Constituional Deception
The following was written by my good friend Joe. Check it out...I posted it here, 'cause that was the simplest way for me to get this up for him...
I'll pass all comments along to Joe...
I'm sure they would be much appreciated, considering the great effort he's put forth here...
thanks...
Constitutional Deception: The "Separation of Church and State"
Introduction
The phrase, "separation of church and state" is frequently identified as a concept defined in the United States Constitution. The fact is, nowhere in the Constitution is the phrase mentioned, discussed, or defined. Often the battle cry of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other groups, the expression is actually an interpretation of Amendment I of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
Amendment I contains two important guarantees of religious freedom: (1) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…" ("Establishment Clause") and (2) "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" ("Free Exercise Clause"). The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made these guarantees of religious liberty applicable to the states and their subdivisions (including school districts) as well as to Congress.
The "Establishment Clause" is the one today's courts almost always focus on. If simply interpreted as it is written, the clause merely forbids the federal government from "establishing" a national church.
Herein lies the importance of this issue. Even though the "separation of church and state" is not addressed in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution, it has become accepted, implemented, and enforced as Constitutional law. Consequently, this contrived and misconstrued phrase has been repeatedly misused by the courts under the guise of enforcing the law of the land.
The ACLU is a leading advocate for the "separation of church and state" groups who are also largely opposed to any reference of Christianity in the public arena. Other groups who echo this same sentiment include: Americans United for Separation of Church and State; The Interfaith Alliance; Godless Americans Political Action Committee; and the American Atheists (founded by Madelyn Murray O’Hair).
All of these groups (and others) have been successful in pressuring lawmakers to enforce the "separation of church and state" issue. However, it was a precedent-setting Supreme Court ruling that opened the doors for these groups to flourish and integrate their anti-Christian agendas into public policy.
Background
For approximately the first 175 years of America’s history, our judicial system interpreted the First Amendment in accordance with how it was actually written. That is, "…prohibiting the establishment of a single national denomination. Court rulings and public policies reflected that common understanding."
So how did the First Amendment’s "Establishment Clause" go from, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…" to the "separation of church and state"? The "separation of church and state" concept originated from a letter President Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists of Danbury Connecticut on January 1, 1802. Jefferson was responding to a letter he had received from them expressing concern that another denomination — the Congregationalists — was going to be selected as the national religion. As a minority denomination, the Danbury Baptists were alarmed by this rumor for they knew full well the persecutions that had existed in England under the state established church. They wrote to Jefferson asking for the President’s assurance that there would be no state established religion.
Jefferson wanted to eliminate the Danbury Baptists’ fear that the government would institute a state religion. In so doing, Jefferson replied in part:
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
Jefferson used the "separation between church and state" phrase because it was one used by Roger Williams, a prominent Baptist preacher. Jefferson belonged to another denomination and simply wanted to establish a common ground with the Baptists. By referencing Williams in his letter he believed he could more easily convince them he was sincere about the government having no intention of establishing a state religion.
The "wall of separation between church and state" that Jefferson referred to was not intended to be used as legal precedence by anti-Christian organizations perpetuating their agendas. He was only echoing Williams’ belief that God protected those who lived according to His will with a "wall of separation between…the Church and the wilderness of the World."
Jefferson knew this was a language the Baptists understood. In this instance, the purpose of the "wall" was to protect the church from the state — not necessarily isolate it from the state. The world and/or the state were not to corrupt the church (by establishing a national religion), yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values (free exercise thereof).
As a matter of fact, Jefferson never proposed that religious expression should be banned from the public arena. However, the ACLU, Americans United, American Atheists, and other anti-Christian groups have taken his words out of context as a means to force their agendas on the American people. In light of their fifty years of propagandizing and touting Jefferson’s views as the basis for their "separation of church and state" lie, it is interesting to note that Jefferson was anything but anti-religious. In fact, the following items will illustrate just how religious he was:
In 1774, while serving in the Virginia Assembly, Jefferson personally introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer.
In 1779, as Governor of Virginia, Jefferson decreed a day of "Public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God."
