The phrase “separation of church and state” is not found in
the Constitution.
 |
| Danbury Baptist letter from Thomas Jefferson image found here |
As I mention toward the end of the Civilization section of the Spherical Model, Jefferson wrote this phrase in a letter to the Danbury Baptists,
to assure them that the “free exercise of religion” mentioned
in the First Amendment was not a declaration that the right was granted by
government, but that it was inalienable, and that there would not and could not
be a religious sect favored by the US government to the exclusion of the
others.
Unlike most other
countries they were aware of, America would not have a state-sponsored, or
favored, religion. That is what was meant by “establishment of religion” in the
First Amendment. Rather than favor a particular sect—by taxing citizens to
support it or favoring people who belong to it—the Founders wanted freedom of religion,
and religious belief, to flourish. They did favor belief in God, and they
favored people living religion-inspired lives.
Unfortunately, that idea has been twisted to practically the
exact opposite of what the Founders envisioned. Somewhere along the line, government
that would neither establish religion nor interfere with the free exercise thereof
morphed into government that might override religious freedom whenever someone objected to something religious appearing in public view.
I’ve heard this called a couple of things: the dissenter’s
veto, or offended observer status.
Let’s start today by clarifying what the Founders thought
about religion in America.
A couple of weeks ago, in time for the 4th of
July, Ben Shapiro had historian David Barton on his Sunday Special interview
show. Shapiro has written a book on the impact of religious thought on the
American founding, and that’s something of a specialty for Barton, so it was a
fun hour-long conversation.
 |
| David Barton with Ben Shapiro screenshot from here |
Barton points out that the Founders had no problem with
religion. In fact, in the Northwest Ordinance, signed by George Washington in
1789, which allowed new states to join the US,
That law specifically says, Article III, “Religion, morality,
and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind,
schools and means of education shall forever be encouraged.” So, to this day,
if you look in constitutions like the current North Carolina constitution; you
look in Iowa, Kansas, etc.; it says, “Forever in the public schools of this state,
religion and morality shall be taught, as well as knowledge.” So, they saw that
as a mandate, that you can’t be a part of America if your schools don’t promote
religion and morality.
Barton talked about the sources for many of the Founders
ideas. Many of their phrases come from other writers: John Wise, John Locke, Charles
Montesquieu—but more from the Bible. He recommended a book that actually
tracked down the sources:
It’s called The Origins of American Constitutionalism.
This is done by professors at the University of Houston, poli-sci professors;
it’s published by LSU Press. And these guys said, you know, when you look at
the American documents, we’re different from every other nation. We have ideas
that other nations never implemented. Where’d our founders get those ideas? And
they said, “We think that if we can go back and read what they wrote and see
who they quoted, we’ll know where they got their ideas.”
So they collected 15,000 representative writings out of the
founding era. They went through all 15,000. They found 3154 direct quotes. It
took them ten years to document every quote back to its original source. At the
end of ten years they said, “We now know where the founders got their ideas.”
So, the number one most cited individual—and when you’ve got
6,000 years of writings, and you’ve got tens of thousands of nations that have
come and gone, you’ve got a lot of people you can choose from—they said the
number one most cited individual was Charles Montesquieu. Bear in mind,
Montesquieu out of France, The Spirit of the Law, 1750, 8.3%. That’s a
lot for one guy, when you’ve got thousands to choose from.
Number two was William Blackstone, his four-volume Commentary
on the Laws. That was number two at 7.9%. Number three was John Locke at
2.9%, particularly this book by Locke: Two Treatises of Government.
Those were the top cited individuals.
But what they found that was really kind of shocking was, the
single most cited source in the American founding was the Bible: 34%. That’s
twelve times more than Locke, four times more than Montesquieu, four times more
than Blackstone. The Bible.
And then they said, “Which Bible verse is recorded most
often? And which books?” And Deuteronomy is the number one most quoted
book—where Israel is building its nation. Moses is setting up the nation. And
then Isaiah was next most quoted.
And so, even the secular academics have documented that the
Bible was the primary source in the ideas that shaped the American founding. So
it’s not like it’s in the atmosphere and it’s in the culture; these guys really
did think according to specific Bible verses, and they applied them.
And so that, and between the Founders’ Bible, it’s pretty
compelling that it was just not the atmosphere or the culture; it was the
thinking that went behind it.
What were some of the ideas they got from these sources?
Things like government needing the consent of the governed, and all men are
created equal, and we’re endowed by our creator with certain inalienable
rights.
Meanwhile, presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke went to meet some immigrants and refugees in Tennessee and told would-be Americans that he’s ashamed because America
was "founded on white supremacy." That’s what he said. It’s hard to
be that wrong; he must work at it.
As Barton said, “If the government were at least not
hostile, it would be helpful.” He talked about how Kentucky schools had a
problem with a picture of the Ten Commandments being included among other art,
such as George Washington and the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, hanging in the
school halls. The question went to court as to whether it was constitutional
for a student to voluntarily read the Ten Commandments on a piece of art at
school. In that case the court ruled no.
