Commentary-A citizen views the U.S. Constitution
By Hid Welch
This series is written by a private citizen with an abiding interest in U.S. history and particularly its founding documents: The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion " First Amendment, Art. I.
Why did the Founding Fathers consider this so important as to make it a part of the First Amendment in the "Bill of Rights" of the Constitution? History tells us about the conditions that existed before and after the drafting of the clause and because the authors of the Constitution were principally from Europe (predominantly England), they were all too familiar with government-imposed religions and churches (e.g., the Church of England).
Some early American colonies were founded with a specific religion (Rhode Island, Pennsylvania), but the Founding Fathers devised wording to prohibit, for all time, the government dictating any religion as the "approved" religion. The individual was to be left free to follow his/her conscience. To further emphasize the ideas of "free thought, free ideas and free speech," they added, " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof "
The words seem quite simple and explicit. Almost no one reading them has any difficulty understanding their meaning. Yet, in 1947 Justice Hugo Black wrote the following opinion for the Supreme Court:
"The first amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.
We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here. Affirmed." (Everson v. Board of Education 1947)
This was and is today, judicial legislation since there is no constitutional basis for the claim. However, it has been used to support attacks on any and all religious expression in our schools, our public activities and our mass media. Even those words do not deny the religious foundations of our government.
Who is it that wants religion removed from our foundation and why? What is the purpose in changing the meaning and intent of the First Amendment?
Prior to 1947 and the Everson v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision, no branch of the federal government expressed jurisdiction in this area. Yet, with the infusion of the phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," the entire protection of the First Amendment with respect to religion and its free exercise was stood on its head. From that point forward, the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) has worked tirelessly to remove any vestige of religion in any form from our schools, our public buildings, our literature and to the extent possible from our daily lives.
The phrase, "wall of separation," does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. In fact, it was lifted bodily from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist minister who had congratulated Jefferson on being elected president. Injecting such a phrase into the Constitution with subsequent
interpretation is the boldest form of judicial legislation possible. If any religious expression or foundation is forbidden, the result is atheism.
Atheism is totally contrary to the founding concepts of the United States and its republican form of government. In contrast, atheism has been the foundation of communism with the state dictating everything and man is but a slave. That, as history has shown, leads to oppression and tyranny.
Federal judges who have outlawed the recital of prayers in our schools, at athletic events and in our public buildings, have overstepped their authority, in my opinion. The federal judge who ruled against Judge Roy Moore for the exhibition of the Ten Commandments in Alabama had no jurisdiction within the state and certainly Judge Moore's action did not involve interstate commerce. There does not appear to be any legal basis for this judge's ruling other than his own desire to prevent public display of any religious expression.
Both the First Amendment and Jefferson's purloined letter combine to underscore the original thought of the other Founders, "government, keep your hands off religion."
If the ACLU succeeds (a totally godless society without any religious base), we will have succumbed to the greatest fears of the Founding Fathers. "Anything goes" will be the standard. All things will be considered relative. If it feels good, it's OK. On and on, ad infinitum. The result? A "rule of men" and not of laws. The stability we have known will become a thing of the past. Our precious "rights" will be granted or removed by edict and our Constitution will become a historical document of no significance
It is of no small note that the ACLU was founded in 1934 by Roger Baldwin, an avowed communist. It has never strayed very far from that base. Even our school children have been taught that communism is a "godless" society in which man rules and the state is supreme. If the ACLU wins, a minority of our population
will have imposed its views on the majority! When it was still called "Soviet Russia," less than 5 percent of the people were actual communists -- yet the Soviet government ruled the country with an iron fist!
Are things changing? Perhaps.
Judge Richard Suhrheinrich of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (Kentucky) recently wrote, " the ACLU's repeated reference to the separation of church and state has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state." He denied the ACLU's petition,
upholding a lower court's decision allowing the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse display!
Freedom carries with it responsibilities, it is not license. We already have laws against libelous or slanderous accusations,
but restricting speech or religious expression because someone is "offended," violates the First Amendment.
Please read The Constitution and The Declaration of Independence. Those who would subvert our God-given rights and the guarantees of The Constitution are asking for a dictatorship run by the state.
The author welcomes your comments at firstname.lastname@example.org