Separation of religion and Constitution
By Robert E. Meyer (12/30/05)
The past year brought about the usual manifold church and state controversies which are polarizing citizens farther toward opposite ends of the ideological continuum. This is because the increasing influence of militant secularism has been highly successful in its goal of reconfiguring the scope, meaning and intention of the Constitution's First Amendment.
Secularists want you to believe that religious precepts must be surgically removed from public policy and expression. This is why people like Michael Newdow have attacked the modern Pledge and the current national motto. Will it eventually become an act of civil defiance to wish someone a Merry Christmas?
While a growing number of people understand that the Constitution contains no such phrase as "separation between church state," numerous people today believe that this concept embodies the true meaning of the Religious Clauses, when in fact it does not.
The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist had less than glowing accolades for this phrase as he wrote in the Wallace v. Jaffree decision " ...no amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The 'wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned." In addition, I would point out that this phrase falls prey to the abuses of subjective ambiguity.
James Madison's original draft for the First Amendment was "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established (my emphasis), nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed." This clearly shows that "establishment of religion" was more narrowly defined as installing a national church.
Jefferson's "wall of separation'" metaphor was merely an articulation of essential federalism, as he clarifies in his 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...."
Secularists know that Jefferson, who was serving an ambassadorship in Paris during the framing of the Constitution, was heavily influenced by European rationalism. They therefore wish to closely align the meaning of the First Amendment predominately with the views of Jefferson, binding both his theological perspective and constitutional views into one seamless garment.
However, historian Perry Miller, himself an atheist, has this to say about Jefferson's permeating influence on American culture. "Actually European Deism was an exotic plant in America, which never struck roots in the soil. 'Rationalism' was never so widespread as liberal historians, or those fascinated with Jefferson have imagined."
Perhaps the best analysis as to the definition of "establishment" can be traced in the words and history of Washington's first Day of Thanksgiving 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 favor; 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 public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God..."
It should be noted that this proclamation commemorated the framing of the First Amendment. Washington was the president of the very Constitutional Convention which drafted it. First it is obvious that acknowledging God is not establishment--Washington calls it a duty. Next Washington recommends a religious practice--a day of thanksgiving and prayer. Therefore, the recommendation of a religious practice was not counted as establishment. Lastly, a request by Congress isn't tantamount to Congress making a law establishing a religion.
For those who habitually warn us about the dangers of mixing politics and religion, I give you the comments about this subject from Washington's Farewell Address.
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
So much of what is claimed to violate separation of church and state, is nothing more than the expressions of disgruntled secularists, who think that the Bill of Rights gives to them freedom from religion.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Robert E. Meyer
