Separation of Church and State

[Hook Dem]

Separation of Church and State: Establishment Clause and Muddled Thinking
Written by Joe Mariani <http://www.chronwatch.com/site_search.asp?auth=167>
Sunday, December 05, 2004

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 uncons utional 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 cons uencies. Their frequent references to God and a Creator in the seminal do ents 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 “uncons utional” 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 “uncons utional” 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 “uncons utional” 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.

[JoeChalupa]

Nobody is kicking Christ out of Christmas and I don't know any liberal who want to.
That is just plain ridiculous.
My wife is going to help out with my youngest daughter's Holiday party and was preparing the notice to be sent to the other parents and I did have her remove the "Christmas party" reference and had her change it to simply party.
Am I being overly politically correct? Perhaps.
But I simply stated that there may be Jewish children in class and what is the harm in simply calling it a party to celebrate the Holiday Season?
My family celebrates Christmas and Christ will be the main reason for our celebration.

Peace.

[FromWayDowntown]

This writer's historical viewpoint is selectively correct -- he seems to suggest that Justice Black cut the "wall of separation" out of wholecloth, without any historical guidance. That is simply not correct, both Thomas Jefferson and (probably more importantly) James Madison wrote extensively about the need to separate government and religion, and it is Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 that first espoused the metaphor of a wall of separation. Black, therefore, simply took up the thinking of our Cons utional Framers in deciding one of the very first Establishment Clause cases to ever reach the Supreme Court. I guess the truth of history might punch a hole in the argument, so, I guess for this author, ignoring that truth is the best course to making a point.

[JoeChalupa]

You are correct sir!

[smackdaddy11]

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/...s/jeff1650.htm

Read all of them to form the context of his thoughts.


I also suggest this:

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/...s/jeff0950.htm

[FredFlash]

Separation of Church and State: Establishment Clause and Muddled Thinking
Written by Joe Mariani <http://www.chronwatch.com/site_search.asp?auth=167>
Sunday, December 05, 2004

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black first enshrined the phrase “separation of Church and State” into law in Everson vs. the Board of Education, 1947.

What about Reynolds v. U. S. in 1878?

FVR

[FredFlash]

In Everson vs. Boe, Justice Black decided that it was uncons utional 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.

I will give you $25, 000.00 if you can prove that Justice Black wrote "that neither state nor federal government was allowed to have anything whatsoever to do with any religion." But if you try and fail, you owe me the same amount.

FVF

[FredFlash]

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.”

Conservatives seem to believe in the exercise of religon according to the advice of the government. Liberals advocate a right to free exercise of religon as one is directed by his conscience and convictions.

FVF