporal powers. But something else filled the religious vacuum. Something else always fills the religious vacuum. Remove one orthodoxy, and another takes its place. And that alternative orthodoxy was secular liberalism.
Instead of priests, we have an endless array of “highly qualified” experts and bureaucrats telling us what the truth is (and inversely what the heresies are). Instead of a bishop crowning a king, we have TV stations announcing the results of our newly elected leaders. Instead of trusting God, we trust “science.”
And then we wonder why we’ve gone so astray. We ask ourselves why we’ve lost all sense of tradition and God. Why does it feel like morality is made up on the spot? Why do our traditionally Christian institutions seem powerless to resist the tides of culture?
It’s because, from the beginning, we accepted the premise that God should not interfere with the affairs of men.
Head and body
I’m aware I speak harshly. But I’m also speaking truly. I grew up believing in the concept of separation of church and state. But the older I get, and the more I peel back the layers of history, the more I realize it was the wrong move. The founding fathers were simply wrong.
Ask yourself what a church is. Is it just a house of worship? No, it’s more than that, right? It’s the body of Christ, after all. So if Christ is head of the church, how is His body serving Him? What action is the body taking? What powers does the body possess? Jesus Christ isn’t just a brain floating in a vat. As head of the church, He has a fully operational and functional body that bends the world to His whim.
The church historically has always possessed and asserted its temporal powers. It rebuked kings. It crowned emperors. It waged wars, both literal and spiritual. It wrestled with the powers of the world, and often won. It has always had real power. It’s only today in our modern society that we believe it belongs nestled away in a hall full of pews.
Secular vision
And yet we are so immersed in secularism that we can barely recognize it as one ideology among others. It is simply "reality," a reality that distorts our understanding of the past. As Andrew Willard Jones writes in "Before Church and State: A Study of Social Order in the Sacramental Kingdom of St. Louis IX,"
Our own vision is secular. Even when we acknowledge the importance of religion, we do so from within the assumption of the secular: that reality itself is ultimately free of the religious. Religions come and go; they are relative. The secular is permanent; it is absolute and universal. To us, the secular is the field on which the game of history—including religious history—is played. Within this secular vision, religion as a sociological category is often considered inessential to the concept of society itself. In this view, religious societies are, in a sense, accidentally religious: their religion can fade away. Secular societies, for their part, do not seem to have a religion proper to themselves at all, even if some individuals within them are religious.
Imagine you were in the middle of a nasty divorce. Ask yourself, could the church overrule the court? In Revelation 2:14, Jesus reprimands the church of Pergamum for tolerating sexual immorality. What is no-fault divorce except for legalized adultery? Yet today, our churches passively accept it and are unable to demand any kind of legal standing in court. Do we think we’re any different than the church of Pergamum?
Likewise, the state has redefined marriage to include same-sex unions. Where is the separation there? Where was it when the state invaded the church’s sacramental territory?
The truth is that the separation of church and state has never been real. It is an illusion. The state always imposes and enforces a theology, whether it’s Christian or not. Which means that the state is the church. And the church is the state. I would go so far as to say that the church cannot be even classified as the church unless it is the state.
If we want a re-emergence of Christendom, it means the church needs to once again wield state power. There’s no getting around it.
Yes, Ken Burns, the Founding Fathers believed in God — and His 'divine Providence'
Ken Burns has built his career as America's memory keeper. For decades, he's positioned himself as the guardian against historical revisionism, the man who rescues truth from the dustbin of academic fashion. His camera doesn't just record past events — it sanctifies them.
For nearly five decades, Burns has reminded Americans that memory matters and that history shapes how a nation sees itself.
Jefferson's 'Nature’s God' wasn’t a placeholder. It was a real presence. He sliced up the Gospels but still bowed to the idea of eternal moral law.
Which makes his recent performance on Joe Rogan's podcast all the more stunning in its brazen historical malpractice.
At the 1-hour, 17-minute mark, Burns delivered his verdict on the Founding Fathers with the confidence of a man who's never been wrong about anything.
They were deists, he declared. Believers in a distant, disinterested God, a cosmic clockmaker who wound up the universe and wandered off to tend other galaxies. Cold, clinical, and entirely absent from human affairs.
It's a tidy narrative. One small problem: It's so very wrong.