And to quote the Court, it said, “If a student were to see
the Ten Commandments, they might be induced to read them. If they read them,
they might venerate, respect, and obey them. And that would be
unconstitutional.” Oh yeah, things like don’t steal and don’t kill and don’t
perjure yourself. So legally we can’t even put in front of kids what is hanging
in more than 50 locations in the Supreme Court. US Supreme Court has more than
50 depictions of the Ten Commandments in it. Some of are in stone.
Barton refers to this situation—the removal of religion from
public places—as the dissenter’s veto:It’s a ridiculous situation we’ve
put ourselves in—or we’ve allowed the legal system to do to us:
if somebody objects to everybody else sharing their faith,
we’re going to make everybody else stop so this this guy won’t object.
Nonsense. You don’t let one person veto everyone else.
Barton is hopeful that, with new justices—and I think he
means the US Supreme Court as well as many new conservative, law-reading
justices in lower courts as well—things are looking up.
We’re starting to win some things we haven’t won in 50, 60
years. We’re seeing a turn.
Courts are no substitute for the people learning their
history and purposefully living good, religious lives. But at least the courts
can prevent some official hostility toward religion.
He’s not the only one to think things are looking up. On
July 10th, on The Blaze’s The News and Why It Matters,* one of the guests
was Lathan Watts, Director of Communications, First Liberty Institute, with
some good news. The story that he highlighted was from last week, a policy
change issued by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, allowing the inclusion of
religious content in publicly accessible displays at VA facilities.
 |
| Lathan Watts, with First Liberty Institute, on The News and Why It Matters, July 10, 2019 screenshot from here |
Here’s the story behind it. In Manchester, New Hampshire, at
a VA hospital, the Northeast POW/MIA Network (First Liberty’s client) had
received permission to put up a POW/MIA remembrance table, as is done in many
VA hospitals around the country:
Every item on a POW/MIA table is symbolic. There’s a yellow
rose. There’s an empty chair for the POW. And one of those symbols is typically
a Bible that symbolizes the strength gained through faith, of the POW and his
family while they wait.
Well, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation—which is an
Orwellian named group, because they hate religious freedom—[started by a guy
name Mikey Weinstein]. And he sent a letter to the VA facility in Manchester
saying that it was illegal to have this Bible, and that it was somehow an establishment
clause violation, threatening to sue them. So we sent a letter to the VA
explaining what the law actually is, and what the current VA policy was, that
this is a private display and it’s perfectly acceptable to have it there. And
that director made the right decision, and it’s going to stay.
In the process of defending against Weinstein’s attack,
First Liberty sent a letter to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, asking for a nationwide
policy, to prevent this anti-religious group from attacking one VA facility
after another, since the current policy was to leave such decisions to the
facility directors, who may not be aware of their rights and could comply
needlessly. And that led to the Secretary’s issuing the new policy.
There’s more good news attached:
And the great thing about their press release is, right at
the end they say, “The US Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the important role
religion plays in the lives of many Americans, and it’s consistency with
constitutional principles.” That’s a direct cite of the recent case that we
just won about three weeks ago, the American Legion v. American Humanist
Association. So it was great to see almost an immediate impact of that
decision. And a new policy’s going to protect these types of displays all over
the country.
We hadn’t spent much time on that case, but we did mention
it, as a bit of good news, at the end of Monday’s post. In that case, the
Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial, a large cross that has been standing for
close to a century, was found offensive by the American Humanist Association
for “establishing” a religion—in other words, forcing nonbelievers to
participate in an established government-approved religious sect—simply because
they can view the memorial. Finally, we have a court that doesn’t buy that.
Watts comments,
The constitution protects your rights, not your feelings. It’s
as simple as that. And that was one of the great things in the American Legion
decision. Justice Gorsuch, in his concurrence that Justice Thomas joined… said now
that we’re returning to the original text of the First Amendment in analyzing
these cases, we should also completely do away with the offended observer
status. And Thomas agreed with him and said these types of cases should be
dismissed for lack of standing. Just because you’re offended by seeing an
object should not provide you standing to go into court and have that object
removed or torn down.
About that offended observer status—what David Barton
referred to as the dissenter’s veto, the supposed loophole that gives a single
individual the right to overrule everyone else’s religious freedom—he says he
thinks such cases will be more easily dismissed. He adds that offended observer
status is
only present in establishment clause cases. It’s the only
place in the law where we recognize this right to go to court and have
something torn down because you don’t like it. It’s only in establishment clause
cases.
And so, hopefully this is the indication that it’s morning in
America again.
Let’s hope so. Let the light dawn once again on those
Founding ideas that made America exceptional in the first place.
________________________________________________
* This link may require a subscription. But the segment is available on Facebook here.
No comments:
Post a Comment