Have you ever actually read the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? Let me refresh your memory...
"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 grievances."
Pretty simple, no? No where near 1000 pages of legal jargon, just plain and simple. Yet people misinterpret it everyday. Some where in those simple words America has found separation of church and state. I'll show you later where that comes in but for now let's break down this one sentence.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Congress, (that's the law making body of our government), shall make no law,(Don't we wish), respecting the establishment of religion. So as I read this, Congress cannot prohibit religion, nor can it make one. Nine words all in English, hard to misinterpret.
"Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:" Whoa, there buddy....Doesn't that say we are free to practice our religion, freely? So if I'm reading this right the ACLU can't take God out of schools according to the freedoms granted us as citizens of the United States, by the Bill of Rights? You mean I can put Christ back in Christmas? We can pray anywhere if we so desire?
Now the rest goes on to say "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Abridging defined: 1 a archaic : deprive b : to reduce in scope : diminish (attempts to abridge the right of free speech). So I'm thinking I can profess my religious belief as defined by The Bill of Rights, written or orally.
Finally,"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So we can attend churches, rallies, tea parties, just as long as we are peaceful. We are also free to exhibit our unhappiness with the administration so long as we do it peacefully.
So where does it say "Separation of church and state?" Psssst., it doesn't. Those ideas were penned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to The Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, 15 years after the Constitution was written. The Assn. was concerned about their right to worship as a minority group in the State of Connecticut. They wrote Jefferson for guidance and to ease their fears. Jefferson responded citing the words of the 1st amendment, then mentioned the "establishment clause" created a "wall of separation" between church and state. Meaning religion was protected from the state, not visa versa. There is no legislation to suggest separation of state from religion.
Isn't it funny how twisted this has become? The letter of the law is not actually a written law, but an opinion offered in a reply to a religious group asking if they had the right to worship unconditionally, fifteen years after the fact. Now there is a spin on facts that's changed the face of America, the morality of a nation, and the way our children are raised. You would think the great legal minds of this nation would correct this error. I'll bet they could if they were actually focused on defending the Constitution.
God Bless
Capt. Bill
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Powerful stuff. It gives one alot to think about. I am often amazed that in those few short sentences of the Constitution so many considerations were given. Today, we must use millions of words to make a point or hide one. Perhaps because what we are saying is not really what we mean. Take all the pork out of the bills passed. Pass thousands if need be but, make them plain, simple and uncluttered with the excess of special interests.
ReplyDeleteTHE BIBLE and THE CONTITUTION.
ReplyDeleteThat's why AMERICA is so great.
But they trash THE BIBLE and they trash THE CONTITUTION they trash you! and they trash me for standing up for what is our right.
GOD given rights!
If you haven't already read THE BIBLE, THE CONTITUTION of THE UNITED STATES, THE FEDERALIST and Anti FEDERALIST, The Faiths of Our Founding Fathers,
LIBERTY and TYRANNY, The 5000 Year Leap there are more but start with these and get ready" for what you are going to find out.
Thank you for your time.
.................................I MAN
The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause of the Constitution. The absence of the phrase in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression the words appeared there and later learned of their mistake. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe 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.
ReplyDeleteWhile some try to pass off the Supreme Court's decisions, particularly Everson v. Board of Education, as simply a misreading of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, that letter played but a small part in the Court's decisions. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court's view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and 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 old habits die hard and that tendencies of citizens and politicians could and sometimes did lead them 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 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."
In discussing separation of church and state, it is critical to avoid the all-too-common mistake of conflating the "public square" with "government." The principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square--far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views--publicly as well as privately. The First Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated.
The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to transform our secular government into some form of religion-government partnership should be resisted by every patriot.
Great input Doug! I can tell you're very passionate about this subject. I'd stand shoulder to shoulder with you to prevent a national religion! Just another example of government usurping it's authority. Less is more!
ReplyDeleteGod Bless
Capt. Bill