As president, Jefferson signed bills that appropriated financial support for chaplains in Congress and the armed services.
On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered "National Prayer for Peace" asking "Almighty God" to "Bless our land with honorable ministry,…Defend our liberties,…Endow with thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government,…all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen."
The U.S. Constitution was founded on Christian principles and was a collaboration of 55 men. Fifty-two of those men were evangelical Christians. The Founding Fathers incorporated Biblical concepts to form the text of the Constitution, thus forming our government. Would they have done this if their intention was to separate church from state?
One example of how the core structure of our government was designed based on Biblical principles is in the book of Isaiah. Chapter 33, verse 22 reads, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king…". Hence, the basis for our three major branches of government: the judicial, the legislative, and the executive were formed.
From Misapplication to Constitutional Deception
Regardless of how historical revisionists twist the truth and alter the facts, America’s Founding Fathers were Godly men who incorporated Christian and Biblical principles into the writing of the Constitution. This view was never in question, never disputed, never denied, and never refuted until 1947 when the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Everson v. Board of Education. Justice Hugo Black, in writing for the majority introduced a new interpretation of the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment when he wrote, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
The Everson v. Board of Education ruling — which had no precedence to back it up — entirely changed the way the judicial system began to rule in cases involving the First Amendment’s "Establishment Clause". Since then Supreme Court rulings have consistently favored the anti-Christian movement and have, "…relentlessly aimed at removing every vestige of Christian words, imagery or symbolism from public property."
The following examples are illustrative of how that landmark 1947 ruling has affected the outcome of subsequent cases involving the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment:
In 1962 prayer was removed from public schools.
In1963 the Bible was removed from public schools because the court said it could cause psychological damage to schoolchildren.
In 1965 the court ruled it was unconstitutional for a student to pray aloud.
In 1967 a nursery rhyme was ruled unconstitutional because it might cause someone to think about God, violating the "separation of church and state".
In 1980 a Supreme Court case in Kentucky (Stone v. Graham) mandated that the Ten Commandments be removed in the public arena including public schools.
A 1992 decision Lee v. Weisman by the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited "prayer, benediction, or invocation at any graduation ceremonies" if they were directly conducted or sponsored by a public school board.
During 1997, the Charleston County Council voted to display the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) in its chambers. Three local residents, with the help of Americans United for Separation of Church and State sued the county. State judge R. Marley Dennis, Jr., ruled in March of 1999 that the plaque had to be removed.
These examples — which only scratch the surface — show that the Supreme Court has had a total shift in direction since the Everson v. Board of Education decision. In fact, the injustices continue as atheist/attorney/physician Michael Newdow plans to file lawsuits around the country in his effort to have the phrase, "Under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Newdow’s first case was filed on behalf of his five-year-old daughter in 2002. California’s 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in Newdow's favor, declaring that the Constitution guarantees people in public places protection from state-sponsored religious declarations. The school board appealed the decision and Newdow eventually lost with the Supreme Court ruling that because Newdow did not have legal custody of his daughter, he did not have standing to bring the case.
The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791. For the next 160 years, the First Amendment was enforced by the courts using the Founding Fathers’ original intent as their guiding light. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Everson v. Board of Education in 1947, darkened the way. As a result, a continual deterioration of the American school system, the American family, and American culture has occurred.
Alternatives
The Supreme Court’s decision to enforce the "Establishment Clause" by injecting it with Jefferson’s "separation of church and state" comments to the Danbury Baptists was counterproductive, divisive, legally inappropriate and morally wrong. In addition, the hypocrisy that exists in implementing the concept is widespread. For example, if the litmus test for upholding the First Amendment is enforcing the "separation of church and state,"
Why are polling places set up in churches?
Why can the Ten Commandments be displayed in the United States Supreme Court but not in the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama and other courtrooms?
Why is it illegal for public schoolteachers to offer a voluntary classroom prayer, but when a prayer is offered to open sessions of Congress, state legislative sessions, and meetings of local governments it is okay?
