Since I have covered the first chapter quite extensively in the past on this blog, I will just focus in on the second chapter, The Myth of Church-State Separation.
One of the questions that each member of the group is to consider after reading our chapter assignment is, "What did you learn from reading the chapter that you did not know before?"
Surprisingly, a few of the women admitted that they did not know that the phrase, "separation of church and state" does not actually exist anywhere in the Constitution!
Kupelian writes:
"The section of the Constitution that deals with religion is the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights - the first sixteen words of it, anyway.
There's the establishment clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") and the free exercise clause ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof").
The establishment clause - that's the one today's courts almost always focus on - simply prohibits the federal government from "establishing" a national church or from interfering with the established churches in the states! (Remember, several states already had state-supported "establishments of religion.")
Possibly you wonder whether the issue is really this cut-and-dried. After all, for the last half-century, judicial activists on the Supreme Court and lower courts, ACLU lawyers, the press, and the secular culture in general have embraced "the constitutional separation of church and state" as though it actually existed somewhere in the Constitution. Of course, none of these words - "separation," "church," or "state" - are in the First Amendment."
The author continues to explain how the wording of the establishment clause came about. There were several revisions over the course of four months until both the House and Senate agreed with the one that is now law.
During our discussion, Dran brought up many important points. The first one included a portion of a commentary written in 1811 by Supreme Court justice Joseph Story:
"The real object of the [First Amendment] was, not ot countenance, much less to advance Hahometanism [Islam], or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exlude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiatical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government."
Note that Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist came to the same conclusion as Story:
"It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the ahouse in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion."
Kupelian humorously states:
"Oh, by the way, as if to thumb its nose through time at the ACLU two centuries later, the very day after the House of Representatives adopted the First Amendmen'ts religion clauses, Rep. Elias Boudinot proposed a resolution asking President George Washingto to issue a national Thanksgiving Day Proclamation.
Boudinot said he "could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice, in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings he had poured down upon them."
On September 25, 1789, Boudinot's resolution passed, and within two weeks Washington responded with the following proclamation. Read it carefully:
General Thanksgiving
By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America
A PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"
NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.
(signed) G. Washington
[Source: The Massachusetts Centinel, Wednesday, October 14, 1789]
These inspiring words from the father of our country would no doubt have inspired a lawsuit threat from the ACLU (and the likes of Nancy Pelosi!) had the group been around then!
Now to the part that I learned from reading the chapter that I did not know before.
I always thought that Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase "separation of church and state." I knew that it was taken from a letter that was, ironically, intended to reassure the Danbury Baptists that the new federal government would not endanger the free expression of their religion. But what I found out was that Jefferson borrowed the metaphor from the sermon, "The Garden and the Wilderness," which was very familiar to Baptists of the time. As Jim Henderson, senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, explains it:
"That sermon, rendered by Roger Williams (the founder of the Rhode Island Plantation colony, and a Baptist), depicted the church as a garden, the world as a wilderness, and the wall as a device of the Creator's invention that protected the garden from being overrun by the wilderness. Williams explained that from time to time, for the purpose of disciplining sin in the church, "it hath pleased" the Almighty to break down the wall.
Thomas Jefferson, ever the politician, knew when he communicated with the Baptists that "The Garden and The Wilderness" was well known and widely read nearly two generations later. He appealed to them in the terms of their own great man's idiom."
Wow! There you have it! The wall of separation was meant to protect "the garden" of the church from being overrun by "the wilderness" of government. No wonder Chief Justice Rehnquist has said, "The metaphor of a 'wall of separation' is bad history and worse law. It has made a positive chaos out of court rulings. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned." In other words, it's a lie.
Posts
7 comments:
Know what else isn't in the Constitution? "Checks and balances." And it only appears once in The Federalist Papers, which are considered about the only source of legislative history for the Constitution. The Constitution also not only makes no mention of banning slavery, but contains language legitimizing it to at least some extent.
There are two points here. The first is that the Constitution changes and the authors knew it would. Hence their inclusion of an amendment process to allow a changing society to change the rules by which the country operates. Like the Nineteenth Amendment, by which you Christine, are allowed to vote. The second point is that the Constitution doesn't contain specific terms for every possible controversy, nor could it be expected to. It has to be interpreted. Usually by judges who are human and who do make mistakes. So while "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution it's hardly a stretch to argue that such an intent can be fairly taken out of that document.
I'm curious about your point here. Obviously you have a reading group and that's great. Do you really mean to argue that Church and State should be one? That the church should have a say in state matters and vice versa? I would think the ramifications of that would be obvious. What happens if your sect doesn't prevail? Do we engage in civil war? Or should we leave the relgious matters to religous groups and the government matters to the civil groups?
Christine, do you only read books that you already agree with?
I have a challenge for you: I'll read a book that you recommend if you read one that I say. We'll give each other one week, and then discuss both books, maybe here, each on its own post.
What do you say?
Limpy99: "Usually by judges who are human and who do make mistakes."
You got that right! I think that Roe Vs. Wade was a mistake. It took away the rights of individual states to determine whether or not to legalize abortion. This subject will be discussed in an upcoming chapter, too.
What if the court 'balance' was shifted so that the majority of judges ruled to overturn Roe vs. Wade? Would you accept that type of progress (in the eyes of Conservative Christians who want to see the ongoing slaughter of innocent babies curtailed) or would you be against it? The "right to an abortion" isn't in the Constitution either! But we always hear about "a woman's Constitutional right to choose." It was another marketing ploy and Kupelian covers this extensively in his book.
Not to get too far off the subject, I will address your other questions.
