“...the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State”
“Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.”
In the face of the eloquent bluntness that our founding fathers express their will in regards to the mixing of government and religion, there can be no doubt of their original intent.
“The First Amendment does not really separate church from state.”
This is the shout which can be heard from conservative talk radio hosts for decades, and now in news programs today. This statement comes from two types of people, those who are ignorant and do not understand the complexities of Constitutional law, and those who are familiar with the law, but their intent is to oppose it and gain support of the opposition of the law with misinformation as their principal tool.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides for the freedom of assembly, expression, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and of course, freedom of religion. In regards to freedom of religion, the exact text reads as follows; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
I didn’t see the words “separation of church of state” in there, did you? No, of course not.
The First Amendment prevents the government to choosing a state religion and enforcing religious beliefs and principals. This is what the British Empire did in the American Colonies, and was a key reason for the rebellion and the American war for independence. In the colonies, American citizens were not free to practice a religion of their choosing. All Christians had to practice as a Protestant, even if they were Catholic. It was imperative that the legal document which was to govern the nation from its infancy to maturity would have to provide explicit protections for the free exercise of any religion of one’s choosing.
Right-wing pundits claim that the government is in violation of the Amendment because the removal of Christian artifacts and non-secular prayer from schools restricts the free exercise of the Christian religion. However, it does not. Removing religious artifacts from government property and removing forced-prayer from schools protects the citizens of this nation who are not of the Christian faith, while at the same time protecting Christianity, and leaving it to Christians and church leaders to decide how their faith should be taught, at home and in church.
An Indian immigrant should not feel that he is being judged in an American court room because of his religion. If the Biblical Ten Commandments hang on the wall it would be prejudicial to the Hindu man. A Jewish or a Muslim child in a grade school classroom should not have to suffer the pain of discrimination and be shunned as an outcast by their peers because they are the minority; they must not be forced to sit out of a group activity as their friends participate. It is for the same reasons that the military was desegregated, and the same reasons why bathrooms and drinking fountains no longer have signs that read “Whites Only.” If all men and women and children are equal under the law, as a society we cannot make special exceptions for the majority class or we undo the work that out nation’s founders fought and died for.
“The Supreme Court does not have the power to separate the church from state because the Constitution does not allow for it.” This argument is an extension of the argument which attempts to prove that separation is not provided for in the First Amendment. However, the purpose of this particular stance is to minimize the power of the Judicial Branch.
And now for the full body of the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Nowhere in the text does it say the words “freedom of expression”; however, based on the First Amendment, a law which prevented women for wearing high-heels or men from wearing neck-ties would be un-Constitutional. Those particular freedoms are not explicitly provided in the text, nevertheless they are present. It remains that the responsibility of the Judicial Branch is to interpret the Constitution.
The framers of the Constitution had in their minds the goal of creating a nation which would persevere for as many years as the Roman Republic had in classical times. They knew that customs would change, that technology would advance, and that society would evolve. A document designed to govern a citizenry in the 18th century would surely be ineffective in the governing of a citizenry in the 21st century if that document was rigid and unchanging.
This is why the framers vested the power to interpret the Constitution on one body: the judiciary. A progressive Supreme Court must progress with society. If the court were to rule against the will of society, then society would not enforce the law and the body of the court would be rendered irrelevant.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
