“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The framers of the Constitution would spin in their graves if they knew to what ridiculous extremes this First Amendment clause has been taken. No one seems to understand the meaning or purpose of this establishment clause, as it is commonly called. Even the Supreme Court cannot seem to get it right. It is time to end the attack on religion or, at the very least, the use of the First Amendment as a weapon for such an attack.
The framers had two ideas in mind when writing the freedom of religion clause. First, they hoped to prevent a similar monopoly as the Catholic Church held over all of Europe and, later, the Anglican Church over England. In other words, they wanted to keep the influence of the church out of government. The second purpose was to prevent the government from persecuting those who practiced different religions than the majority.
The Puritans were forced to leave their homeland because of religious persecution, which is how this country was founded. The idea of keeping prayer out of high school football games and cutting government funding for a group of young men learning about nature were not among the reasons the First Amendment was written.
Yet, the courts have interpreted religion (from the clause) as well as church to mean God. The shield these groups have found to use with their sword, the establishment clause, is the Separation of Church and State Doctrine, which exists only in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, as has been pointed out by the right on several occasions. Therefore, it should not even be considered for legal purposes, especially not by the Supreme Court. It is not a precedent case, nor a legal doctrine. It is the context of a courtesy letter written by a former president to a group of his constituents guaranteeing a freedom given to them by the backbone of our government. Unfortunately, the separation of church and state notion is given far greater emphasis than the most powerful legal doctrine in this land, the U.S. Constitution.
The American Civil Liberties Union brought a case to cut the Boy Scouts from military funding because the scouts are required to take an oath professing a belief in God.
ACLU attorney Adam Schwartz said “The government should not be administering religious oaths or discriminating based on religious beliefs.” He misses the point, as well.
Military bases were providing space and funding for the Boy Scouts of America, many of whom could very well become the next defenders of our Constitutional rights and liberties.
The Scouts require their members to believe in God; the military simply provides space and money. There is no violation of the separation. Furthermore, professing faith in God does not mean one God for all. God is interpreted as meaning a supreme supernatural being. Many religions, including deism – the faith allegedly held by Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the separation of Church and State doctrine – believe in such a God, though this God has different meanings in every faith.
Congress has never made a law establishing a particular religion, nor one prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The establishment clause is quite explicit and cannot be construed to mean much else. So long as Congress does not enact legislation explicitly stating, “Baptism (or Judaism or Islam, etc.) will now become the official Church of the United States of America,” or stating, “Deism (or any other faith) is hereby illegal,” no case concerning religion should ever legally be heard. Secondly, the Constitution only protects citizens from the government. It does not protect them from each other. Displaying the nativity scene does not infringe upon another’s right to practice the Jewish faith.
Finally, establishing/prohibiting religion is not among those powers allowed to the government by the constitution, nor is any other of the first 10 Amendments. Had this been reality, what issues would then arise? What court battles would then be fought?