Why is it illegal to set up nativity scenes on public property but Christmas is observed as a national holiday by government at all levels?
Why is prayer in public schools illegal but teachers, students, and all public school staff members go on vacation for two weeks in observance of the Christmas holiday each year?
The point is, if "separation of church and state" is law, then it should be enforced as such. How can we have it both ways? If the separationists, activist judges, and atheists want to remove religion from the public arena, then remove it. Keep the teachers in school over the holidays, remove the Ten Commandments from the U.S. Supreme Court, keep Congress and the Supreme Court in session during Christmas, and remove all of the voting machines from church grounds during election time. To do anything less demonstrates a double standard and a hypocritical, selective application of the law.
Another alternative would be to reverse every court decision that has chipped away at religious freedom since 1947. Allow prayer back in schools, allow the post offices to display nativities, give Judge Roy Moore from the Alabama Supreme Court back his Ten Commandment display (and his job), and start upholding the First Amendment as it was intended — without any reference to the "separation of church and state".
If either of these alternatives were adopted, one side would be extremely pleased while the other side would be extremely dissatisfied. Typically, whenever a church-state issue is decided by the courts this is the usual outcome.
However, another alternative does exist. That alternative is neutrality. Neutrality deals with the effect (or lack thereof) that government action has on people. In other words, if government action neither encourages nor discourages religious belief or action it is neutral. It is also neutral if it offers no incentive nor disincentive to practice a faith.
The greatest fear of separationists is that without the protection of "separation of church and state", our government will become a nation that rules by Christian or possibly some other type of religious doctrine. Without separation, "…our schools may be returned to the days of prayers prescribed by state legislatures; evolution may be banished from the classroom and replaced by ’creation science’; and religious minorities may be at the mercy of intolerant majorities".
For a clearer understanding of neutrality, consider the following example. When the federal government offers the same remedial instruction to children attending a religious school as they do children attending a secular school, it is being neutral. The government is not enticing the parents to send a child to a parochial school for remedial training, since the same program is available at the public school.
Separation on the other hand, is not neutral. From the separationist’s perspective, the child could only obtain remedial help by forgoing the religious education. To the separationists, any involvement between the government and the church violates "separation of church and state" — no exception. Consequently, separation becomes a compelling reason to abandon a religious practice.
Neutrality does not mean that religion is being endorsed or being given preferential treatment by the state. If religious organizations are performing services the government is supportive of, they should be eligible to participate on equal terms with non-religious organizations. A truly neutral government will direct its support neither favoring nor disfavoring organizations with a religious affiliation.
Recommendation
In 1947 the U.S. Supreme Court erred when it applied the "separation of church and state" concept to the interpretation of the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment. The decision firmly seeded the separationists’ views as precedent-setting public policy and shaped the future landscape of Supreme Court rulings on church-state issues. Over fifty years have passed and the courts are still making the same mistake.
It is imperative that court decisions uphold the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment. Additionally, equal consideration and enforcement must be given to the First Amendment’s "Freedom of Expression" clause (the importance of which has been diminished by the church-state issue). This is why we have a Constitution. This is why we have the Bill of Rights. This is why we have the First Amendment. This is what the Founding Fathers intended and this is what they fought for.
Neutrality is the only alternative that achieves the proper enforcement of the First Amendment. Neutrality upholds the First Amendment as it was originally intended — that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…".
The First Amendment allows the government to accommodate religion to the extent that "…they simply facilitate a religious choice freely made by the individual, do not invade the religious freedom of others, and do not discriminate among different religions." In other words, the government should not put incentives in place for religious organizations, sanction religious practices that are intrusive on the religious rights of others, or extend assistance to one religion without doing the same for others with similar needs or problems. Although these guidelines are in direct conflict with strict separation, they are in full compliance with the First Amendment.
Hard line separationism promotes secularism. The Constitution promotes religious pluralism and diversity, which is echoed in the First Amendment. In order to preserve the integrity of the Constitution and the intent under which our Founding Fathers created it, the courts must enforce its mandates with common sense and practicality. The most effective way to succeed in this endeavor is for the courts to adopt a position of neutrality.
