Posted on 12/12/2004 11:50:43 PM PST by cfhBAMA
Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black first enshrined the phrase “separation of Church and State” into law in Everson vs. the Board of Education, 1947. Black, who had been an anti-Catholic KKK member and a Democratic senator, was worried that the Catholic Church might attempt a coup in America through Catholic school indoctrination.
In Everson vs. Boe, Justice Black decided that it was unconstitutional for New Jersey residents “to pay taxes to help support and maintain schools which are dedicated to, and which regularly teach, the Catholic Faith.” In the “opinion” section of the decision, Justice Black wrote, “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church.” This was partially correct--the First Amendment refers only to the federal government. Black went on, however, to claim that it meant that neither state nor federal government was allowed to have anything whatsoever to do with any religion. In this, he was wrong. Justice Black did not consider the historical framework of the Bill of Rights; he took a phrase out of context and twisted its meaning to suit his decision.
The majority of men and women who first settled this country were escaping religious and secular tyranny. Europe had been racked by centuries of wars with roots in both politics and religion. Since King Henry VIII founded the Church of England, the native country of most colonial settlers had been poisoned by religious and political infighting. The Anglican Church was England’s official, state-sanctioned religion; the king was head of the church as well as head of state. Those who didn’t attend the state church were taxed, and suffered under various restrictions in business and politics (when not persecuted and executed) as the influence of various religions and factions waxed and waned.
With this history firmly in mind, our founders were determined that the central government should not be allowed to trample on the rights of individuals to worship as they pleased. In fact, many states had official religions at the time, such as Virginia and Massachusetts. The former colonists saw central government as a necessary evil, and generally restricted its power to regulating commerce between the states and dealing with foreign powers. The Bill of Rights is a list of limitations on the powers of the central government over the states and individuals, not limitations on individual rights. It assumes that all people have rights independent of the existence and sanction of the state.
Why was it so important to articulate a Bill of Rights? Why was it considered necessary to state in the Declaration of Independence that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?” The answer is simple: to further limit the power of government. Rights granted by the state can be removed by the state, but rights that exist independently of the state cannot be taken away. More important, that was what the founding fathers truly believed. They weren’t being humorous, and they weren’t pandering to their constituencies. Their frequent references to God and a Creator in the seminal documents of our nation’s birth is evidence of their honest belief in them. They avoided any references to specific religions so that no one faith could claim any legal primacy. Most of the founders were probably Deists, a philosophical, free thought form of religion not bound by doctrine and dogma, but generally in line with Christian moral principles. The idea of a government that placed restrictions on the public worship of its citizens would have been equally abhorrent to them as a government that forced its citizens to worship a specific faith. Yet today’s liberals do wish to place such restrictions.
The First Amendment begins: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Liberals would like to drop the latter part of that injunction and interpret the first part as, “the government may show no respect towards any religion whatsoever.” That sort of twisting is rarely seen outside of pretzel shops. In fact, our forefathers had a deep respect for and tolerance of various religions. It’s no accident that they chose Philadelphia as the first capital of the United States. William Penn conceived the city as a place where all people of all faiths could live in peace, including Catholics, Protestants, Mennonites, and Huguenots. (Penn, a Quaker, even respected the personal and religious rights of the local Indians.) Anyone with a basic knowledge of history and the English language can clearly see that the First Amendment was meant to prevent Congress from making a law to establish a state religion for America, or interfering with any citizen’s right to worship--or not--as he pleased.
Liberals have been using this mythical “wall of separation” to attack mainstream religion--specifically in its various Christian incarnations--for over fifty years. In one school in California (where else?) it is now considered “unconstitutional” to teach students about the Declaration of Independence, George Washington’s journal, John Adams’ diary, Samuel Adams’ “The Rights of the Colonists,” and William Penn’s “The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania.” Why? Because they all mention God. The Boy Scouts of America were barred from having anything to do with the U.S. military, because their oath says, “On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country.” What specific religion is God, I wonder? How does the mere mention of a generic deity--which no one is forced to worship--establish a religion?
In recent years, liberals have claimed it is “unconstitutional” to mention God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Art with positive religious themes has been banned from a public library, while “art” that denigrated Christianity and befouls its symbols is celebrated. They’ve told us it is “unconstitutional” to celebrate Christmas in public by singing carols (including playing a purely instrumental version of “Santa Claus Is Coming To Town”), putting a Nativity set in a public square or in a public school (although menorahs are welcome), or even wishing others a “Merry Christmas” (while a hearty “Happy Kwanzaa” is appreciated). Liberals don’t seem to care that 96% of Americans celebrate Christmas and 87% agree that Nativity scenes should be allowed on public property--they’d still claim it violates the “separation of church and state.” In which of these instances, however, did Congress make a law establishing a national religion?
