Specifically, the first amendment addresses freedom of religion by stating:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
What does this mean? At face value, this means that the US Government cannot create any law that mandates a specific religion as if it were the “national” religion, nor can they create any law that prevents or prohibits people from following the tenets of their own particular religion, nor can the government force you to even profess a religion.
Many of those who criticize religion point to Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Church in 1802, in which then President Jefferson addressed the first amendment stating:
“… building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
The notion that the “wall of separation” prevents any connection between the state and any religion is ludicrous. James Hutson, a curator at the US Library of Congress wrote an article titled, “A Wall of Separation”.
To summarize this article, the two main purposes of this letter were to:
1: Issue a condemnation of the alliance between the church and state, thereby preventing the Federalists Party (predecessor to the modern day Democratic Party) from imposing a British style monarchy, with the strong possibility (or so the Republicans of the time averred) of a church established by law, with the end result becoming an ecclesiastical tyranny, similar to that practiced by the British monarchy of the time.
2: Explain why he (Thomas Jefferson) did not support state sponsored days of “fastings and thanksgivings”, as these also would be indicative of the state sponsoring “religious exercises.”
Jefferson successfully addressed the first issue in his letter; however, upon the recommendation of a confidant, he removed the portion of the letter that addressed the second issue.
So what did Thomas Jefferson mean when he wrote those now famous words regarding the “separation of church and state”? In reading the letter, it appears more to be a guarantee to the Danbury Baptist Church (and all churches) that the state had neither the authority nor the ability to meddle in opinions tied to traditionally religious beliefs. This was not, as many today wish to believe, a prohibition on the church practicing influence on the state.
Another reader graciously provided another quotation from James Madison (also known as “The Father of the Constitution”), to wit:
“The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity (James Madison - Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821).”
This statement by James Madison pleases me in that in confirms, using parallel logic, the conclusion I reached in my entry just a few days ago. This statement from James Madison, and my posting of the other day, both conclude that a government run by religion, or run in the complete absence of religion, are doomed to failure. The only way for the state to be successful is the presence of religion, and the only way for the church to be successful is to coexist peacefully with the state. If either religion or the state is subsumed by the other, that which remains will suffer from the loss.
The first amendment guarantees all Americans the right to worship the God of their choice, in the manner of their choice. Attempts by the left to eradicate all semblance of religion from the public are at the best ill founded, and at the worst, unconstitutional.
On one last note, another reader made a comment the other day stating that groups such as the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender (LBGT) should be permitted to hold meetings at schools, but religious groups should not. The reasoning posed was that since LGBT was not a “religion” that this would be acceptable. Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court has ruled that if one group of any type is provided access, that all groups must be provided a similar ability to access. If access to school facilities were to be provided to one group based upon the fact that it is not a religion, and denied to another based upon the fact that it was a religion, this would violate the first amendment’s clause which says, “prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” One must treat religious groups as private entities, the same as any other private group.
GOOD NEWS CLUB et al. v. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
What does this mean? At face value, this means that the US Government cannot create any law that mandates a specific religion as if it were the “national” religion, nor can they create any law that prevents or prohibits people from following the tenets of their own particular religion, nor can the government force you to even profess a religion.
Many of those who criticize religion point to Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Church in 1802, in which then President Jefferson addressed the first amendment stating:
“… building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
The notion that the “wall of separation” prevents any connection between the state and any religion is ludicrous. James Hutson, a curator at the US Library of Congress wrote an article titled, “A Wall of Separation”.
To summarize this article, the two main purposes of this letter were to:
1: Issue a condemnation of the alliance between the church and state, thereby preventing the Federalists Party (predecessor to the modern day Democratic Party) from imposing a British style monarchy, with the strong possibility (or so the Republicans of the time averred) of a church established by law, with the end result becoming an ecclesiastical tyranny, similar to that practiced by the British monarchy of the time.
2: Explain why he (Thomas Jefferson) did not support state sponsored days of “fastings and thanksgivings”, as these also would be indicative of the state sponsoring “religious exercises.”
Jefferson successfully addressed the first issue in his letter; however, upon the recommendation of a confidant, he removed the portion of the letter that addressed the second issue.
So what did Thomas Jefferson mean when he wrote those now famous words regarding the “separation of church and state”? In reading the letter, it appears more to be a guarantee to the Danbury Baptist Church (and all churches) that the state had neither the authority nor the ability to meddle in opinions tied to traditionally religious beliefs. This was not, as many today wish to believe, a prohibition on the church practicing influence on the state.
Another reader graciously provided another quotation from James Madison (also known as “The Father of the Constitution”), to wit:
“The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity (James Madison - Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821).”
This statement by James Madison pleases me in that in confirms, using parallel logic, the conclusion I reached in my entry just a few days ago. This statement from James Madison, and my posting of the other day, both conclude that a government run by religion, or run in the complete absence of religion, are doomed to failure. The only way for the state to be successful is the presence of religion, and the only way for the church to be successful is to coexist peacefully with the state. If either religion or the state is subsumed by the other, that which remains will suffer from the loss.
The first amendment guarantees all Americans the right to worship the God of their choice, in the manner of their choice. Attempts by the left to eradicate all semblance of religion from the public are at the best ill founded, and at the worst, unconstitutional.
On one last note, another reader made a comment the other day stating that groups such as the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender (LBGT) should be permitted to hold meetings at schools, but religious groups should not. The reasoning posed was that since LGBT was not a “religion” that this would be acceptable. Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court has ruled that if one group of any type is provided access, that all groups must be provided a similar ability to access. If access to school facilities were to be provided to one group based upon the fact that it is not a religion, and denied to another based upon the fact that it was a religion, this would violate the first amendment’s clause which says, “prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” One must treat religious groups as private entities, the same as any other private group.
GOOD NEWS CLUB et al. v. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
No comments:
Post a Comment