Exploding Liberal Myths 9: The Separation of Church and State

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black first enshrined the phrase "separation of Church and State" into law in Everson v. the Board of Education, 1947. Black, who had been an anti-Catholic KKK member and a Democrat Senator, was worried that the Catholic Church might attempt a coup in America through Catholic school indoctrination. In Everson v. BoE, the plaintiff claimed that it was unconstitutional for New Jersey residents "to pay taxes to help support and maintain schools which are dedicated to, and which regularly teach, the Catholic Faith." In the "opinion" section of the decision, Justice Black wrote, "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church." This was partially correct -- the First Amendment refers only to the federal government. However, he went on to claim that it meant that neither state nor federal government was allowed to have anything whatsoever to do with any religion. In this, he was wrong. Justice Black did not consider the historical framework of the Bill of Rights; he took a phrase out of context and twisted its meaning to suit his decision.

The majority of men and women who first settled this country were escaping a religious and secular tyranny in one. Europe had been racked by centuries of wars with roots in both politics and religion. Since King Henry VIII founded the Church of England, the native country of most Colonial settlers had been poisoned by religious and political infighting. The Anglican Church was England's official, State-sanctioned religion; the King was head of the Church as well as head of State. Those who didn't attend the State church were taxed, and suffered under various restrictions in business and politics (when not persecuted and executed) as the influence of various religions and factions waxed and waned. With this history firmly in mind, our Founders were determined that the central government should not be allowed to trample on the rights of individuals to worship as they pleased. In fact, many states had official religions at the time, such as Virginia and Massachusetts. The former colonists saw central government as a necessary evil, and generally restricted its power to regulating commerce between the states and dealing with foreign powers. The Bill of Rights is a list of limitations on the powers of the central government over the states and individuals, not limitations on individual rights. It assumes that all people have rights independent of the existence and sanction of the State.

Why was it so important to establish that belief? Why was it considered necessary to state in the Declaration of Independence that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?" The answer is simple: to further limit the power of government. Rights granted by the State can be removed by the State, but rights that exist independently of the State cannot be taken away. More important, that was what the Founding Fathers truly believed. They weren't being humorous, and they weren't pandering to their constituencies. Their frequent references to God and a Creator in the seminal documents of our nation's birth is evidence of their honest belief in them. They avoided any references to specific religions so that no one faith could claim any legal precedence. Most of them were probably Deists, a philosophical, free-thought form of religion not bound by doctrine and dogma, but generally in line with Christian moral principles. The idea of a government that placed restrictions on the public worship of its citizens would have been equally abhorrent to them as a government that forced its citizens to worship a specific faith. Yet today's Liberals do wish to place such restrictions.

The First Amendment begins: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Liberals would like to drop the latter part of that injunction and interpret the first part as, "the government may show no respect towards any religion whatsoever." That sort of twisting is rarely seen outside of pretzel shops. In fact, our forefathers had a deep respect for and tolerance of various religions. It's no accident that they chose Philadelphia as the first Capital of the United States. William Penn conceived of the city as a place where all people of all faiths could live in peace, including Catholics, Protestants, Mennonites and Huguenots. (Penn, a Quaker, even respected the personal and religious rights of the local Indians.) Anyone with a basic knowledge of history and the English language can clearly see that the First Amendment was meant to prevent Congress from making a law to establish a State religion for America, or interfering with any citizen's right to worship -- or not -- as he pleased.

Liberals have been using this mythical "wall of separation" to attack mainstream religion -- specifically in its various Christian incarnations -- for over fifty years. In one school in California (where else?) it is now considered "unconstitutional" to teach students about the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's journal, John Adams' diary, Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists" and William Penn's "The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania." Why? Because they mention God. The Boy Scouts of America were barred from having anything to do with the US military, because their oath says, "On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country." What specific religion is God, I wonder? How does the mere mention of a generic deity -- which no one is forced to worship -- establish a religion?

In recent years, Liberals have claimed it's "unconstitutional" to mention God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Art with positive religious themes has been banned from a public library, while "art" that denigrates Christianity and befouls its symbols is celebrated. They've told us it's "unconstitutional" to celebrate Christmas in public by singing carols (including playing a purely instrumental version of "Santa Claus Is Coming To Town"), putting a Nativity set in a public square or in a public school (although menorahs are welcome), or even wishing others a "Merry Christmas" (while a hearty "Happy Kwanzaa" is appreciated). Liberals don't seem to care that 96% of Americans celebrate Christmas and 87% agree that Nativity scenes should be allowed on public property -- they'll still claim it violates the "separation of Church and State." In which of these instances, however, did Congress make a law establishing a national religion?

The standard Liberal response to anyone who dares question the existence of the Great Wall of Separation is to ask whether public worship of extreme religions should be allowed, including those which include public displays of drunkenness, nudity, sex, loud late-night ceremonies, and possibly animal or even human sacrifice. The difference is that those celebrations, as fun as they might be, break civil laws. As such, that sort of thing is strictly limited to post-game riots by sports fans.

