While tackling this subject it occurred to me I would never be able to address it as elegantly as Richard Wells, National Write Your Congressman's Western Division Manager. Richard writes the "Patriots Perspective" for NWYC. He generously agreed to be my first guest blogger. Thank you Richard.
These are his words...
Freedom of Religion or Freedom from Religion?
With the Winter Solstice upon us and snow beginning to fall,
Christmas spirit begins to rise for much of the nation. It’s a season of giving, caroling, Santa
Claus, Nativity scenes and for decades now a new tradition--the tradition of
lawsuits over religious expression. This
month in the news for instance, a West Point Cadet quit the academy because of
religious activity and its encouragement by several officers, claiming that
they were violating their oath to defend the Constitution. Contrast that to an old tradition set by the
first commander of the US
military, General Washington, where he closes his final orders to the army at
the end of the Revolutionary War with a prayer. Later as President of the US and
Commander and Chief of the military, he often publicly called upon God to
support the nation.
But this
shouldn’t just be about tradition, so perhaps a few more examples can add
clarity to this whole religious freedom thing.
In September of this year, the Connellsville Area School District of PA
was sued in an attempt to have the 10 Commandments monument removed from the
lawn of one of its schools, yet in 1935, the Supreme Court Building for the
United States of America was constructed with religious references and an
engraving of the Ten Commandments—law makers approved the plans. Then in December last year the mayor of Warren, Michigan
was sued for allowing a Christmas Nativity Scene in the City Hall Atrium. However,
Thomas Jefferson recorded his approval that the Charlottesville Courthouse near
his home in Virginia
was used by the four denominations in the area for religious services. His only concern was equal access and so the
four alternated preaching every fourth Sunday and congregants from each sect attended. In light of these diametrically
opposed views on religion in the public square, which interpretation of the
first amendment which guarantees religious freedom should be adopted? After all
isn’t there supposed to be a wall separating church and state?
Actually, the phrase separation of church and state does not appear in any of our National Documents, but comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote nearly fifteen years after the Constitution was signed. The letter was not a directive to government but was sent to a religious group. The Constitution actually reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It was intended to ensure that the Federal Government (the constitution grants power to The States in this area), not designate any religion as supreme over another nor to act in anyway which prohibits the free exercise of religion. It appears then by their actions that they didn’t want God removed from public discussion, but rather they wanted government removed from dictating the nature of that discussion. After all, they understood their history. They knew that valiant men like Hus, Tyndale and Rogers were all executed for translating and distributing copies of the Bible in opposition to the religious and political authorities of the day who forbade such activity. They saw how their work and the work of many others allowed for self-study, the codification of language and a burning desire for wider religious and political freedom. This desire was so deep that many more would risk everything to establish self-governing political and religious bodies in America. Ironically, many of these groups disallowed religious freedoms to others outside their sect. And so it was from this perspective that the founders set up a restriction for the government, not a censorship imposed upon the people.
For more
than 150 years this was the standard in the United States, until the Supreme
Court ruled in the 1947 case of Everson v. Board
of Education and built a “high and impregnable” wall separating church and
state. This opinion has been used to
silence prayer in schools, remove religious symbols from public places and much,
much more. Regardless of your religious or
non-religious belief system the question must be asked, is it right that an
atheist or agnostic body of people should have preferential treatment in
seeking to silence religious sentiment in the public square? Even the US Supreme Court doesn’t think so as
evidenced by a subsequent opinion in their 1952 case Zorach v. Clauson:
“The First Amendment… does not say
that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State.
Rather…there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That
is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be
aliens to each other…
Municipalities
would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups…
Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages
of the Chief Executive; the proclamation making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; “so
help me God” in our Courtroom oaths—these and all other references to the
Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies, would
be flouting the First Amendment…
When
the state…cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of
public events…it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the
religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their
spiritual needs. To hold that it may not, would be to find in the Constitution
a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious
groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those
who do believe…We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of
hostility to religion.
America
has a great tradition founded in religious principles. It certainly has violated the rights of
minority religions and the irreligious alike and in such cases the Constitution
should be called upon to protect those rights.
However, over-zealous efforts often by well intentioned people must not
allow the demon of persecution to enter our society nor suppress the ideas of
open inquiry, discussion and debate.
Excluding ideas, whether religious or not suppress such honest inquiry
and threatens to put our society back in the dark ages. Remember, Madison carefully worded that first amendment
as freedom of Religion, not freedom from it… Now I ask you the reader to decide
carefully which interpretation best honors America’s tradition of
freedom?
MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM NATIONAL WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN
MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM NATIONAL WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN
