what or who separated church from state

or was it actually state from church

Well, it’s legal: Adultery that is. At least in the State of New York. Governor Hochul on November 22, 2024, repealed a 1907 law prohibiting the act thereof, and made it possible that, in God’s eyes, one is no longer committing a sin. State overruling church: Thou shall not commit adultery. But … isn’t there supposed to be separation of church and state? I mean, a quick perusal of New York State’s Constitution and guess what: No mention of adultery? Not one word that I can find. Plus, it wasn’t until 11/6/1973, when New York’s Constitution was amended to include “family court; organization; jurisdiction.” And it appears the State does not define constitutionally the concept of marriage, which then brings up its ability to legislate such: The established form of government in a state, kingdom or country; a system of fundamental rules, principles and ordinances for the government (emphasis added) of a state or nation. In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power (emphasis added); and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated (emphasis added), by the constitution (Webster’s 1828). The government cannot legislate what it cannot control argument? But damn, I’m digressing again as the entire process is convoluted when it shouldn’t be.

Example: Not New York but take Richard and Mildred Loving. In June 1958, their lives were upended shortly after being married in Virginia. A mixed-race couple who were subjected to an unending assault by the State because of a State law not allowing mixed-race marriages, requiring the Supreme Court in 1967, finally ruling in their favor. Almost ten years later, to right an egregious wrong! Yet, when I go to the Bible: “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Mark 10:6-9). No mention of race, creed, color, or government ability to control, but of man and woman and long before any State Constitutions were written. Although: “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery (Matthew 5:32). Now, that was until Governor Hochul stepped in and viola, it’s legal. State government (Federal too) placing itself smack dab in the middle of a church precept; injecting itself where it has no power, yet continually demanding the separation thereof? Except, in Governor Hochul’s repealing of a law that made a biblical precept a State matter, what now becomes of all the divorce cases granted in the intervening years on the premise of adultery? Are those who were accused of and found guilty now able to sue for the return of alimony paid for an act committed legally? Which begs what came first: God’s precepts; New York’s 1907 adultery law; Hochul’s repeal legalizing such? Confused; I’m not.

But “separation of church and state,” and whence did the words emanate. Would it surprise anyone if they were written in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut from Thomas Jefferson: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ʺmake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,ʺ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State (emphasis added). Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties (Th Jefferson/Jan. 1. 1802).

Except, the wall Jefferson referred to was State being unable to touch or legislate Church, including an individual’s belief thereof and how they exercise such. And why? The Danbury’s had written congrats to TJ on his presidential win: Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty‐‐that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals‐‐that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions‐‐that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men‐‐should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

Thus: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; … and full stop! no additional words added, the clause alone being the entirety and extent of the government’s inability to touch or control religion. Its power further limited from interfering with the caveat: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States (Article VI/3^rd Clause).

So, with three branches of government, the supposed check and balance outside of a moral compass, with clear lines of distinction regarding power would be a check and balance with constitutional precepts. Except, who defines the morality of subject? And once party becomes the arbiter of right and wrong, who then stands for principles of truth: Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former (Federalist 78).

WE THE PEOPLE! But without knowledge in the Constitution, or a moral compass, what then drives directional purpose? Or what keeps the government from becoming out of control, even tyrannical? And while evolution continues to evolve, I wonder if our forebears would understand the multiple types of religions formed as time passes. And I get it: The religion of God is no longer real as government has become god. Only, history has proven the mistake of exempting God from government and one placing and believing themselves as such. Thus, as the nation turns further from a religion of Godly faith; buyer beware. Because once government assumes the role thereof, it will have the power to completely control every aspect of one’s life. Although, since law can be easily repealed, if one desires to gain power it does not retain, what’s the easiest manner to obtain such: amend the Constitution, or maybe just write a letter. And be wary, because a double-edged sword cuts both ways. Yes, one must be careful what they ask for. And thank God for Anti-Federalists and the Bill of Rights! Only, didn’t they want slavery to continue into perpetuity? Which tells us, no one has all the answers; except maybe Ricology. I’m joking, or?