Okay … looks like we need a lesson in the meaning of the ‘separation of church and state.’ Because it seems that there are a LOT of people out there that have no clue about the concept.
What is behind the myriad of challenges out there that cite violation of the ‘separation of church and state’?
Mainly … bad education.
Let’s go to the supreme law of the land … the US Constitution … specifically the Amendments to the Constitution, as the Constitution itself only addresses Religion by saying that “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Article [I.]
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.
Article I (Also known as the First Amendment) is the ONLY mention of Religion and is the basis for the ‘separation of church and state’.
So there it is … “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
That is IT. Period. End of statement.
So let’s look at a couple of the recent ‘separation of church and state’ suits filed by the ACLU and others.
10 Commandments displayed in courthouses across the country.
Well … unless there was a LAW passed somewhere that required the display of the 10 Commandments it does NOT violate the protections of the First Amendment, and in fact could be considered protected by the First Amendment as the ‘free exercise thereof.’
The presence of “Under God” in the pledge of allegiance.
The California Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared this ‘unconstitutional’ a few years ago … however, what they declared unconstitutional was not the phrase OR its presence in the pledge of allegiance, but rather the LAW that added it to the pledge. In effect the court determined that the law signed in 1954 by President Eisenhower was unconstitutional and therefore school children could not be required to recite it. The court further noted that this law was passed for the sole purpose of “advancing religion at a time when the nation was engaged in a battle against the doctrines of atheistic communism.”
Keep in mind that they did not rule that you could not SAY the phrase … they said that you could not REQUIRE the phrase to be recited (thus government funded schools could not use it in the pledge because students are required to recite the pledge) as part of the pledge.
[OMG did I just agree with a California court ruling? WHAT is the world coming to??]
The current attempt to disallow a prayer during the Presidential Inauguration.
There is no law stating that there HAS to be one, nor is there any law stating that there can NOT be one (which would ALSO be a violation of the First Amendment) , therefore .. guess what … if President Bush WANTS to have a prayer as part of his Inauguration ceremony he can have one. He can not REQUIRE people to pray, but there is nothing preventing him from doing so, and nothing preventing him from doing it publicly as part of the ceremony.
He is free to express his religion in ANY way he sees fit so long as it does not prevent anyone else from their free exercise of religion. The President is not exempt from the rights held by the citizens of this country; he has every right that any of us have … so if you restrict his rights you have to restrict everyone’s rights.
I suppose that next they are going to try and say that Bush can not be publicly seen entering a church … or that a person must forgo any religious belief or practice while serving a term as President of the United States.
If you state that THIS public display of religion is not allowed than the public display of ANY religion by ANOYONE has to be disallowed.
This is NOT a separation of church and state issue … this is persecution of religion.
The US is a country based on the Rule of Law … the Constitution is our Law of Laws … it tells us what laws the government can and can not pass, and it says … rather clearly … that the government can not pass any law that REQUIRES or FORBIDS the practice of any religion.
Neither can the courts.
Sources:
US Constitution
Amendments to the Constitution
"Under God" The History of a Phrase
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Well ... I have to admit that there are those on the other side of the issue that are just as wrong … People trying to push religion (or their view of it at least) on everyone else.
Take the current situation here in Atlanta (Cobb County specifically) where there is an on going battle to force schools to put a 'disclaimer' sticker in science textbooks regarding the Theory of Evolution ... These stickers basically say 'Evolution is a theory and not a fact, students should approach this subject with an open mind' ... etc.
Basically the stickers state "The Theory of Evolution is just a Theory" ... Really? Oh golly gee, I didn't know that ... I thought that whole word Theory was just thrown on the beginning of it to confuse people about the subject ... I thought that the Theory of Evolution was an undisputable and proven fact. Wow ... I guess I was wrong.
Or are we not teaching students what the word Theory means anymore ... maybe THAT's the problem ... they don't understand that the Theory of Evolution isn't a fact because they don't know what the word THEORY means in the first place … In which case stickers telling them that it's only a theory aren't going to help matters.
Evolution has been scientifically observed in several species ... that it exists and happens are scientifically documented. It is true that we haven't directly observed 'Macro-Evolution’ (evolution on a large scale ... the type of evolution that would be required to explain humans) this is why it remains a "Theory" more than any other reason.
Creationism (to my knowledge the only other alternative to evolution) relies on religious belief ... that man was, in essence, created by an intelligence beyond our own. This is impossible to prove, unless they put a signature in our DNA or something of that nature and thereby can only be considered a ‘Theory’ as well … also as it inherently involves religion there are issues with it being taught in Government run schools. (I don’t believe that the Government needs to be or should be devoid of religion as those like Needow believe, but such lessons should be taught in the home, not by government employees.)
Now … I’m not saying that creationism is wrong, nor am I saying that it’s right. In fact, in my beliefs the two are not as mutually exclusive as so many seem to believe them to be. I see no reason to believe that God (or gods if you prefer) wouldn’t use a system such as evolution, I see no reason that science and religion are at odds with one another. That the universe was created is a fact … whether by sentient act or random chance is a matter of personal belief, because science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god. The schools should teach the science … the existence of anything beyond random chance should be left to parents.
Post a Comment