In the early days of the founding of the U.S, the original genuine separation of church and state. 

After the birth of Protestantism, many Protestant sects emerged. They naturally took advantage of the separation of church and state, which already existed in the Catholic world. They opposed the Established Church, the state standing for any sect, and intervening in religion. After Protestantism had been born, Christianity was inevitably divided into several sects because of the separation of church and state. It was hard to imagine how the protestant sects could coexist equally if the state intervened in religion. Therefore, a more advanced concept of separation of church and state was born out, which required that the state can not interfere in any sects’ affairs and only present as a neutral. Therefore, the concept of religious freedom also appeared. It can be seen that religious freedom, like the separation of church and state, is a unique concept in a Christian society. There is no separation of church and state in other societies, so it is impossible to have religious freedom.

Moreover, I want to emphasize here why the separation of church and state at that time was more advanced than the traditional two-headed snake-like separation of church and state? Because it was one-way, it only required the state not to interfere in religious affairs and did not object to the religions interfering in state affairs. For now, we call this separation of church and state advanced.

This advanced separation of church and state differed from the traditional two-headed snake-like separation of church and state. The traditional society was a single Christian or single denomination society. For example, there was only one religious belief in Catholicism, while in Puritan society in Massachusetts, there was only one sect – Puritan Congregationalism. Therefore, it was clear that the church held the spiritual sword and used it to help the secular regime establish its authority. At that same time, the secular regime held the material sword from God to protect the church, helped the church execute church laws, punish heretics, and repelled the invasion of heresy. After twists and turns, the Constitutional Convention passed the First Amendment finally. The founding fathers of the United States finally wrote no establishment of the state religion and no obstruction of religious freedom into the Constitution of the United States. In the view of contemporary leftist thinkers, this marked the establishment of the complete separation of religion from politics and religious freedom. However, the United States’ founding fathers did not use the word separation of religion from politics or separation of church and state; its original text was simply” not establish a national religion and does not hinder religious freedom.”

Such a complex expression had deep reasons and background. In fact, what these founding fathers wanted during the constitution-making process was not the complete separation of religion and state as the left thinkers thought, but the advanced separation of church and state as discussed above; that is, politics could not interfere with religion, but religion could interfere in politics. During the American Revolution, the religious atmosphere was still very strong. Massachusetts was the base camp of Puritans, which was the locomotive of the revolution. Many of the founding fathers from Massachusetts were devout Puritans, such as Samuel Adams and John Adams. In such an atmosphere, most people still believed that The Christian Church should effectively supervise and restrict the state, judge and monitor the moral standards of government officials, limit the state’s power to the minimum, and give the maximum space to the church. John Adams even proposed a religious test for the president; he believed that a person who was not a devout Christian was unworthy of the presidency of the United States. Washington also believed that Christianity shaped the spirit and soul of the country, and the United States promoted Christianity and morality; the two sides worked together to push the harmonious development of American society. These notions lacked concepts of complete separation of church and state but similar to the traditional two-headed snake-like separation of church and state, church and state supported and promoted each other. Moreover, these notions were more advanced than the traditional two-headed separation of church and state; they inclined that the church could intervene in the affairs of the state, but the state could not interfere in religious affairs. ①

Initially adopted by the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution did not contain any religious content. In this environment, this Constitution encountered fierce opposition from some anti-Federalists. They hoped to ensure that the federal government would not interfere in religious freedom so that religion could operate more freely at the state level, assume greater responsibility, and supervise more government behaviors. That’s the reason the first amendment came into being. Thus, Madison, the radical Federalist and founder of the Constitution, had to explain why the original Constitution did not include religious freedom. He worried that too few words could not reflect the actual influence of religion and wanted to leave religious affairs to the people. ② In fact, Madison’s explanation did not fully express his difficulties. Due to the sensitivity of religious issues, the discussion of religions caused the constituent conference several times on the verge of collapse and dissolution. Franklin hoped that the constituent conference should pray for God’s blessing daily, just like the previous Continental Congress . the proposal was finally abandoned because no matter how to select the pastors, there would be some hint of establishment religion. ③ We can imagine how sensitive the issue of religion was at the constituent conference. In order to generate a constitution, the founder fathers reached a tacit agreement that religion was not discussed at the constituent conference and was left to the states to deal with. therefore, when the Constitution was published, it did not mention religious issues, which is the most fundamental matter of humans. Even the Constitution did not refer that all the people in America then were Christians who believed in the same Bible. It has been a pity for thousands of years and has also sparked numerous disputes today.

Except stressed that the fundamental issue of religion would be left to the states themselves, Madison also said with great piety that the United States Constitution was completed under God’s guidance. because the completion of such a constitution is a miracle itself, it is difficult to imagine that humans have such ability unless under the direction of God. ④ He also noted that the Constitution was actually a kind of aristocratic government that benefited the aristocracy rather than the ordinary people. These aristocrats were deemed as devout Christians and high moral people. From these arguments, we could see that even Madison, the most staunch Federalist, believed that the church could intervene in politics, and his idea was similar to the Puritans‘ rule of the saints. He believed that only devout Christians and nobles could enjoy the right to serve as civil officials. The Constitution of the United States was used to ensure that devout Christians and nobles could serve as social leaders, not the opposite to promote populism. ⑤ Therefore, the actual situation at that time was that most people wanted the federal government as little as possible to interfere in religious affairs and that religion could influence the government more. Therefore, it was difficult to write the word “separation of church and religion” into the Constitution. This is the historical basis and historical fact of the United States Constitution; rather than what contemporary jurists and left-wing thinkers suggest, religion and politics are entirely separated.