The irony cuts so deep it draws blood. The man who made his reputation fighting historical revisionism has become its most prominent practitioner. Burns, the supposed guardian of American memory, has developed a curious case of selective amnesia, and Americans are supposed to pretend not to notice.
The deist delusion
Now, some might ask: Who cares? What difference does it make whether Washington believed in an active God or a divine absentee landlord? The answer is everything, and the fact that it's Burns making this claim makes it infinitely worse.
This isn't some graduate student getting his dissertation wrong. This is America's most trusted historical documentarian, the man whose work shapes how millions understand their past. When Burns speaks, the nation listens.
When he gets it wrong, the mistake seeps like an oil spill across the national story, quietly coating textbooks, classrooms, and documentaries for decades.
Burns is often treated as an apolitical narrator of history, but there’s a soft ideological current running through much of his work: reverence for progressive causes, selective moral framing, and a tendency to recast American complexity through a modern liberal lens.
Burns isn't stupid. One assumes he knows exactly what he's saying. If he doesn't — if his remarks on Rogan's podcast represent genuine ignorance rather than deliberate distortion — then we have serious questions about the depth of his actual knowledge. How does someone spend decades documenting American history while missing something this fundamental?
The truth is that Americans have been lied to about the Founders' faith for so long that Burns' deist mythology sounds plausible. The secular academy has been rewriting these men for decades, stripping away their religious convictions, sanding down their theological edges, making them safe for modern consumption. Burns isn't breaking new ground. He's perpetuating a familiar falsehood.
Taking a knee
Let's start with George Washington, the supposed deist in chief. Burns would have us believe the general bowed not to God, but to a kind of cosmic CEO who delegated all earthly duties to middle management. But at least one contemporary account attests that Washington knelt in the snow at Valley Forge — not once, but repeatedly.
He called for the national day of "prayer and thanksgiving" that eventually became the November federal holiday we know today. He invoked divine Providence so frequently you’d think he was writing sermons, not military orders.
His Farewell Address reads more like a theological tract than a retirement speech, warning that “religion and morality are indispensable supports” of political prosperity. Does that sound like a man who thought God had checked out?
John Adams, another Founder often branded a deist, wrote bluntly that “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”
Adams saw the American Revolution as the outgrowth of divine intervention. As he wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1813, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were ... the general principles of Christianity.”
And what of Jefferson? By far the most heterodox, even he never denied divine order. His “Nature’s God” wasn’t a placeholder. It was a real presence. He sliced up the Gospels but still bowed to the idea of eternal moral law. Whatever his quarrels with organized religion, he did not believe in a silent universe.
Some of these men were, philosophically at least, frustrated Catholics. They couldn’t fully accept Protestantism, but they had no access to the Church’s intellectual infrastructure. The natural law reasoning that permeates their political thought — Jefferson’s “self-evident truths,” Madison’s checks and balances born of man’s fallen nature — comes straight from Aquinas, filtered through Locke, Montesquieu, and centuries of Christian jurisprudence.
The Founders weren’t Enlightenment nihilists. They weren’t secular technocrats. And they certainly weren’t deists. They were men steeped in a moral framework older than the American experiment itself.
Burns, for all his sepia-toned genius, has a blind spot you could drive a colonial wagon through. His documentaries glow with progressive reverence — plenty of civil rights and moral reckoning, but the Almighty gets the silent treatment. God may have guided the Founders, but in Ken’s cut, he barely makes the final edit.
The sacred and the sanitized
I mentioned irony at the start, but it deserves more than a passing nod. That's because the septuagenarian's own cinematic legacy contradicts the very theology he now peddles on podcasts.
His brilliant nine-part series "The Civil War" captured the moral agony of a nation tearing itself apart, and it did so in unmistakably religious terms. Here Burns treats Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address — haunted, prophetic, bathed in biblical cadence — with reverence, not revisionism.
The series understood something essential: Americans have always been a biblical people. They see their history not just in terms of dates and treaties, but in terms of sin, sacrifice, and redemption. Sacred story, divine purpose — this was the language of American reckoning.
The Founders weren’t saints, and they weren’t simple. They read Greek, spoke Latin, studied Scripture, and debated philosophy with a seriousness that puts modern politicians to shame. But they weren’t spiritual agnostics, either.
They were men of imperfect but active faith, shaped by the Bible, steeped in Christian moral tradition, and convinced that human rights came not from government but from God.
They didn’t build a republic of personal preference. They built one grounded in enduring truths that predated the Constitution, anchored to the idea that law and liberty meant nothing without a higher law above them.