Limpy99: "I'm curious about your point here."
My point is that a phrase which has been coined as a phrase that is taken from the Constitution isn't in the Constitution! I shared where the original phrase came from, what it's original intention was by the writer of the letter to the Baptists, and showed how that meaning has been twisted and misused by the ACLU and others in lawsuits that attempt to "kick religion" out of the public square.
Limpy99: "Do you really mean to argue that Church and State should be one?"
That is not what I am advocating. If the ACLU and other groups were not actively attempting to squash all mentions (as well as the Ten Commandments monument, Mt. Soledad cross, the war on the term "Christmas" etc.)of the Christian faith's principles, laws, and ethics on which our country was founded, then there wouldn't be such controversy these days.
Limpy99: "That the church should have a say in state matters and vice versa?"
I think that acknowledgement of our Christian heritage should not be squelched by the secular humanists, but this appears to be what is happening because of the liberal left ideology that currently "owns" our schools, universities, and oftentimes the judges in their decision making.
Limpy99: "Do we engage in civil war?"
We are in a civil war... of ideas, that is. Fortunately, it's not like the "wars over ideology" that happen in other countries which only lead to bloodshed.
Limpy99: "Or should we leave the relgious matters to religous groups and the government matters to the civil groups?"
No. Because if all the "government matters" are left to the civil groups, then religious freedoms of speech, association, and ability to worship as a faith leads it's followers (i.e. the Bible) would most likely be taken away by such groups whose goal is to abolish them altogether.
Hi Christine -
I've got another good book for you, "Original Intent," by David Barton. He points out that many of the representatives to the Constitutional Convention expressed anti-Federalist sentiments. They worried about a Federal government becoming too powerful and undercutting the will of the people/states. It was only after the passage of the Bill of Rights (which are amendments to the Constitution) that the states adopted the Constitution. He pointed out these amendments specifically said what the Federal Government could NOT do.
The Government's current interference in the free expression of religion in the public square is in total contradiction to not only the letter of the law but the spirit.
The First Amendment was put there to protect the free exercise of religion in all areas of life - public and private.
Blessings,
Anna
"What if the court 'balance' was shifted so that the majority of judges ruled to overturn Roe vs. Wade? Would you accept that type of progress (in the eyes of Conservative Christians who want to see the ongoing slaughter of innocent babies curtailed) or would you be against it?"
Well, I'd be against it and I'd probably support politicians who were likely to appoint judges who saw things my way. Would I rise up and start a revolution about it. Besides, I live in a state that wouldn't be changing its rules regardless, so for me personally, it's really not an issue. That and I don't have a uterus.
The right to an abortion isn't in the Constitution. Niether is the right to privacy, which is the basis for Roe v. Wade. or one of them anyway. What the Court did (and I'm really simplifying here)was say that for the right of free speech to mean anything, we all have to be free to express our beliefs and cannot force others to hold our beliefs contrary to our own. That includes abortion. You may believe life begins at conception, another may not. You can't make that person adhere to your belief. Likewise, no one could force you to have an abortion. Think China. Not pretty.
The right to choose is Constitutional as it stems from the Constitution. If your author passes that off as a marketing ploy he's being disengenuous. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't make it flow any less from someone's interpretation of the document.
"My point is that a phrase which has been coined as a phrase that is taken from the Constitution isn't in the Constitution!"
Many such phrases aren't. See the checks and balances example I posted originally. That doesn't make them less based in the Constitution. The concept of a separate church and state flows necessarily from the 1st Amendment establishment clause. Congress shall make no law to establish a religion or hinder a religion. They have to stay separate or we run the risk of one religion being emphasized as "our" religion.
"the war on the term "Christmas"" Please, please, please stop listening to Bill O'Reilly. No one is waging a war on Christmas, except possibly those (insert foul word here) in the malls who put the decorations up after Halloween. Face it, Christmas is pretty much a secular holiday for the majority of people, and that wasn't a liberal plot.
"I think that acknowledgement of our Christian heritage should not be squelched by the secular humanists,"
An interesting point. I sort of agree with you in that if it is represented that the founding fathers were attmepting to create a secular state, that just isn't correct. Any reading of history indicates that many of them at least gave lip service to the idea of a divinely inspired country. Ben Franklin wasn't one of them by the way. However, there's difference between acknowledging the professed Christian beliefs of these folks and then failing to recognize their work in making the state a neutral party to religion. I think it's Justie Story you quoted in the post who said the purpose was to keep the Christian sects from fighting each other, and not the Jews or Islamists, but this misses the larger point. The establishment clause exists to keep any religion from getting the upper hand. At the time it was written there simply weren't as many Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims or Unitarians running around. Now there are, and you can't, as a state, emphasize Christianity at the expense of the other religions.
"if all the "government matters" are left to the civil groups, then religious freedoms of speech, association, and ability to worship as a faith leads it's followers (i.e. the Bible) would most likely be taken away by such groups whose goal is to abolish them altogether."
I doubt this is the case, but if you can show me one example of a mainstream group that wants to abolish religious rights, I will do my best to undo their work.
Anna said "The First Amendment was put there to protect the free exercise of religion in all areas of life - public and private."
That's not true. There is, as far as I know, no case-law that says this either. You may mean the right to pray in public, which you have in the proper forum. You can't do it on private property, but you can go to a public park and pray all you want. What the First Amndemnet does is prevent the state from encouraging one religion at the expense of others. It wa snever meant and has never been interpreted to mean that Christians, or any other group, have a right to have their beliefs validated by the state.
I just read those posts and would like to apologize for the typos. And to be clear, I am not starting any revolutions.
As far as any of you know.
Post a Comment