Melissa Stahlecker | Posted: Saturday, August 7, 2010 6:00 am
In a recent letter to the editor, Sara Meric accuses Pastor H. Wayne Williams of "boasting of openly defying our Constitutional separation of church and state."
Excuse me? The separation metaphor is not written in our Constitution or in any of our founding documents. It is found in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, although it has been lifted out of context and given meaning he never intended.
In 1801 the Danbury Baptist Association wrote to newly elected President Jefferson expressing their concern that the First Amendment was not specific enough to provide adequate protection for religious freedom. The separation metaphor appears in his kind reply, but one must include the context to assess his meaning.
Jefferson addressed their concern by clarifying the Founder's intention: "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights."
Don't miss the point here: His assurance was that religious rights were considered "natural rights," and therefore among those inalienable rights that can neither be granted nor retracted by the government.
In his book "Original Intent," David Barton supplies multiple original quotations, making it quite clear that the framers of the First Amendment intended only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination, thus preserving religious freedom. In the written records documenting the months of debate surrounding the First Amendment, the "separation of church and state" is not mentioned once by any of the 90 founders who framed it. The First Amendment is designed to limit the government, not the people.
Of course with rights comes responsibility. We must keep in mind that the court has rightly identified certain acts perpetuated in the name of religion, such as human sacrifice, polygamy, etc. in which the state does have authority to act.
It is "overt acts against peace and good order" that government may legitimately prohibit, not traditional religious expression such as public prayer.
So how did we come by the current situation, in which states, communities, churches, and individuals are denied free exercise? During the first 150 years of the court's existence, the separation metaphor was practically unheard of. It wasn't until 1947 that the Supreme Court invoked it in Everson v. Board of Education, lifting it out of context and abrogating the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion, such that the court now prohibits the very thing the founders intended to protect.
In recent decades, the courts have cited the separation phrase more frequently than the First Amendment itself. In a 1989 ruling, Justice Kennedy described the court as "a national theology board", and in 1985 Justice Rehnquist wrote that "the wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history - a metaphor which has proved as a useless guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."
Allowing religious expression is not the same as respecting an establishment of religion, and free exercise guarantees not just freedom of belief, but also of action based on those beliefs.
Citizens should not be afraid to exercise their First Amendment rights and resist judicial tyranny.
In a recent letter to the editor, Sara Meric accuses Pastor H. Wayne Williams of "boasting of openly defying our Constitutional separation of church and state."
Excuse me? The separation metaphor is not written in our Constitution or in any of our founding documents. It is found in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, although it has been lifted out of context and given meaning he never intended.
In 1801 the Danbury Baptist Association wrote to newly elected President Jefferson expressing their concern that the First Amendment was not specific enough to provide adequate protection for religious freedom. The separation metaphor appears in his kind reply, but one must include the context to assess his meaning.
Jefferson addressed their concern by clarifying the Founder's intention: "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights."
Don't miss the point here: His assurance was that religious rights were considered "natural rights," and therefore among those inalienable rights that can neither be granted nor retracted by the government.
In his book "Original Intent," David Barton supplies multiple original quotations, making it quite clear that the framers of the First Amendment intended only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination, thus preserving religious freedom. In the written records documenting the months of debate surrounding the First Amendment, the "separation of church and state" is not mentioned once by any of the 90 founders who framed it. The First Amendment is designed to limit the government, not the people.
Of course with rights comes responsibility. We must keep in mind that the court has rightly identified certain acts perpetuated in the name of religion, such as human sacrifice, polygamy, etc. in which the state does have authority to act.
It is "overt acts against peace and good order" that government may legitimately prohibit, not traditional religious expression such as public prayer.
So how did we come by the current situation, in which states, communities, churches, and individuals are denied free exercise? During the first 150 years of the court's existence, the separation metaphor was practically unheard of. It wasn't until 1947 that the Supreme Court invoked it in Everson v. Board of Education, lifting it out of context and abrogating the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion, such that the court now prohibits the very thing the founders intended to protect.
In recent decades, the courts have cited the separation phrase more frequently than the First Amendment itself. In a 1989 ruling, Justice Kennedy described the court as "a national theology board", and in 1985 Justice Rehnquist wrote that "the wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history - a metaphor which has proved as a useless guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."
Allowing religious expression is not the same as respecting an establishment of religion, and free exercise guarantees not just freedom of belief, but also of action based on those beliefs.
Citizens should not be afraid to exercise their First Amendment rights and resist judicial tyranny.
