Scharn claims the Framers’ sole intent for the establishment clause was to prevent an official state church. Yet, not even two paragraphs later, he acknowledges Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists as the basis of the “separation” interpretation.
While calling it unofficial, he also falsely claims that this is the only appearance of the separation doctrine, when it in fact also appears in more explicit form in the (quite official) Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, authored by Jefferson. I quote: “No man shall be compelled to … support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever.” Since taxation is by its very nature compulsion, taxes are what pay for military buildings and courthouses, and as the BSA is admittedly religious in nature, it follows that such use of taxpayer resources fails this test.
There is clear precedent. In 1811, President James Madison, the author of the Constitution and a devout Christian, vetoed a law allowing the distribution of public land to Baptist churches. Madison’s reasoning? “(The law) comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies.”
The First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” In his column, Scharn claims, “Congress has never made a law establishing a particular religion.” Notice how the goal posts shift? There is a distinction to be drawn between “establishing a religion” and “respecting an establishment of religion.” Faith-based charities, the Boy Scouts and the Ten Commandments all embody laudable principles, but to compel people to support them through taxation constitutes an unjust violation of the civil liberties this country was founded upon.