Kicking Christ out of Christmas seems like banning American flags from the Fourth of July or green beer from St. Patrick's Day, doesn't it? There's no federal law saying you MUST celebrate it, and there should be no federal law saying you CAN'T celebrate it. That's the intent of the First Amendment.

Exploding Liberal Myths 11: Home Spying Hogwash
Exploding Liberal Myths 10: The Plame Name Game
Exploding Liberal Myths 8: The Nazi Meme
Exploding Liberal Myths 7: Fidel Castro, Demigod?
Exploding Liberal Myths 6: A Less Safe Post-Iraq
Exploding Liberal Myths 5: The Moral United Nations
Exploding Liberal Myths 4: Runaway Global Warming
Exploding Liberal Myths 3: Outsourcing Woes
Exploding Liberal Myths 2: The Eeevil PATRIOT Act
Exploding Liberal Myths 1: Nigerian Uranium

Posted at Wednesday, December 01, 2004 by CavalierX


	Jamie December 1, 2004 08:51 PM PST Here's hoping that more people will start fighting back against this kind of b-s.


	carla December 1, 2004 10:19 PM PST Separation of Church and State is a fundamental precept of the founding fathers. It was embraced by Jefferson, who specifically coined the phrase. Our founders went out of their way to write about why it was important for religion to remain out of government. Read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association and the Treaty of Tripoli.


	JM December 1, 2004 10:51 PM PST You have it backwards, carla. It's important for GOVERNMENT to refrain from regulating RELIGION. Nowhere is it written, as Liberals would have it, that anyone who runs for office must not be religious, or must not bring the morals and values of their religion to office with them. The Treaty of Tripoli, commonly cited by Liberals, states the truth -- America is not a Christian nation. However, it is a nation comprised primarily OF Christians, and a government "of the people" can not -- by definition -- be inimical to their faith.


	ThaSickness December 2, 2004 03:18 AM PST "Separation of Church and State is a fundamental precept of the founding fathers. It was embraced by Jefferson, who specifically coined the phrase. Our founders went out of their way to write about why it was important for religion to remain out of government. Read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association and the Treaty of Tripoli." Blah.. is it in the Constitution? How about the Federalist Papers? Hell, not even the SUpreme Court has made mention of "seperation of church and state".. the libs just want seperation from religion, period. Well, except if it's Kabalah, Scientology, or Feng Shui.. then it's okay because everybody in Hollywierd does it. And being a Muslim is okay too because they can kill you.. but if you're a Christian or a Joooo... you're a fascist, ZIonist, bigot pig! I think if Jesus came back... he should just give all the tree-hugging anti-American libs a big Holy bitchslap! Sorry if that came out blasphemic or whatever, but I'm sure He's pissed.


	militant sandpiper December 3, 2004 06:11 PM PST When our founding fathers but the seperation of church and sate in the constitution it ment that the goverment or leader(president)at the time could not establish a certan religion like what was once done in england its like saying the king or quenn at the time was prodestent it meant that everybody in the whole kingdom had to be of the same religion but this bit barring prayer in school is wrong and should be reversed


	Scott D. Feldstein December 9, 2004 11:35 AM PST Separation now, separation forever. In fact, I think the grand separation is one of those principles that we are still striving toward. Much like the "ever man created equal" idea; it took a long time to play that out to its logical conclusion to include men and women of every color. Similarly, we should be fighting to increase the separation over time. The further politics gets from religion the better.


	Tom Schwieger December 13, 2004 11:18 AM PST I am confused. In the Everson case cited, it seems that Justice Black affirmed New Jersey's right to subsidize parochial school parents for bus fares for transporting their children to parochial schools. This seems reasonable and hardly a landmark decision that over defines the establishment clause.


	JM December 13, 2004 03:37 PM PST >The further politics gets from >religion the better. So you agree that the courts should not be able to bar Nativity sets from public display? Excellent.


	huckupchuck December 19, 2004 03:34 AM PST CavalierX - I still don't get all the hoopla. People in this country are free to do whatever they want publicly that falls within the law. Members of churches set up shop on Bourbon Street in my hometown during Mardi Gras and no one really seems to mind their proselytizing. I've never heard of any kid at a public school being disciplined or expelled for saying grace before the lunchtime meal. I've also never heard of any kid being kicked out of school for saying a quick prayer for divine intercession minutes before the test is circulated. Baseball players aren't prosecuted for making the sign of the cross before they step up to the plate. The idea that liberals want to eliminate "public" displays of religion is just silly. Even more silly is your contention that liberals would have it that anyone who runs for office must not be religious, or must not bring the morals and values of their religion to office with them. Most of the liberals in Congress are religious and have brought their faith with them to office. I just don't see how prohibiting the display of a nativity scene in the chambers of City Hall is an infringement on one's freedom of religion. My question to you is why is it so important that you have the right to set up a nativity scene in City Hall or on the school playground? It couldn't be because you actually DO want the STATE or your SCHOOL to be associated with your religion. I don't see why having a nativity scene in your front yard shouldn't be enough for you, unless the presence of the nativity scene SPECIFICALLY at City Hall does have some greater meaning to you than the one in your front yard. It must for you to get so worked up about it. And so, I ask you why is the nativity scene at City Hall somehow more meaningful to you?


