It’s that time of year, when young people reach a milestone that signifies a turning point in life; when it is time to put toys away, and accept the responsibilities of an adult; it is time for graduation. And with this ceremony of pomp and circumstance, graduates discover they really aren’t adults, because a federal judge has deemed that an invocation would cause irreparable harm to students and families:
A federal judge has ordered a Texas school district to prohibit public prayer at a high school graduation ceremony. Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery’s order against the Medina Valley Independent School District also forbids students from using specific religious words including “prayer” and “amen.”
The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by Christa and Danny Schultz. Their son is among those scheduled to participate in Saturday’s graduation ceremony. The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would “suffer irreparable harm” if anyone prayed at the ceremony.
I wonder what kind of irreparable harm these nitwits would suffer. Did the court allow a scientific inquiry into the malefic causation of prayer, and the invocation of the One who can’t be named: Jesus Christ? Forget about Harry Potter’s nemesis; whatever you do, don’t say the Lord’s name in public. It could be a lawsuit.
The agnostics and atheist, along with their power hungry judges, have completely bastardized the First Amendment. Our founding fathers believed that religion has an important role in this country; that good citizens derive moral guidance from the precepts of Christianity.
After the Revolutionary War, a great migration from the east into the newly acquired lands just past the Appalachian Mountains occurred. These citizens needed guidance and a proclamation known as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 was issued. Here is what our founding fathers had to say about religion and its importance within the classroom:
Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
A famous Frenchman noted the necessity of religion in the United States, and testified to the importance Christianity had on western expansion and our institutions:
I have known of societies formed by the Americans to send out ministers of the Gospel into the new Western States to found schools and churches there, lest religion should be suffered to die away in those remote settlements, and the rising States be less fitted to enjoy free institutions than the people from which they emanated. I met with wealthy New Englanders who abandoned the country in which they were born in order to lay the foundations of Christianity and of freedom on the banks of the Missouri, or in the prairies of Illinois. Thus religious zeal is perpetually stimulated in the United States by the duties of patriotism. These men do not act from an exclusive consideration of the promises of a future life; eternity is only one motive of their devotion to the cause; and if you converse with these missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be surprised to find how much value they set upon the goods of this world, and that you meet with a politician where you expected to find a priest. They will tell you that "all the American republics are collectively involved with each other; if the republics of the West were to fall into anarchy, or to be mastered by a despot, the republican institutions which now flourish upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean would be in great peril. It is, therefore, our interest that the new States should be religious, in order to maintain our liberties." Such are the opinions of the Americans, and if any hold that the religious spirit which I admire is the very thing most amiss in America, and that the only element wanting to the freedom and happiness of the human race is to believe in some blind cosmogony, or to assert with Cabanis the secretion of thought by the brain, I can only reply that those who hold this language have never been in America, and that they have never seen a religious or a free nation. When they return from their expedition, we shall hear what they have to say. |
This observation cuts right to the chase. What we are witnessing is not just a loss of religious freedom, but also the right to free speech; and all in the name of a myth: Separation of Church and State.
6 comments:
The principle of separation of church and state is derived from the Constitution (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office and the First Amendment provisions constraining the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.
James Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the 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 even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend 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 actions 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.”
It is instructive to recall that adoption of the First Amendment reflected, at the federal level, a "disestablishment" political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the 1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term "antidisestablishmentarianism," which amused some of us as kids.) It is worth noting, as well, that this disestablishment movement largely coincided with another movement, the Great Awakening. The people of the time saw separation of church and state as a boon, not a burden, to religion.
This sentiment was recorded by that same famous observer of the American experiment you mentioned: "On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point." Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).
Given that religion continues to flourish in America to this day, one might reasonably conclude that the salutary effect of separation of church and state continues.
The Constitution, including particularly 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 undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
The First Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from establishing a state religion. It also prohibits the Federal Government from preventing the free exercise thereof. And that is what is happening today, not to mention the rights of Christians to freely speak in public.
After the Constitution was ratified, States still had established religions: Massachusetts and Connecticut come to mind, and did so until the 1830’s.
The States were considered republics in a confederation that conceded power to a central government that had clearly defined limitations. In the Supreme Court case of Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice Marshall affirmed that the Bill of Rights in the Constitution was a series of prohibitions against the federal government to prevent it from encroaching on the states.
After the 14th Amendment, Federal Judges began to use the Due Process clause to expand federal control over States, and that hasn’t abated to this day. In an effort to eradicate Christianity from the public square, freedom of speech is now on the sacrificial alter, so as to accommodate those who are intolerant of others “Religion”.
While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision ("no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed") and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. In keeping with the Amendment's terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion--stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.
You speak of "an effort to eradicate Christianity from the public square." It is important to distinguish between the "public square" and "government" and between "individual" and "government" speech about religion. 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 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. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
Without expressly saying so or explaining why, you seem critical of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which modified our federal system by protecting certain individual liberties against infringement by states, including equal protection and due process of law and the rights and privileges of citizenship. As the Amendment did not come with a handy glossary of terms explaining exactly what rights are encompassed within its terms, the Supreme Court naturally and reasonably looked to the Bill of Rights, reasoning that there are found the rights we hold most fundamental, and ruled that at least some of those, including freedom of religion and freedom from government efforts to establish religion, are protected from state infringement. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29 While the founders drafted the First Amendment to constrain the federal government, they certainly understood that later amendments, e.g., the 14th, could extend that Amendment's constraints to state and local governments.
