Posted by
Matthew on Monday, June 23, 2008 10:08:36 AM
Amendment 1 of the Constitution is worded plainly:
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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Every American should be a Constitutional scholar. It is a great document, and the Bill of Rights is an easy read. But somehow it has become the domain of legal scholars who have taken what was very simple, very elegant, and turned it into a document full of subtlety and nuance, one which should not be taken in a topical reading.
The "Establishment Clause," the first part of the first amendment, is very simple: Congress will not establish a state religion - written specifically to avoid the "Church of England" situation where the monarch becomes God's primary mouthpiece.
Compare the simplicity of the amendment to the guiding interpretation of the current day. The most obvious misapplication is the summary dismissal of God from the classroom. The argument is that one cannot present anything related to God without infringing on the rights of someone who believes in a different god, or in no God at all.
I've never really thought of the Constitution as being designed to protect anyone's feelings. See the last part of Amendment 1 - "free speech."
God in school wasn't an issue until the public school system was developed. Prior to that, if you wanted specific values taught to your children, you took them to a school that supported your values. That can still be done, but now the private school is the exception rather than the norm and is out of reach financially for many Americans. This is part, but certainly not all, of the reasoning behind the home school movement. But now, in California, even that avenue is being aggressively pursued by those who cannot believe that a parent might be able to impart wisdom to their own children without a state license.
A further example can be found in local governments around the country. The ACLU is trying to have a city government in Michigan stop the practice of having a prayer to open their sessions. They argue this somehow establishes a state religion.
It has been a few months since the last news item about the Ten Commandments appearing in some courthouse - we're about due for that to come up again.
To these, and the multitude of other cases where God is on trial, I ask a simple question: if the mere mention of God in these arenas is establishing a state religion, who would be the head of this odd denomination?
I have friends across the spectrum of belief - from atheist/agnostic to snake-handlin', old-time-religion - who are involved in education. What common religion would come from each of them being able to teach without a muzzle?
Oh, and the phrase "separation of church and state" - look closely, and you'll discover them ... not to be there. The roots of the phrase, per
Wikipedia, is a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. In his letter, he is simply restating that the government should avoid becoming a religious body. The phrase has been hijacked to mean something quite different, much like the First Amendment.