Editor's Note: Some of this is mine...most comes from The Washington Monthly, written by Steven Benen. I highly recommend www.washingtonmonthly.com. The outrage is both of ours.
Christine O'Donnell, candidate for the US Senate in Delaware, was asked during a debate at a law school, "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" Challenger Chris Coons reminded her of the constitutional language, and she asked, "That's in the First Amendment?"
Nevada's own embarrassment, candidate Sharron Angle, who actually has a strong chance of winning, has made similar remarks. Rush Limbaugh soon after weighed in and endorsed the idea that the separation of church and state is not a Constitutional principle. Limbaugh claimed the left has used the shorthand "separation of church and state" as a rationale for excluding religious people from government -- as evidenced by the profusion of atheists serving in national office.
Are there a lot of atheists in the federal government? I guess they couldn’t be plotting to impose Sharia law, as Newt Gingrich has hysterically warned us about, if they are all non-believers.
"Are you telling me separation of church and state's in the First Amendment?" Limbaugh asked. "It's not. Christine O'Donnell was absolutely correct -- the First Amendment says absolutely nothing about the separation of church and state."
Limbaugh is correct. You can look for the phrase "freedom of religion" in the First Amendment, but those three words don't appear. It is also correct that the 2nd amendment clearly states the right to keep and bear arms for a well-regulated militia. Individuals' rights to own guns are not mentioned. The right to a fair trial is not literally in the Constitution, either. "Separation of powers" is a basic principle of the U.S. Constitution, but it isn't mentioned.
Let’s review a little history – actual history, not fabled history:
In a January 1, 1802 letter, President Thomas Jefferson wrote of the intended relationship between religion and government: "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 prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
The Establishment Clause sets up a line of demarcation between religion and government in our society, and the Supreme Court determines where the line is drawn to accommodate liberties in our ever-changing society. Although the exact language is absent, the Supreme Court has repeatedly determined that the Constitution does indeed call for separation between church and state.
Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" was first noted by the Supreme Court in an 1878 opinion by Chief Justice Morrison Waite. Justice Hugo Black later reaffirmed the wall's significance in the landmark case Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Black wrote "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" The wall forbids government to actually or effectively favor one religion over another, favor religion over non-religion and vice-versa. Requiring neutrality removes the authority of government from religious practice and protects each citizen's right to express his or her personal beliefs.
The rational conservative objection to "separation of church and state" is based on the idea that the 1st Amendment only prevents the Federal Government from infringing the rights listed, not the states: "Congress shall make no law...". It appears to have been so interpreted until 1925 when the Supreme Court ruled (Gitlow) that the 1st amendment does not apply only to Congress. "Originalists" such as Clarence Thomas want to revert to that interpretation. Of course that interpretation would mean that freedom of speech and the press is not universally guaranteed by the Federal Government either, and states and local governments would be able not only to establish religions, but to eliminate the freedom of speech and the press.
Perhaps the biggest irony here is that the right wing seems to forget how much the 1st Amendment has done to DEFEND their right to freely practice their faith. I wonder how many of them have ever stopped to consider that removing this protection would have the potential to put government in charge of their kids' religious instruction. And what a nightmare THAT would be. Is that something they really want to have happen? Which version of the Bible is the preferred translation?
The idea of the separation of church and state originated from the Catholic Church in the 9th century as a way to protect the church from the corrupting influence of the secular government. Times have changed, but the history remains. Ironic, isn't it?
The wild rhetoric surrounding Constitutional principles and the hypocrisy of those running as "constitutional conservatives" needs to be met head on. Should the GOP prevail next week, I fear that this silly talk might actually make it into legislation. We’ve got problems in this country, and we need smart, serious legislators. People who espouse this kind of contempt for basic American values will not get it done for us. How low has the bar been set for candidates, anyway???
No comments:
Post a Comment