In the discussion of the first amendment, there were also disagreements on the use of words. In the end, founder fathers could only use this extremely awkward expression. It meant that the state could not interfere in religious affairs. At the same time, it did not prohibit religion from interfering in state affairs; that is to say, it allowed the church to interfere in politics. Moreover, the state’s non-interference in religious affairs didn’t result from the separation of church and state. A multi-denominational Protestant country could make a fair environment where the state could not interfere in religious matters, which was the only way to ensure all sects competed freely. The Roman Empire established Christianity as the national religion in a multi-religious environment more than a thousand years ago. With the glorious victory of Christianity in Europe, there was no need to establish a national religion. Christianity was naturally the national religion. The concept of the national religion never appeared in the Christian world until the Anglican was taken as the national religion in England. There were many Protestant sects in England at that time, The Presbyterian of Scotland, the individual Puritans, the Presbyterian Puritans, etc. Because there were many sects, it was necessary to confirm one of them as the established religion. Then the concept of the established religion reappeared. The British experience showed that the established religion monopolized most religious resources, such as religious taxes and church places, and attacked and persecuted other sects. The Anglicans seriously persecuted Puritans, Quakers, and Catholics who came to North America late, so they all hated the established religion.

By not establishing the national religion, we can ensure all sects’ fair and free competition and development. Therefore, the first amendment only said that there should be no established religion and obstruction of religious freedom. It did not use the words separation of church and state. This was also the real idea of the founding fathers. They just didn’t want an established religion, not the complete separation of state and church. What kind of separation of church and state did they want? It was similar to the traditional two-headed snake-like; the state and religion could support and promote each other. In the special environment of many Protestant factions, they even hoped for a more conducive separation of church and state; that is, the state could not interfere in religious affairs, while religion could interfere in state affairs. As discussed above, I think it is an advanced concept of separation of church and state.

From the later practice, the state can not interfere in religious affairs, but religion can interfere in state affairs is the ideal relationship between politics and religion in human society. At this time, the two swords of God, the material sword and spiritual sword, were the most potent in combination. Why say so? Let’s take a look at the social facts of the period from the founding of the United States to the Second World War. As the state can not interfere in religious affairs, the church court has lost its executive bodies and naturally does not survive. The church and secular courts merged, and the church law integrated into the secular law. Because there was no national religion, there would be no heresy and no state punishment for heresy. The church could only resolve disputes through unlimited division, and various sects had sprung up like bamboo shoots after a rain, so the spiritual sword was most vital and most prosperous. Thoughts were always closely related to religious beliefs. As the state no longer interfered in religious affairs, the state also lost the reason to interfere in thoughts. With the complete liberation of human thought, people enjoyed the pleasure of free-thinking and exploration, swimming in the ocean of thought. At the same time, each new sect believed that the spiritual sword of God had been handed over to them from the Catholic Church, and they were the only successors of the spiritual sword. The new sects preached everywhere, set up schools, and built hospitals and other charities. They competed fairly to attract more believers and expanded by providing more religious services. From the founding of the United States to World War II, the period was a time of prosperity; all flowers were in bloom, flourishing and thriving. Many people thought that the millennium was coming. In fact, this phenomenon was reasonable and understandable.

When The material sword deals with human’s secular affairs, the material sword is related to human desires and human pleasure, so it is more likely to cause greed and degeneration. The state couldn’t interfere with religion, which naturally made the material sword in the weakest state. While religion could intervene in state affairs, so the spiritual sword was in the most vigorous state. The whole state and society were in the best period. For the multi-sect competition, the spiritual sword could not engender monopoly , fall into tyranny and barbarian, and it could supervise the secular government fairly and justly. Therefore, the whole state and society were the most prosperous, making the United States like the rising sun. This was the real society after the founding of the United States before the Second World War, a society full of ideals while very practical and secular. The church of representing ideals flourished, while the material economy of representing the secular society also developed rapidly. Many people can’t understand why this young country has such strong power of development and soon surpasses all other countries, even leaving Britain, the sun never setting Empire, behind and becoming the most powerful country in the world. This is because the American society in this period is in the ideal state of human society. It is not only the traditional separation of politics and religion. We know that the traditional separation of politics and religion has ensured the stable and sustainable development of the whole European society for more than 1000 years. At this time, the United States was a more advanced society than the traditional society of separating politics and religion. In other words, the church could intervene in the affairs of the state, but the state could not interfere in religious freedom. Its material sword was the weakest, but its spiritual sword was the strongest. The whole society was in an atmosphere of political purity, moral nobility, simplicity, and diligence. Were there countries and empires in human history in such a best state? It was difficult for such a society not to develop into the most powerful country. However, no one thought that the crisis had already lurked in the prosperity, and the crisis was fatal.

The period draws from the founding of the united states to the Second World War is the time when the state can’t interfere with religion, but religion can interfere with state affairs. I can’t ensure it is absolutely right. However, Americans didn’t come up with the ideas for a long time after the foundation of the United States, which the government no longer held God’s material sword, no longer protected them, and even became their enemies. Americans also suggested that the United States was still a Christian country; Americans were Christians no matter what happened. They couldn’t imagine what life would be without Christianity. Although the state couldn’t interfere in religion, it was just for the fair competition of all religious sects. The meaning of the state remained to protect every American and every Christian. At that time, there were many non-Christians in the world, but they were far away from the United States. Some fought with Christian countries in Europe thousands of miles away, and some lived in seclusion in Asia and Africa tens of thousands of miles away. In the American society at that time, no matter how fanciful people were, they could not imagine that these non-Christians would come to live with them in distant North America. They could not imagine that these non-Christians would bring significant sea changes to their lives.