Post by AuntieSocial on Nov 26, 2003 17:47:31 GMT -5
Did Our Founders Quarantine God From Government?
Click here to read the article on the original site
By Robert E. Meyer
Published: November 25, 2003
Publication: American Daily, Ohio
In responding to the question of what role religious conviction has in shaping civil law, many are quick to point out that the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state", is found nowhere in any government document. But we should remember, that is where the argument in favor of religious influence begins, not where it rests...
Current Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, after considerable historical review, has concluded that "...The 'wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide for judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned".
The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." First we must note that this edict binds Congress, as does the whole Bill of Rights. It is then against the spirit of the law to use the establishment clause an a hammer to restrict the right to act under the free exercise clause. But is this not how the first amendment has been used in recent years. We hear every year of students not being allowed to pray at commencement ceremonies, of religious monuments being removed from public property, etc. The question must then be asked, what do these restrictions have to do with Congress making a law?
The next issue is to determine what is meant by establishment? Consider this statement from the inaugural address of John Adams, "..I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service...". Adams sees it as his duty to endorse a respect for Christianity, but in doing so does he establish a religion? Not in his mind. I could use other examples, but my point is that endorsement is not tantamount to establishment. Again, this distinction is rarely made today.
How should we understand the term ..."no law respecting religion...". Many argue that the Federal Government cannot establish a state church, and that's true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. It also binds the Federal Government from interfering with existing state establishment, or any law that requires disestablishment. Indeed, at the time the Constitution was framed, as many as 9 or 10 states had their own preexisting state churches. Read the words of Thomas Jefferson's second inaugural address. "In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies...". James Madison in federalist paper #45 concludes, "...The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.." It must be concluded that the framers believed that any laws regarding religious establishment are issues for the states to determine.
Of course many people will argue that the 14th amendment makes the whole Bill of rights applicable to the states. But was this the founders vision? Here is my objection. The 14th amendment was passed in 1868, in order to bolster the rights of newly emancipated slaves. It wasn't until the Cantwell vs. Connecticut decision in 1940 that the Bill of Rights were codified into American jurisprudence as applicable to the states. I question whether this was the intent of Congress in 1868, because in 1876, the U.S. Senate voted against a bill known as the Blaine Amendment, which had the goal of making the religious clauses of the first amendment applicable to the states. Furthermore, such an interpretation of the 14th amendment is repugnant to the purpose of the 10th.
Having then determined that the framers wanted religion to be a matter under the jurisdiction of the states, what can we say about the stand taken by those such as Alabama Chief Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore? Moore claims that he has a duty to acknowledge God according to his own state constitution, thus his monument of the 10 commandments is permissible. The Alabama State Constitution preamble reads.. "We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama...". If we argue that Moore has no such duty to acknowledge, could we oppose his right? Does Roy Moore's right to free exercise of religion end at the steps on the courthouse? Does a claim that someone is sickened or offended create a constitutional mandate for redress? Did Moore make a law, or use taxpayer funds to build or install the monument? No in all cases. Even on the national level, I believe Moore has right standing, when we view George Washington's first day of Thanksgiving declaration. "...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 favor...". It seems that Washington never believed it was a violation of the 1st amendment, but rather a duty for the State to acknowledge God.
Continued in the next post
Click here to read the article on the original site
By Robert E. Meyer
Published: November 25, 2003
Publication: American Daily, Ohio
In responding to the question of what role religious conviction has in shaping civil law, many are quick to point out that the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state", is found nowhere in any government document. But we should remember, that is where the argument in favor of religious influence begins, not where it rests...
Current Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, after considerable historical review, has concluded that "...The 'wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide for judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned".
The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." First we must note that this edict binds Congress, as does the whole Bill of Rights. It is then against the spirit of the law to use the establishment clause an a hammer to restrict the right to act under the free exercise clause. But is this not how the first amendment has been used in recent years. We hear every year of students not being allowed to pray at commencement ceremonies, of religious monuments being removed from public property, etc. The question must then be asked, what do these restrictions have to do with Congress making a law?
The next issue is to determine what is meant by establishment? Consider this statement from the inaugural address of John Adams, "..I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service...". Adams sees it as his duty to endorse a respect for Christianity, but in doing so does he establish a religion? Not in his mind. I could use other examples, but my point is that endorsement is not tantamount to establishment. Again, this distinction is rarely made today.
How should we understand the term ..."no law respecting religion...". Many argue that the Federal Government cannot establish a state church, and that's true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. It also binds the Federal Government from interfering with existing state establishment, or any law that requires disestablishment. Indeed, at the time the Constitution was framed, as many as 9 or 10 states had their own preexisting state churches. Read the words of Thomas Jefferson's second inaugural address. "In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies...". James Madison in federalist paper #45 concludes, "...The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.." It must be concluded that the framers believed that any laws regarding religious establishment are issues for the states to determine.
Of course many people will argue that the 14th amendment makes the whole Bill of rights applicable to the states. But was this the founders vision? Here is my objection. The 14th amendment was passed in 1868, in order to bolster the rights of newly emancipated slaves. It wasn't until the Cantwell vs. Connecticut decision in 1940 that the Bill of Rights were codified into American jurisprudence as applicable to the states. I question whether this was the intent of Congress in 1868, because in 1876, the U.S. Senate voted against a bill known as the Blaine Amendment, which had the goal of making the religious clauses of the first amendment applicable to the states. Furthermore, such an interpretation of the 14th amendment is repugnant to the purpose of the 10th.
Having then determined that the framers wanted religion to be a matter under the jurisdiction of the states, what can we say about the stand taken by those such as Alabama Chief Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore? Moore claims that he has a duty to acknowledge God according to his own state constitution, thus his monument of the 10 commandments is permissible. The Alabama State Constitution preamble reads.. "We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama...". If we argue that Moore has no such duty to acknowledge, could we oppose his right? Does Roy Moore's right to free exercise of religion end at the steps on the courthouse? Does a claim that someone is sickened or offended create a constitutional mandate for redress? Did Moore make a law, or use taxpayer funds to build or install the monument? No in all cases. Even on the national level, I believe Moore has right standing, when we view George Washington's first day of Thanksgiving declaration. "...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 favor...". It seems that Washington never believed it was a violation of the 1st amendment, but rather a duty for the State to acknowledge God.
Continued in the next post