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
I noticed when reading your missive that you make no distinction between federal and state governments. It seems that you are preoccupied with only ONE; and doing so you dismiss our federalist system.
The Bill of Rights was designed to limit the powers of the federal government and did not extend to the States. And that includes the freedom of states to establish or not to establish a state religion. And as I already pointed out, many did after the ratification of the Constitution.
The 14th Amendment was designed to ensure that emancipated slaves and their progeny were guaranteed due process of the law: life, liberty and property. It was by no means a license for the Federal Government to trample over the sovereignty of the states. And by no means was a refutation on the limitations of the Federal Government.
You state that there is no glossary on the 14th Amendment. But there clearly is: House Report #22 (Bingham 1871)
The clause of the fourteenth amendment, “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” does not, in the opinion of the committee, refer to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States other than those privileges and immunities embraced in the original text of the Constitution, article four, section two. The fourteenth, it is believed, did not add to the privileges or immunities before mentioned, but was deemed necessary for their enforcement as an express limitation upon the powers of the States. It had been judicially determined that the first eight articles of amendment of the Constitution were not limitations on the power-of the States, and it was apprehended that the same might be held of the provision of the second section, fourth article.
To remedy this defect of the Constitution, the express limitations upon the States contained in the first section of the fourteenth amendment, together with the grant of power in Congress to enforce them by legislation, were incorporated in the Constitution. The words “citizens of the United States,” and “citizens of the States,” as employed in the fourteenth amendment, did not change or modify the relations of citizens of the State and nation as they existed under the original Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s liberal interpretation on the 14th Amendment has wreaked havoc on our immigration laws; has run roughshod on the sovereignty of states; and is currently denying Christians the freedom of speech. Speech that you have somehow made a distinction of what is correct and not.
I want to thank you for your recommendation on the primer on the 14th Amendment, and warnings of the caricatures on the blogosphere. I am somewhat amused that you would refer me to Wikipedia, which is the last place I would use as a source. Maybe I can recommend something for you to read:
Living Constitution, Dying Faith, Progressivism and the New Science of Jurisprudence.
I believe the title says it all.
True enough, in discussing the First Amendment in brief comments like these, I often refer to "government" without distinguishing between federal and state--which generally is warranted since the Supreme Court established over half a century ago that the First Amendment's constraints on the federal government also apply to the states under the 14th Amendment. Unless one is making a point exclusively about one or the other Amendment or otherwise contrasting the two, there is little call to expressly and repeatedly refer to both federal and state governments. Practicality, the Elements of Style, and Google's word limit, after all, encourage economizing.
True enough, the Bill of Rights limits the federal government and not the states. No one with knowledge of the Constitution seriously argues otherwise. I find myself wondering why I so often see some trouble themselves to argue mightily against points no one asserts.
In glibly equating House Report 22 with a glossary to the 14th Amendment, you diminish and over simplify a large, complex subject.
First, to be sure, the report of course is not a glossary or any other part of the Amendment itself. It is not even properly legislative history of the Amendment adopted by the 39th Congress, but rather is a report of a committee of a subsequent Congress. While courts sometimes consider such subsequent statements, they generally accord them considerably less weight than real legislative history.
Second, the report hardly confirms the reading you apparently would give it. You are aware, I trust, that commentators have long interpreted the report variously.
Third, the report is but a small part of the historical material that courts and scholars have consulted to discern the meaning of the 14th Amendment. That material contains bits and pieces that may be read to support any of various interpretations.
It is to sort out just such things that we have courts. And they have long since decided--definitively, repeatedly, and authoritatively--that the 14th Amendment affords individuals protection against efforts by state governments to establish religion. The role of the 14th Amendment in our constitutional and federal scheme is now integral to our law, society, and culture.
Thank you for the reference. I'll check it out. (I cited Wikipedia, by the way, merely as a quick and easy starting point to get familiar with the topic of 14th Amendment incorporation and not as some authoritative source. You plainly are already familiar enough, so "never mind.")
I again have to disagree with you. You are correct that House Report #22 was commissioned under a different congress than when the 14th amendment was passed. But the participants of that commission were the principal proponents and authors (particularly Bingham) of the 14th amendment . Who else could have a better understanding of the 14th than they?
The House Report reaffirmed a previous Supreme Court ruling Barron v. Baltimore that stated the first 8 Amendments only applied to the federal government and not the States. What they were concerned with was Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution, which defined the status of citizen with nation and state.
The Report clearly stated that the 14th amendment was to ensure that whatever laws a State passed that it would be acquitted to all of its citizens. This was to ensure that ex-slaves would have due process and equal protection under the law. The report further states that the 14th Amendment didn’t change the Constitution and the relationship between States and the Federal Government.
Nowhere did the authors of the 14th Amendment give the judiciary a free hand in legislating from the bench, which has been happening for the past 100 years.
Post a Comment