The standard liberal response to anyone who dares question the existence of the Great Wall of Separation is to ask whether public worship of extreme religions should be allowed, including those which include public displays of drunkenness, nudity, sex, loud late-night ceremonies, and possibly animal or even human sacrifice. The difference is that those celebrations, as fun as they might be, break civil and/or criminal laws. As such, that sort of thing is strictly limited to post-game riots by sports fans.
Kicking Christ out of Christmas seems like banning American flags from the Fourth of July or green beer from St. Patrick’s Day, doesn’t it? There’s no federal law saying that you MUST celebrate it, and there should be no federal law saying you CANNOT celebrate it. That is the intent of the First Amendment.
About the Writer: Joe Mariani is a computer consultant and freelance writer who lives in Pennsylvania. His website is available at: http://guardian.blogdrive.com.
Jeffersons' State act for religious freedom is interesting,
However The eviddence suggests the Virginia plan was not
the sole basis for our First Amendment.Several of the States
insisted upon a Bill of Rights.And I find it interesting I
have seen no evidence that the Mohammedan,or Hindoo,or Infidel ever took up Jefferson on plan for the University
of Viriginia. though Franklin,and Jefferson were widely accepted as Deist It was Franklin who proposed "We are assured ,Sir,in the Secred writings that:'Except the Lord
build the house they labor in vain that build it." I firmly
believe this,and I aslo believe that withouthis concurring aid we shall succeeed in this political building no better
than the Builders of Babel."Suggesting a personal belief not
only in the BiblicalTruths but there was a role for religion
in government.An understanding of the establishment clause
reflected in US S.Ct. Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Piretti 515 US (1995)
It concerned polygamy in the (then) Territory of Utah.
And the lesson is -- Never let the facts get in the way of your agenda.
AFAIK Congress isn't making any laws regarding religion and hasn't for many decades, if ever. How does a display of the 10 Commandments on state property equate to Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion? It is judges who have made and are making laws regarding religion, and their laws invariably support the religion of secular humanism.
It takes a very convoluted line of reasoning to interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" as "government at any level shall not allow the display or mention of a Christian book, quotation, or symbol in or on any property owned or controlled by government". Notice that interpretation only applies to the Christian religion, children are taught about Islam and eastern mystical religions in many schools today without judicial interference.
I'm an evangelical Christian, but I don't want government teaching religion or favoring any one religion in law, that isn't the proper role of government. But neither do I want government forbidding individuals to exercise their religion or make their religious beliefs known in public schools or on public property. Kids have been banned from school buses for carrying a bible in their backpack, and sent home from school because of a Christian symbol on their clothing. That kind of anti-Christian intolerance is stretching the 1st Amendment far, far beyond anything the author's ever imagined.
I'm confused. What part of the story is wrong? The whole editorial story? You quoted the case with Justice Black, but in response to what?
Moral Absolutes Ping.
Here's a link to an article on FR a while ago, with a lot quotes by founding fathers. In their own words, more revealing that the extrapolations people twist up to turn them all into religion loathers.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1426198/posts
Misquoting Our Founding Fathers
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinstlist.
Note: I recently read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography. He was not a church goer, and did consider himself more or less a Deist. One of the few. And he was a great admirer of religion, did believe in God, and encouraged religious belief in others by word and deed.
I "pondered" at length over the whole noun/verb thing concerning "an" establishment vs. "the" establishment..
I decided that in both cases, the terminoligy was interchangeable.. both noun and verb..
As to the which clause thing, I have no answer..
SCOTUS is rampant with idiocies explaining their decisions...
One of my pet peeves is the Freedom of Speech argument:
"No one has the right to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre"..
Ridiculous..
If there is, indeed, a fire in a theatre, crowded or otherwise, it is one's duty, obligation to yell "Fire" and notify the occupants...
According to SCOTUS, after saving those people from a fiery death, the alleged miscreant should be prosecuted for violating the law..
Likewise, religion..
I too, realize I am preaching to the choir, but..
SCOTUS should simply STFU, and advise all plaintiffs that congress, and therefore, the federal government has NO "authority" to create law concerning religion/religions/religious belief, and they will therefore decline to take any such case..
This would defacto, return such jurisdiction to the States, and the people, where it belongs..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.