Historic Preservation: The 'Wall of Separation'

BreakPoint ^ | 8 July 03 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

The National Historic Preservation Act on its face does not exclude religious historical sites: As far as Congress is concerned, they too are eligible for federal funds to help with their upkeep. But the executive branch, to satisfy radical separationist interpretations of the First Amendment, has read the religious exclusion into the statute since 1966.

The Bush administration has now changed that. Historic sites that happen to be religious in nature may now apply for preservation funds on an equal basis with secular historical sites. Why did it take so long? Because radical separationism has had a stranglehold on American constitutional thinking for a long time.

Radical separationism starts with the basics of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause -- that there is to be no official government church in the United States -- but then takes it a long step further: Government must not help religion at all, even remotely.

Radical separationists see themselves as heirs of Thomas Jefferson. During his presidency, Jefferson wrote a letter to a Baptist group in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he described the First Amendment as having set up a "wall of separation" between church and state.

That is the origin of the "wall of separation" metaphor: not the Constitution, or any of its amendments; not the Declaration of Independence -- just a letter from a president to the Danbury Baptists. He wrote the letter to assure them that the federal government could not set up a state church and thereby disenfranchise those, like Baptists, who would be unwilling to join that state church. This had been the history of Baptists in England, and they were concerned. The president's letter put their minds at ease by assuring them that, as religious believers, they had a place in the public square that could not be taken away from them.

Regrettably, the Supreme Court took up the "wall" metaphor and misapplied it. Thus the phrase that Jefferson used to reassure religious people became the instrument of radical separationism -- government, that is, cannot help religion at all.

In a recent article in the WALL STREET JOURNAL, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh traced the effects of radical separationism on the Historic Preservation Act. The executive branch, he argued, may only have been trying to follow what the Supreme Court was saying -- and in the early 1970s, the Court was saying that public money for repairing private school buildings could not be used at religious schools: Supposedly, if the government helps paint a religious school, or helps fix its boiler, then it would constitute an "endorsement of religion" that would violate the "wall of separation."

However, the Court has since retreated to a more equality-based view: When the government is administering a generally available aid program, religious applicants for that aid must be treated the same as secular applicants. Discrimination against the religious applicants is not a "separation of church and state" in keeping with the First Amendment; it's anti-religious bias, a violation of the First Amendment.

So we can applaud the current administration's decision to make religious buildings eligible for historic preservation funds. It is an important step forward in restoring the intended meaning of the Constitution.

[Mr. Silverback]

Somewhere Barry Lynn is having a cow, and that's a very good thing.

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping! If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Support Free Republic]

"Please contribute to FreeRepublic and make these posts go away"
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered

[MHGinTN]

I wanna know where to get a 'FR' mug ... like the one sour face is holding.

[Republic_of_Secession.]

Considering that the Church consists of citizens : it would appear that when the Left adopts the position of a supposed "separation" Church & State, they are in fact endorsing a form of legal segregation.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

So we can applaud the current administration's decision to make religious buildings eligible for historic preservation funds. It is an important step forward in restoring the intended meaning of the Constitution.

Welllll.... if you really wanted to restore 'the intended meaning of the Constitution', there would be no federal historic preservation funds to fight over.

[vaudine]

If a poll were taken of recent graduates, HS or Univ. I don't believe even a tiny fraction would know that the "wall of separation" is not in the Constitution. The Barry Lynn's and Ralph Neas' of the world have followed the Saul Alinsky Commie radical playbook of repeating a lie so often and so loud that people from the SC down have accepted it as fact.

In a recent documentary on TBN this very thing was being discussed. When the SC made the School Prayer decision in 1963, they used not one single precedent. It was completely new law and put 3% of the pop. over the other 97% who wanted or approved the traditional prayer. It has gone downhill from there. In prior rulings in favor of various types of public religious ceremonies, as many as 87 precedents had been cited in favor of the rulings.

In this same program,it was brought out that George Washington's farewell address used to be taught in the schools. It had four items concerning religion and morality which he considered necessary for the survival of the republic. It was dropped from curriculum years ago, but is now being brought back with the four pro religion/morality items deleted.

We need a really intense reeducation program in this country.

vaudine

[Noachian]

You're absolutly right. There is no reference in the Constitution to a separation of church and state.

The SCOTUS went outside the Constitution, as well as outside their authority, to make that 1963 ruling, and that tactic alone should have been grounds for impeachment.

Now the SCOTUS has went outside the Constitution again to introduce a phantom right of privacy that lets all of the weirdos out of the woodwork. In time this "right" of privacy will be thought of as a Constitutional right handed down by the Founding Fathers.

And, let's not forget Justice Marshall's power grab by introducing "Judical Review". A concept that effectively gives the SCOTUS veto power over any law passed by Congress, and disrupts the balance of power between the three branches of government.

Time and time again, in a consistent pattern of creeping social engineering, the SCOTUS has issued judicial edicts having the force of law without any input from, or acountability to, The People.

This is legislation without representation, and it must be remedied by having the Judiciary directly elected by The People.

[goodseedhomeschool]

Danbury preacher placemarker

[vaudine]

Your're right about going outside the Constitution, Marshall and Judicial Review, and SCOTUS just generally putting themselves in a realm of power all their own.

They have really ripped it now, with going outside our laws to the laws of Europe and the Int. Com. They will now call these references "Precedent" and rely more and more on the mores of Europe than on the US.

Beats me why these people think Europe is superior. I much prefer a poker playing "cowboy" leader to an effete bridge-playing ostrich. It's really difficult to see what's happening with your head in the sand and your ugly rear in the air.

vaudine

[Noachian]

You have to expect this kind of elitist behavior from a small gaggle of civil servants with a God-like mentality. It took a revolution to break away from Europe and we now have unelected American Tories just waiting to get us back into the european fold.

I'm sure of one thing: the Founding Fathers never anticipated justices to be so destructive to the society that gave then the absolute power they now hold.

But, the Founders did anticipate future unforeseen problems, and put a mechanism into the Constitution to deal with them - we can amend it.

A Constitutional Amendment is hard work, takes years to pass, and shouldn't be taken lightly. One or two disturbing rulings by the SCOTUS could be overlooked, and we could all move on. But, there's been more than one or two disturbing ruling, there's been a lot of disturbing rulings, and there's more in the pipeline.

The reasoning behind a Constitutional Amendment is layed out in the first part of the Declaration of Independence: "... but when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security..."

Has the SCOTUS ever abused their authority?

Has the SCOTUS ever usurped power?

Has the SCOTUS ever shown a long train of abuses, and usurpations the end results of which will ineviatbly lead to future despotism?

If these questions can be answered in the affirmative then there are grounds for either a Constitutional Amendment or a rebellion. I prefer an amendment.

[MEGoody]

"Somewhere Barry Lynn is having a cow, and that's a very good thing."

Agreed!