The survival of America — now more than ever — depends not only on our government and our courts getting it right, but also on our citizens getting it right. The alternative if we don’t could be deadly. Alternatives? Americans are blessed with more alternatives than any other group of people in the world. President Jefferson left us with a quote that makes one wonder if he didn’t foresee that America’s freedom and greatness would someday be challenged. In 1781 he stated:
God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.
Works Cited
Anderson, James E. Public Policy Making, 5th ed. Boston, New York, Houghton Mifflin Company. 2003.
Barton, David. Has America Rejected the Christian Principles That Made it Great. <http://www.users.mis.net/~dcgay/principles.htm>.
Dye, Thomas R. Understanding Public Policy. 11th ed. 2005. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. No. 52. Supreme Ct. of the US. 10 Feb. 1947. Findlaw for Legal Professionals. <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=330&invol=1>.
Kupelian, David. Buying the ‘Big Lie’ of Church-State Separation. WorldNetDaily 7 January 2005. 5-6. <http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42268>. Feb 19 2005.
McConnell, Michael W. Why "Separation" is Not the Key to Church-State Relations. Christian Century. <http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=804>.
The Myth of the Separation of Church and State. <http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html>.
Rast, Ben. Separation of Church and State? Don’t Blame Thomas Jefferson. Contender Ministries. 26 may, 2002. <http://www.contenderministries.org/articles/separationmyth.php>.
Reaves, Jessica Time Online Edition.. Person of the Week: Michael Newdow. 28 June 2002. <http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,266658,00.html >.
Religious Tolerance.org. Recent Court Rulings on the Separation of Church and State in the U.S. <http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_c_st.htm>.
Smith, Brandon Jurist Legal News and Research. Pledge Challenger Promises New Suits Across the Country. 01 Sept. 2004. < http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2004/09/pledge-challenger-promises-new-suits_01.htm>.
Thomas Jefferson on Separation of Church and State. AAA Resources for Information and Entertainment. <http://www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/separate.html>.
I'll pass all comments along to Joe...
I'm sure they would be much appreciated, considering the great effort he's put forth here...
thanks...
Constitutional Deception: The "Separation of Church and State"
Introduction
The phrase, "separation of church and state" is frequently identified as a concept defined in the United States Constitution. The fact is, nowhere in the Constitution is the phrase mentioned, discussed, or defined. Often the battle cry of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other groups, the expression is actually an interpretation of Amendment I of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
Amendment I contains two important guarantees of religious freedom: (1) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…" ("Establishment Clause") and (2) "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" ("Free Exercise Clause"). The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made these guarantees of religious liberty applicable to the states and their subdivisions (including school districts) as well as to Congress.
The "Establishment Clause" is the one today's courts almost always focus on. If simply interpreted as it is written, the clause merely forbids the federal government from "establishing" a national church.
Herein lies the importance of this issue. Even though the "separation of church and state" is not addressed in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution, it has become accepted, implemented, and enforced as Constitutional law. Consequently, this contrived and misconstrued phrase has been repeatedly misused by the courts under the guise of enforcing the law of the land.
The ACLU is a leading advocate for the "separation of church and state" groups who are also largely opposed to any reference of Christianity in the public arena. Other groups who echo this same sentiment include: Americans United for Separation of Church and State; The Interfaith Alliance; Godless Americans Political Action Committee; and the American Atheists (founded by Madelyn Murray O’Hair).
All of these groups (and others) have been successful in pressuring lawmakers to enforce the "separation of church and state" issue. However, it was a precedent-setting Supreme Court ruling that opened the doors for these groups to flourish and integrate their anti-Christian agendas into public policy.
Background
For approximately the first 175 years of America’s history, our judicial system interpreted the First Amendment in accordance with how it was actually written. That is, "…prohibiting the establishment of a single national denomination. Court rulings and public policies reflected that common understanding."
