The struggle for religious freedom is one that extends far beyond the life of this young country. It is a struggle, in fact, which, in many ways, necessitated its very birth. Right from the start, revolutionary action was merely a reaction to the religious and political tyranny being handed down at the hands of England. Were it not for this fact, the United States of America may never have even come into existence. As such, the relationship between the Church of England and the law of England must be the backdrop for our particular examination. To begin any later would be to miss the conflict's birth altogether.

In sixteenth-century England, the relationship between church and state was many things, but it was anything but consistent. As Ira Glasser points out in the text, Visions of Liberty, laws regulating religion were very common, "sometimes promoting one creed, sometimes suppressing it and promoting another" (70). This type of policy is understandably a very unsettling one. If religious activity is regulated and changed at the whim of government, then security is a very fleeting entity. It may be great for anyone supporting the Church of England but what about the Catholic or the Puritan, and what happens if a Catholic king takes the throne? Does the Church of England suddenly have to scramble for its religious rights with all the others? This is the situation from which many colonial settlers had fled, but their coming to the New World in no way ended the conflict. It merely changed it.

Many colonial governments followed in England's example by very much fusing the business of state and the business of church. The belief systems may have been different, but the tactics were very much the same. The person of Anne Hutchinson comes to mind as well the statements of faith required by many of the men holding public office. Beyond local government, the taxation requirements of the Church of England continued to anger colonists both in practice and principle. Why should they support a church which they had no affiliation with and in some cases, openly opposed. It is a question which went hand in hand with that of being taxed and tariffed without representation by a government which was an ocean away. Many of the religiously persecuted colonists, in fact, recognized this parrallel and attacked local religious restriction as being contradictory. How could England be criticized for taxing certain commodities (tea) if colonial government was going to turn around and tax certain religions (baptists).

In light of these situations, many people began to take the stand that the only way to protect religion was to utterly remove it from government jurisdiction. If government had the power to promote religion, then that same power could be used at times to suppress it. Government, then, should be thoroughly neutral. When New York's Church of England college came into existence in 1752, all these tensions came to a head. The prospect of public money being spent to promote the education of one particular religion met heavy resistance and for the first time, "the idea arose that public institutions should be secular" (71). The notion of separating church and state, a notion which had been gaining momentum for a long time, now came into fruition.

Once the whole conflict between public education and religous affiliation came to light, the separation of church and state seemed like a relatively simple solution but really it is no wonder that such a separation must be a fairly ambiguous one. Government in its very existence is implicitly linked to religious principle. Old Testament law, specifically the ten commandments, establish the morality of behavior which most governments seek to maintain. Government does not exist to establish the principles of ethics and public harmony but rather to protect them. Therefore, if religion is to be fully removed from the realm of government, then suddenly there is no standard by which to govern apart from popular opinion, and popular opinion can be a deadly thing, just ask the African-American of 19th century America. The task of U.S. government, then, is to maintian the principles upon which it was built, principles that are largely Christian, while somehow remaining religiously neutral. That is not an easy task.