Burns may deal in memory, but his treatment of religion reveals something else entirely. He doesn’t misremember. He reorders. He filters faith through a modern lens until it becomes unrecognizable.
Memory isn’t just about what’s preserved — it’s about what’s permitted. And when the sacred gets cast aside, what’s left isn’t history. It’s propaganda with better lighting.
‘Separation of Powers’ Is The Judiciary’s Bogus Justification For Anti-Trump Lawfare
An Intellectual Renaissance Starts With Memorizing The Words That Made America
How the liberal media twists 'church and state' to hide what it truly fears
The legacy media wants you to believe a lie.
For months, the corporate media has claimed the Trump administration is blurring the lines between government and the Christian faith. Framing the actions as eroding the "separation of church and state" — a phrase, of course, that appears nowhere in the Constitution — the media wants you to believe that President Donald Trump is violating the First Amendment.
'It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.'
The latest example of media fearmongering is just two weeks old.
On May 21, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth held a (voluntary, brief) Christian prayer service at the Pentagon. Like clockwork, media outlets like the New York Times and CNN rushed to suggest the event was unconstitutional and, in the case of MSNBC, "so problematic."
But that couldn't be further from the truth.
The First Amendment contains two legal precedents related to religion and government: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Founding Fathers dictated that the federal government shall neither establish a national religion nor prohibit the free exercise of religion.
It's really that simple. And clearly, Hegseth violated neither.
"The media is not outraged because they are neutral observers who genuinely believe we rode roughshod over the Constitution — we did not. I assure you, Congress did not establish a national religion during those 26 minutes of a voluntary prayer service," Brooks Potteiger, a Tennessee pastor who spoke at the Pentagon service, told Blaze Media.
Perhaps, then, the media isn't actually worried about constitutional law. On the contrary: It uses fearmongering about "church and state" as a smokescreen to hide its true offense, Potteiger said.
"Their outrage stems from something deeper: The offense of the gospel itself," he told Blaze Media. "And they expect their indignation to stick because they assume the average American is ignorant of her own history."
It's true.
The corporate media must believe the average American is ignorant about the origins of our great country because it clearly thinks its fearmongering will resonate. But the truth is that many of the Founding Fathers were deeply religious, and their concerns about government and religion are not what the media and progressives claim today.
Read some of the Founding Fathers in their own words:
- George Washington: "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor."
- Samuel Adams: "May every citizen in the army and in the country have a proper sense of the Deity upon his mind, and an impression of that declaration recorded in the Bible, 'Him that honoreth me I will honor.'"
- John Witherspoon: "God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable, and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one may, in the issue, tend to the support and establishment of both."
"Make no mistake, this was not some vague or generic deity in the minds of the founders. It was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is what’s true of our history," Potteiger said.
Regarding the "separation of church and state," Potteiger told Blaze News why the media's trite accusation "betrays a misunderstanding of the historical context."
"The phrase was not drawn from the Constitution but from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association," he explained. "It referred to a prohibition against the federal government establishing a national church, in response to the Church of England, not a ban on public officials exercising or expressing religious faith."
That's why, Potteiger explained, he will make no apologies for attending or speaking at Hegseth's Pentagon service.
"I stand firmly behind the service," he told Blaze Media. "I’m proud of the secretary of defense for initiating it, and I’m comforted knowing that the service members were encouraged in the gospel and that heaven heard our prayers — for we came in the name of Jesus Christ."
For his part, Hegseth refuses to cave to the media outrage.
"Appealing to heaven, to God, is a long-standing tradition in our military," he said last week. "We appeal to God. I appeal to Jesus Christ for [His] protection. We’re going to speak that, and we’re going to be open and willing to talk about that at the Pentagon. If they want to criticize that, they’re on the wrong side of a very important issue."
Amen.
Progressive Democrat sits down with Glenn Beck despite disagreements: 'We're all Team America'
Glenn Beck hosted Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California on "The Glenn Beck Program" Thursday, where the two reached across the aisle to share some friendly disagreement, as well as some areas of common ground.
Khanna is one of few Democrats who refrains from acting as an ideologue and is willing to talk to those he will likely disagree with. Whether it's DOGE cuts or nuclear energy, Khanna has no problem breaking from his party's messaging.
