This is the first in a series of articles I plan on the Constitution, starting with the Bill of Rights (in whatever order strikes my fancy and with likely digressions into other Articles and Amendments).
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.
There are several clauses in the First Amendment, so I'll deal with each in individual articles, starting with Religion:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Read it carefully and tell me, where does it say "separation"?
The purpose of this clause is to limit the powers of government and protect the religious freedoms of individuals. What the concept of "separation" has morphed into over time, though, is something quite different -- something that prohibits the free exercise of religion by individuals in the name of the First Amendment. I find that reprehensible.
There is no "separation" clause in the First Amendment and the concept of "Separation of Church and State" is not part of our Constitution. In fact, the phrase didn't first appear until 1802 in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State"
The full text of Jefferson's use of the term makes it clear that even as he coined the term, the intent of his wall was to imprison the acts of government not the individual.
But the reality today is that the rights of the individual are regularly trampled in the name of "separation". Disturbingly, political figures who profess religious beliefs are denigrated by the Left and accused of violating this "separation".
Curiously, the Left has no problem with liberal candidates who attend church but profess that this does not influence their opinion. Apparently it's okay to be a shallow, casual attender of church, without holding any strong moral convictions, but to actually live your life by the precepts of your faith is somehow wrong.
It's clear that this was not the intent of the country's founders. When Thomas Jefferson authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and James Madison championed it, they made this intent clear:
"... nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
People of faith were not intended to be excluded from public service, but that seems to be an issue today.
Personally, I look for a candidate who isn't a hypocrite. If he goes to church, he should exhibit signs of actually believing and following his faith; conversely, if he behaves with an entirely secular attitude he'd better not attend church. Either combination shows me a certain amount of character and conviction, which I look for in a political candidate.
George W. Bush has an honest, sincere religious faith and he's paid for it politically. He's said things out of that faith that have driven the Left absolutely nutters, such as God speaking to him or through him. Boy, the Left has gone apoplectic over some of those comments.
But to me, it simply shows the ignorance of the secular to the concept of religious belief -- and their intolerance and bigotry. When someone with a sincere religious faith says that God spoke to them or told them something, it doesn't mean that they heard a literal voice echoing in an otherwise empty room. It's a metaphor.
The concept is that, through prayer or meditation, guidance will come. People of faith believe that guidance comes from their god -- those of us without that faith call it conscience or reason. Ultimately, it's simply that they decided what the right thing to do is.
Both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee faced similar discrimination because of their religious beliefs. And discrimination is exactly what it was for those who objected to the candidates simply because they were men of faith, without regard for their professed positions on the issues.
Most disturbing to me is what we're doing to our children in this country. In the name of "separation of Church and State", we're trampling the individual liberties of children all across America. School after school seems to be instituting a zero-tolerance policy; not for guns or knives or drugs, but zero-tolerance for Bibles, religious symbols and prayer.
Think about it. Our children, in their most formative years, get this message from the government school:
"Class, you live in America, the freest country in the world. Founded on the principles of liberty, equality and religious freedom ... wait, Sally, is that a bible in your personal backpack? Detention! Detention! Go to detention! Be punished for attempting to freely exercise your religion! How dare you!"
That isn't what the First Amendment is about and it isn't what we should be teaching our children.
0 comments:
Post a Comment