A Wall Removed
TimeWatch Editorial
August 18, 2016
The Cornell University Law School clearly defines the Establishment clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Cornell definition states that The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It states:
“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.” The First Amendment, The Cornell University Law School
Although the other elements of the First Amendment have at times been the cause of debate, no part of that Amendment has created the sort of legal challenge that the Establishment Clause has. The Cornell University Law School website describe a little of the insecurities that arise out of the attempt to apply the Establishment Clause.
“Although some government action implicating religion is permissible, and indeed unavoidable, it is not clear just how much the Establishment Clause tolerates. In the past, the Supreme Court has permitted religious invocations to open legislative session, government funding of bussing and textbooks for private religious schools, and efforts by school districts to arrange schedules to accommodate students’ extra-curricular religious education programs. The Court has ruled against some overtly religious displays at courthouses, state funding supplementing teacher salaries at religious schools, and some overly religious holiday decorations on public land.” The Cornell University Law School Website
However, there are those with strong opinions regarding the separation of church and state, based upon their knowledge of events that have occurred in the past which have led to the enforcement of religious dogma. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802 in which he said the following:
|
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut. Gentlemen The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing. 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.” Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem. Th Jefferson |
That one highlighted phrase in the letter “A wall of separation between church and state” has created the most heated debate. According to the Free Encyclopedia Biography, William Hubbs Rehnquist (October 1, 1924 – September 3, 2005) was an American lawyer and jurist who served on the Supreme Court of the United States for 33 years, first as an Associate Justice from 1972 to 1986, and then as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States from 1986 until his death in 2005. His views were consistently conservative. Rehnquist consistently defended state-sanctioned prayer in public schools, held a restrictive view of criminals' and prisoners' rights, and held the view that capital punishment is constitutionally permissible. He supported the view that the Fourth Amendment permitted a warrantless search incident to a valid arrest. In other words, he was embracing of secret searches. Rehnquist was quoted as saying, The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”
He was by no means alone in this opinion. Tom Boggioni in his article entitled: “Orrin Hatch wants to tear down the wall of separation between church and state” published on the 30th of November, 2015 on the Raw Story Website says:
“In a biting editorial, written for the conservative Washington Times , long-time Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) suggests a novel and literal approach to the First Amendment, arguing that the wall of separation between the state and the church is non-existent despite what the Supreme Court has to say about it. Hatch notes that Thomas Jefferson’s position on religious freedom was embodied in his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, but that his approach to keeping the state and the church separate was a minority opinion at the time. The more dominant view, according to Hatch, was John Adams’ model, which instituted a “mild and equitable establishment of religion” that enshrined “Christian piety and virtue.” Tom Boggioni, : “Orrin Hatch wants to tear down the wall of separation between church and state” Raw Story, 30th of November, 2015
Mr. Hatch’s position is today endorsed by Conservative Christians, senators and congressmen. It is clear that there are those who are seeking to adjust the Constitution to facilitate their position.
With all the other elements at play today and the determination of those who see an opportunity, it will not be long before the establishment of religious dogma will become the rule of thumb.
Cameron A. Bowen