So how did the First Amendment’s "Establishment Clause" go from, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…" to the "separation of church and state"? The "separation of church and state" concept originated from a letter President Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists of Danbury Connecticut on January 1, 1802. Jefferson was responding to a letter he had received from them expressing concern that another denomination — the Congregationalists — was going to be selected as the national religion. As a minority denomination, the Danbury Baptists were alarmed by this rumor for they knew full well the persecutions that had existed in England under the state established church. They wrote to Jefferson asking for the President’s assurance that there would be no state established religion.
Jefferson wanted to eliminate the Danbury Baptists’ fear that the government would institute a state religion. In so doing, Jefferson replied in part:
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
Jefferson used the "separation between church and state" phrase because it was one used by Roger Williams, a prominent Baptist preacher. Jefferson belonged to another denomination and simply wanted to establish a common ground with the Baptists. By referencing Williams in his letter he believed he could more easily convince them he was sincere about the government having no intention of establishing a state religion.
The "wall of separation between church and state" that Jefferson referred to was not intended to be used as legal precedence by anti-Christian organizations perpetuating their agendas. He was only echoing Williams’ belief that God protected those who lived according to His will with a "wall of separation between…the Church and the wilderness of the World."
Jefferson knew this was a language the Baptists understood. In this instance, the purpose of the "wall" was to protect the church from the state — not necessarily isolate it from the state. The world and/or the state were not to corrupt the church (by establishing a national religion), yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values (free exercise thereof).
As a matter of fact, Jefferson never proposed that religious expression should be banned from the public arena. However, the ACLU, Americans United, American Atheists, and other anti-Christian groups have taken his words out of context as a means to force their agendas on the American people. In light of their fifty years of propagandizing and touting Jefferson’s views as the basis for their "separation of church and state" lie, it is interesting to note that Jefferson was anything but anti-religious. In fact, the following items will illustrate just how religious he was:
In 1774, while serving in the Virginia Assembly, Jefferson personally introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer.
In 1779, as Governor of Virginia, Jefferson decreed a day of "Public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God."
As president, Jefferson signed bills that appropriated financial support for chaplains in Congress and the armed services.
On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered "National Prayer for Peace" asking "Almighty God" to "Bless our land with honorable ministry,…Defend our liberties,…Endow with thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government,…all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen."
The U.S. Constitution was founded on Christian principles and was a collaboration of 55 men. Fifty-two of those men were evangelical Christians. The Founding Fathers incorporated Biblical concepts to form the text of the Constitution, thus forming our government. Would they have done this if their intention was to separate church from state?
One example of how the core structure of our government was designed based on Biblical principles is in the book of Isaiah. Chapter 33, verse 22 reads, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king…". Hence, the basis for our three major branches of government: the judicial, the legislative, and the executive were formed.
From Misapplication to Constitutional Deception
Regardless of how historical revisionists twist the truth and alter the facts, America’s Founding Fathers were Godly men who incorporated Christian and Biblical principles into the writing of the Constitution. This view was never in question, never disputed, never denied, and never refuted until 1947 when the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Everson v. Board of Education. Justice Hugo Black, in writing for the majority introduced a new interpretation of the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment when he wrote, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
The Everson v. Board of Education ruling — which had no precedence to back it up — entirely changed the way the judicial system began to rule in cases involving the First Amendment’s "Establishment Clause". Since then Supreme Court rulings have consistently favored the anti-Christian movement and have, "…relentlessly aimed at removing every vestige of Christian words, imagery or symbolism from public property."
The following examples are illustrative of how that landmark 1947 ruling has affected the outcome of subsequent cases involving the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment:
In 1962 prayer was removed from public schools.
In1963 the Bible was removed from public schools because the court said it could cause psychological damage to schoolchildren.
In 1965 the court ruled it was unconstitutional for a student to pray aloud.
In 1967 a nursery rhyme was ruled unconstitutional because it might cause someone to think about God, violating the "separation of church and state".
In 1980 a Supreme Court case in Kentucky (Stone v. Graham) mandated that the Ten Commandments be removed in the public arena including public schools.
