Establishment Clause Thoughts...
Common interpretations of the Establishment Clause are demonstrably false.
First, the text of the establishment clause is broadly and generally worded and it clearly prohibits any laws that even respect the establishment of religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." They didn't just chose these words willy nilly like. They were heavily debated. Some wanted them struck as they saw them hostile to religion, but they lost the debate. Also "respect" and "establishment of religion" meant then, pretty much what we think it means now.
Note this clearly not only prohibits establishing a religion as stated, but it also clearly prohibits any law that respects "an establishment of religion". The meaning is important here as it differs quite a bit if its "A" religion instead. It also generically implies religion, not a national religion, or a mandatory religion, or a specific religion, but just good old generic religion.
Another key part of this is that the free exercise clause points back to the establishment clause for its definition of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, Notice that if the first religion means national religion or mandatory religion, the free exercise clause and its "thereof" become quite weird in meaning. For example: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of mandatory religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,..." Quite different and quite weird in meaning.
Second, one can look at the debates over the writing of the Bill of Rights, and there we find conclusive evidence of their intentions as well.
An original version of the establishment clause actually was worded to mean national or mandatory religion. However these were all rejected for the more general text. The Senate reached this final version: Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Since the Senate and House versions differed, the inter-house committee formed and totally rejected the Senate version as Madison led the way by indicating the house "would not be satisfied with merely a ban on preference of one sect or religion over others." Note it's critical here to see that at least in the Senate, versions were proposed that indicated a national or mandatory religion was the topic, but they lost. This would amount to looking at the dissenters' position in Roe v. Wade and saying their original intents were to not allow abortions.
Third we can look at what some of the framers of the Constitution said and did. For instance Jefferson as President refused to make an official declaration of a day of prayer because he considered the establishment clause prohibited him from doing so. Madison wrote "Memorial and Remonstrance" to oppose tax support for Christian ministers in Virginia. There is too much good reading in this one text to discuss, so I'll post a link to enjoy if you wish,
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/
Note Jefferson also won this debate.
Madison argued often that religion and civil government were to remain separate and that men had freedom of conscience and that to impose otherwise was to impose on this freedom. He would undoubtedly consider our tax exemption for clergy, our national pledge, our national day of prayer, and many other religious facets of our civil government impositions on the free conscience of men (and women) and thus a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Madison, "The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both,..." and "Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative." and "I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on the private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation that the deviation from it took place in Congress, when they appointed chaplains, to be paid from the National Treasury."
Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, "Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and State"
Finally note that the Christian Dominionists, such as Dobson want to enact the exact opposite of the intentions of the Constitution Framers. They want to usurp the state and claim America for the Christ. By this they do not just merely mean to convert as many as possible, but instead to actually implement Christianity as the national religion, to force things such as the 10 Commandments in court houses, school prayer, outlaw gay marriage and sodomy, etc.
Note this goes so far now that our President and at least a couple of our Supreme Court Justices (Scalia for sure) have turned the Constitution on its head. Scalia claims that the authority to create laws comes from God, not from the people of our Republic as intended. This leads to a form of tyranny of the people to the whims of those in power who "know" what God wants.
None of this is Christian bashing. Christian citizens are free to pray as they want, even in public, but the Constitution clearly states that government should not respect their religion just like it shouldn't respect Islam or Buddhism. Our civil government was intended to draw its authority from the people and to remain a secular institution.
Edited by - bloody_peasant on 06/17/2005 11:14:44, racoach on 10/3/05 (published under "fair use" consideration).
