ACLU’s Separation of Church and State
Relentless pursuit of the truth – www.cinopsbegone.com – Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Why should we accept the ACLU’s interpretation of the First Amendment to the Constitution? IT IS FALSE ONE. Here is the read to the 1st Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.” May I share Matthew D. Staver’s book, “Take Back America” – 2000-2011 – Chapter 3
Separation of Church and State: “This country was established upon the assumption that religion was essential to good government. On July 13, 1787, the Continental Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance, which stated: ‘Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encourages.’ The First Amendment prohibited the federal amendment from establishing a religion to which the several states must pay homage. The 1st Amendment provided assurance that the federal government would not meddle in the affairs or religion within the states…”
“Today, groups like the America Civil Liberals Union (ACLU) and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have attempted to create an environment wherein government and religion are adversaries. Their favorite phrase has been “separation of church and state.”… Most people believe the phrase is in the Constitution. Nowhere is “separation of church and state” referenced in the Constitution. This phrase was in the former Soviet Union’s Constitution…”
Jefferson … wrote: “On every question of construction, [we must] carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the test, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was a part.”…
“The Danbury Baptist Association committee wrote to the President stating, “Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals – that no man ought to suffer in Name, person or affects on account of his religious Opinions.” Jefferson’s response letter went through at least two drafts:”
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not options, I contemplate with sovereign 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. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even occasional performances of devotion…”
“So what did Jefferson mean when he used the “wall” metaphor? Jefferson undoubtedly meant that the First Amendment prohibited the federal Congress from enacting any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… Jefferson believed that the Constitution created a limited government & that the states retained the authority over matters of religion not only through the 1st & also 10th Amendment.”
“The First Amendment clearly erected a barrier between the federal government and religion on a state level. If the state chose to have no religion or to have an established religion, the federal government has no jurisdiction one way or the other. This is what Jefferson meant by the “wall of separation.” In context, the word “state” really referred to the federal government. The 1st Amendment did not apply to the states.”…
George H. Kubeck
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
That the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered a smoking gun solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation--in those very words--of the founders' intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
It is widely recognized that the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, constrained the federal government, and not the states. That changed when the 14th Amendment guaranteed individual rights against infringement by states, including equal protection and due process of law and the rights and privileges of citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled that among the rights so protected are freedom of religion and freedom from government established religion. While the founders drafted the First Amendment to constrain the federal government, they certainly understood that later amendments, e.g., the 14th, could extend that Amendment's constraints to state and local governments.
Post a Comment