	JM December 19, 2004 12:08 PM PST >I ask you why is the nativity >scene at City Hall somehow more >meaningful to you? I'm not religious, Huck. There's no tree in my apartment, not a single decoration. However, unlike Liberals, I certainly respect the rights and beliefs of others. I am secure enough to survive it. Why does the thought of letting the people decide for themselves scare you? Let's allow states, or even municipalities, to decide for themselves whether to allow religious displays in public buildings. That's the way it's SUPPOSED to be done, not by judicial fiat and misinterpretation.


	Mark July 13, 2005 01:13 PM PDT And in small towns where Christians are the majority the Jesus stuff goes up but a tribute to reason is denied? The Freedom From Religion Foundation puts up a sign at the Madison Capitol. It's been vandalized and turned around multiple times. If you put up a christian theme on Dec 25(which isn't JC's bday anyway) then put up a message of reason also.


	JM July 13, 2005 05:10 PM PDT A "message of reason?" Mark, religious people don't need a disclaimer like one hears at the end of car commercials, and anti-religious people wouldn't believe it anyway. Why must anti-religious peope spoil a religious day for believers? It's like demanding that the IRS serve audit notices on people's birthdays.


	Mark July 14, 2005 01:33 PM PDT A message of reason... At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds..... Pro-reason people are not spoiling anything. Are we coming into homes and saying no christmas tree and no presents? Having the state pander to it is another story. When Darwin Day and Reason Day is celebrated by the state then I will find it equal. Otherwise no favoritism and your analogy is a bad one. If you think paying taxes is bad to support schools, roads and our military then too bad, happy birthday and pay your taxes for our country to support it citizens.


	Neal J. Lang August 19, 2005 01:27 PM PDT "Separation of Church and State is a fundamental precept of the founding fathers. It was embraced by Jefferson, who specifically coined the phrase." The "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was a specific limitation on Congress (the only Branch of the Federal Government empowered to make law) prohibiting the government of the United States from passing laws that would interfer with existing religions already established in some State. Connecticut, for instance recognized the Congregationalist Church as the "official" State Church. Like most of the Bill of Rights - these ten amendments were established as specific limitation on the Federal government from "interferring in areas "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". The establishment of State Churches was one of these areas. "Read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association and the Treaty of Tripoli." To understand Jefferson reply to the Danbury Baptists, you have to first understand what the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association was petition the President to do. Letter To President Thomas Jefferson from Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association - (Oct. 7, 1801) "But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights." They Baptist were asking the President to intercede on their behalf to get the constitution of the State of Connecticut changed with regards to its "establishment" of an official State religion. Jefferson's reply explains how, despite his sympathy for their cause, that his was constitutionally powerless to assist them. Letter To Danbury Baptist Association Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 1, 1802) "My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing. "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." From: Jefferson's exchange with the Danbury Baptists (1801-1802) at: ttp://classicliberal.tripod.com/jefferson/danbury.html The "act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is the Constitution of the United States of America. Jefferson's "duties" to which him owes "fidelity" is his Oath of office - to wit: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Constitution of the United States of America, Article III. Section 1. The Barbary Treaties : Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 The Barlow translation of this treaty that has got you so excited is "erroneous". It does relate to the original (signed) Treaty in Arabic, as the infamous Article 11, written in the Barlow translation does not exist in the original. All the experts agree with this conclusion, to wit: "As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, 'the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,' does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic. Its text was not only formally proclaimed as such but has been continuously printed and reprinted as such; and yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts; for in the handwriting of James Leander Cathcart is the statement quoted above that the Barlow translation is "extremely erroneous"; and while the Italian translation of the Arabic text on which that endorsement appears, presents its own linguistic difficulties, largely owing to its literal rendering and its consequent non-literary character as Italian, it is none the less in essence a reasonable equivalent of the Arabic. Indeed, allowing for the crudeness of the original Arabic and the changes which always result from a retranslation, it may be said that a rendering of the Italian translation into English gives a result which is in general not dissimilar from the English translation of Doctor Snouck Hurgronje of 1930; and of course the most cursory examination of the Italian translation would show (assuming the Italian to be even an approximation of the Arabic), that the Barlow translation, as Cathcart wrote, was "extremely erroneous"; but nothing indicating that the Italian translation was even consulted has been found, and it does not appear that it was ever before 1930 put into English. Some account of the Italian translation as a document is given above." From: The Barbary Treaties : Tripoli 1796 - Hunter Miller's Notes - The Avalon Project : The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816 at: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796n.htm#n2 "Our founders went out of their way to write about why it was important for religion to remain out of government." If that is so then how do you explain this. The same Congress that passed the First Amendment and sent it to the States for ratification also passed the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 which includes the following edict for the Northwest Territory ceded to the United States by Great Britain in the Treaty of Paris that ended the Revolutionary War. "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." Interestingly, most the new States that were formed out of the Northwest Territory acknowledge Art. 3 of the Northwest Ordinance partically verbatum in drafting their constitutions. Regards, Neal

Leave a Comment:

Home