A 1992 decision Lee v. Weisman by the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited "prayer, benediction, or invocation at any graduation ceremonies" if they were directly conducted or sponsored by a public school board.
During 1997, the Charleston County Council voted to display the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) in its chambers. Three local residents, with the help of Americans United for Separation of Church and State sued the county. State judge R. Marley Dennis, Jr., ruled in March of 1999 that the plaque had to be removed.
These examples — which only scratch the surface — show that the Supreme Court has had a total shift in direction since the Everson v. Board of Education decision. In fact, the injustices continue as atheist/attorney/physician Michael Newdow plans to file lawsuits around the country in his effort to have the phrase, "Under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Newdow’s first case was filed on behalf of his five-year-old daughter in 2002. California’s 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in Newdow's favor, declaring that the Constitution guarantees people in public places protection from state-sponsored religious declarations. The school board appealed the decision and Newdow eventually lost with the Supreme Court ruling that because Newdow did not have legal custody of his daughter, he did not have standing to bring the case.
The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791. For the next 160 years, the First Amendment was enforced by the courts using the Founding Fathers’ original intent as their guiding light. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Everson v. Board of Education in 1947, darkened the way. As a result, a continual deterioration of the American school system, the American family, and American culture has occurred.
Alternatives
The Supreme Court’s decision to enforce the "Establishment Clause" by injecting it with Jefferson’s "separation of church and state" comments to the Danbury Baptists was counterproductive, divisive, legally inappropriate and morally wrong. In addition, the hypocrisy that exists in implementing the concept is widespread. For example, if the litmus test for upholding the First Amendment is enforcing the "separation of church and state,"
Why are polling places set up in churches?
Why can the Ten Commandments be displayed in the United States Supreme Court but not in the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama and other courtrooms?
Why is it illegal for public schoolteachers to offer a voluntary classroom prayer, but when a prayer is offered to open sessions of Congress, state legislative sessions, and meetings of local governments it is okay?
Why is it illegal to set up nativity scenes on public property but Christmas is observed as a national holiday by government at all levels?
Why is prayer in public schools illegal but teachers, students, and all public school staff members go on vacation for two weeks in observance of the Christmas holiday each year?
The point is, if "separation of church and state" is law, then it should be enforced as such. How can we have it both ways? If the separationists, activist judges, and atheists want to remove religion from the public arena, then remove it. Keep the teachers in school over the holidays, remove the Ten Commandments from the U.S. Supreme Court, keep Congress and the Supreme Court in session during Christmas, and remove all of the voting machines from church grounds during election time. To do anything less demonstrates a double standard and a hypocritical, selective application of the law.
Another alternative would be to reverse every court decision that has chipped away at religious freedom since 1947. Allow prayer back in schools, allow the post offices to display nativities, give Judge Roy Moore from the Alabama Supreme Court back his Ten Commandment display (and his job), and start upholding the First Amendment as it was intended — without any reference to the "separation of church and state".
If either of these alternatives were adopted, one side would be extremely pleased while the other side would be extremely dissatisfied. Typically, whenever a church-state issue is decided by the courts this is the usual outcome.
However, another alternative does exist. That alternative is neutrality. Neutrality deals with the effect (or lack thereof) that government action has on people. In other words, if government action neither encourages nor discourages religious belief or action it is neutral. It is also neutral if it offers no incentive nor disincentive to practice a faith.
The greatest fear of separationists is that without the protection of "separation of church and state", our government will become a nation that rules by Christian or possibly some other type of religious doctrine. Without separation, "…our schools may be returned to the days of prayers prescribed by state legislatures; evolution may be banished from the classroom and replaced by ’creation science’; and religious minorities may be at the mercy of intolerant majorities".
For a clearer understanding of neutrality, consider the following example. When the federal government offers the same remedial instruction to children attending a religious school as they do children attending a secular school, it is being neutral. The government is not enticing the parents to send a child to a parochial school for remedial training, since the same program is available at the public school.
