I originally posted the blurb below on another forum in response to a question about the origin of the phrase "separation of church and state." I share it here with you.
I find it interesting when news reporters and commentators (both broadcast and print; local, state, and national, most of them presumably college graduates) refer to the Constitutional "separation of church and state clause," like it is actually in the Constitution. This happens more frequently than you might imagine. They apparently think it is in there and probably so do millions of others (who have never actually read the Constitution) who hear or read their references to such a clause. I've never been able to locate such a clause in the Constitution; if anyone knows where it is, please tell me.
I prefer to call it the "separation of church and state principle," which in fact has been shoved down our throats by several very creative--perhaps peyote induced--Supreme Court decisions beginning in the nineteenth century and further refined, or should I say distorted, in the last century. They borrowed the phrase from Jefferson's letters to the Danbury Baptists, and have managed to pervert it into something totally opposite to the founders original intentions. Separation of church and state was intended to keep government out of the affairs of the churches; it was never meant to keep expressions of religious thought out of the public square.
The First Amendment to the Constitution (and what Jefferson referred to as the separation of church and state principle) was intended to guarantee freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion; its primary intent was to insure that there would never be a "state" or government mandated religion. I may not agree with your religion, your prayers and proselytizing may offend me, but I stand shoulder to shoulder with you to defend your right to practice your religion and to express your views in public, or anywhere else on the soils of this nation, so long as your religion and views do not interfere with my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
interesting... an unintended, genius aspect of democracy is that the state of the government will represent the state of the people. We needn't impose any particular religion on our government. Whether or not our government is morally stable will reflect the moral stability of us, the people. So how are we doing? www.booksbpatrick.com
Post a Comment