"You've got a lot of followers, and look, at the end of the day, we're all Team America," Khanna told Beck. "We have differences of opinion, but this country has gone down a place of greater and greater division. And I do hope that the next generation, whether that's JD Vance, Rubio, myself, others, that we find some way of turning that around."
'They didn't talk a lot about my rights. They talked about my responsibilities.'
RELATED: Vance tells Glenn Beck Congress needs to 'get serious' about codifying DOGE cuts
Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Khanna's veneration for our country's founding makes him stand out within his party. Rather than condemning the roots and the history of our nation like some of his fellow Democrats, Khanna says he was raised to appreciate and value America.
"Our common, defining moment as a nation is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as interpreted through the Declaration of Independence," Khanna said. "The biggest blessing I had, as a son of immigrants born in Philadelphia in our bicentenary, is I got to go to a school that taught American history and gave me a reverence for this country."
"My parents said, 'Ro, you won the lottery,'" Khanna added. "They didn't talk a lot about my rights. They talked about my responsibilities."
Beck and Khanna had their fair share of respectful back-and-forth on subjects such as the 14th Amendment and immigration. One area of agreement Khanna pointed out was about the role of government with respect to asset forfeiture.
"Progressive Democrats like me and libertarians in the Freedom Caucus often align, saying that the government shouldn't come in and be able to take things from citizens without due process," Khanna said. "I believe that's the essence of who we are as a people, that yes, you have inalienable rights endowed by God, and that's who makes citizens."
RELATED: Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' narrowly passes the House, notching another win for Johnson
Photo by Paul Morigi/Getty Images
Khanna also departed from his Democratic colleagues on the border, admitting that it was a weak point of their party platform.
"Someone said it's like a knock-knock joke," Khanna said. "You say, 'Knock, knock. Who's there?' The American people just want to know who's there, who's at the border, just like you would when coming to someone's house and making sure that people are vetted before they come in. That seems to be a very reasonable a place. We can agree."
"But I also believe that people here, now that they're here, if they're paying taxes, and you and I may disagree with this, if they're paying taxes, if they're working hard, and ... if they've been here that there should be some path to at least legalization," Khanna added.
Khanna insists that, above party, all people should be skeptical of their politicians. At the same time, Khanna said that the state of our divided politics is not due to a lack of skepticism, but rather to a lack of trust.
"Skepticism is healthy," Khanna said. "I get concerned if there were town halls and people weren't asking hard questions, weren't criticizing their politicians. But I think there's a difference between skepticism and what's happened now, which is just the loss of trust, the sense that people aren't in it for the country, aren't in it for the public good."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
John Roberts Is The Judicial Supremacist The Founders Warned Us About
Calls Grow For Trump To Ditch 250th Anniversary Chair Who Called Mexico ‘My Country’
Mark Levin reveals what liberals DON’T want you to know about slavery and the Constitution
The left is the party that spawned critical race theory — the fundamentally flawed ideology that claims our constitutional framers were influenced by the racist norms of their time and therefore all the systems they created are tainted by those biases.
Mark Levin says it’s a shameful lie.
The truth is many of the framers despised slavery, but they had to make a hard deal with the slave states in order to form the United States. Without that union, there would have been no Civil War and no Abraham Lincoln to bring slavery to an end.
At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the delegates could not agree on the issue of slavery, so they left the issue to their children and grandchildren, Levin explains.
However, the framers knew that “a nation born out of the Declaration of Independence where all men were created equal” could not coexist with slavery.
Thomas Jefferson, who albeit owned slaves, tried to “put a provision in the Declaration of Independence about slavery,” but “it was withdrawn because they were in the middle of what started a revolutionary war for their own survival. ... They had to come together to fight the [British].”
Ultimately, the fight for independence from Britain and national unity took precedence over the issue of slavery until Abraham Lincoln was elected president and the Civil War thankfully put it to an end.
“[Abraham Lincoln] loved the Constitution of the United States, and he loved the Declaration, and he cited them repeatedly, especially the Declaration, as justification for fighting the [Civil] War to the end and abolishing slavery,” says Levin.
He wouldn’t have done that, though, if our founding documents were inherently pro-slavery and pro-white supremacy, as the left suggests they are.
To hear more of Levin’s analysis, including his take on the dangerous idea of nullification, a pre-Civil War movement that would have shattered the Republic, check out the clip above.
Want more from Mark Levin?
To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Get the Conservative Review delivered right to your inbox.
We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.
Today's top stories