Separation on the other hand, is not neutral. From the separationist’s perspective, the child could only obtain remedial help by forgoing the religious education. To the separationists, any involvement between the government and the church violates "separation of church and state" — no exception. Consequently, separation becomes a compelling reason to abandon a religious practice.
Neutrality does not mean that religion is being endorsed or being given preferential treatment by the state. If religious organizations are performing services the government is supportive of, they should be eligible to participate on equal terms with non-religious organizations. A truly neutral government will direct its support neither favoring nor disfavoring organizations with a religious affiliation.
Recommendation
In 1947 the U.S. Supreme Court erred when it applied the "separation of church and state" concept to the interpretation of the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment. The decision firmly seeded the separationists’ views as precedent-setting public policy and shaped the future landscape of Supreme Court rulings on church-state issues. Over fifty years have passed and the courts are still making the same mistake.
It is imperative that court decisions uphold the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment. Additionally, equal consideration and enforcement must be given to the First Amendment’s "Freedom of Expression" clause (the importance of which has been diminished by the church-state issue). This is why we have a Constitution. This is why we have the Bill of Rights. This is why we have the First Amendment. This is what the Founding Fathers intended and this is what they fought for.
Neutrality is the only alternative that achieves the proper enforcement of the First Amendment. Neutrality upholds the First Amendment as it was originally intended — that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…".
The First Amendment allows the government to accommodate religion to the extent that "…they simply facilitate a religious choice freely made by the individual, do not invade the religious freedom of others, and do not discriminate among different religions." In other words, the government should not put incentives in place for religious organizations, sanction religious practices that are intrusive on the religious rights of others, or extend assistance to one religion without doing the same for others with similar needs or problems. Although these guidelines are in direct conflict with strict separation, they are in full compliance with the First Amendment.
Hard line separationism promotes secularism. The Constitution promotes religious pluralism and diversity, which is echoed in the First Amendment. In order to preserve the integrity of the Constitution and the intent under which our Founding Fathers created it, the courts must enforce its mandates with common sense and practicality. The most effective way to succeed in this endeavor is for the courts to adopt a position of neutrality.
The survival of America — now more than ever — depends not only on our government and our courts getting it right, but also on our citizens getting it right. The alternative if we don’t could be deadly. Alternatives? Americans are blessed with more alternatives than any other group of people in the world. President Jefferson left us with a quote that makes one wonder if he didn’t foresee that America’s freedom and greatness would someday be challenged. In 1781 he stated:
God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.
Works Cited
Anderson, James E. Public Policy Making, 5th ed. Boston, New York, Houghton Mifflin Company. 2003.
Barton, David. Has America Rejected the Christian Principles That Made it Great. <http://www.users.mis.net/~dcgay/principles.htm>.
Dye, Thomas R. Understanding Public Policy. 11th ed. 2005. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. No. 52. Supreme Ct. of the US. 10 Feb. 1947. Findlaw for Legal Professionals. <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=330&invol=1>.
Kupelian, David. Buying the ‘Big Lie’ of Church-State Separation. WorldNetDaily 7 January 2005. 5-6. <http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42268>. Feb 19 2005.
McConnell, Michael W. Why "Separation" is Not the Key to Church-State Relations. Christian Century. <http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=804>.
The Myth of the Separation of Church and State. <http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html>.
Rast, Ben. Separation of Church and State? Don’t Blame Thomas Jefferson. Contender Ministries. 26 may, 2002. <http://www.contenderministries.org/articles/separationmyth.php>.
Reaves, Jessica Time Online Edition.. Person of the Week: Michael Newdow. 28 June 2002. <http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,266658,00.html >.
Religious Tolerance.org. Recent Court Rulings on the Separation of Church and State in the U.S. <http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_c_st.htm>.
Smith, Brandon Jurist Legal News and Research. Pledge Challenger Promises New Suits Across the Country. 01 Sept. 2004. < http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2004/09/pledge-challenger-promises-new-suits_01.htm>.
Thomas Jefferson on Separation of Church and State. AAA Resources for Information and Entertainment. <http://www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/separate.html>.
posted by lee at 8:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home