I was watching "Book TV" on C-SPAN and their speaker was this author named Stephen Mansfield who was giving a presentation on his newest book “Ten Tortured Words: How The Founding Fathers Tried to Protect Religion...and What’s Happened Since.”
The allegedly mangled 10 word phrase: “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
Basically, this moron spent close to an hour bashing the separation of church and state as a misunderstanding and a bad law.
His main argument is that, while we have the freedom to choose our religion, religion in and of itself is a necessity of a moral and successful society. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers knew this and would never have supported a complete separation of church and state.
That's like saying "separate, but not equal," is a silly made up phrase mentioned in passing that has nothing to do with the Amendment which says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Does the Amendment specifically say that separate cannot be equal? No. So, according to
He went so far as to accuse the American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union (ACLU), of suing the Boy Scouts of America as a means of making a profit. Not only that, but he says that it uses threats of lawsuits as a means of BLACKMAIL in order to basically spread the plague of secularism.
He claims that it was the intention of the Founding Fathers to protect religion, and that this petty and scrutinizing secularism is an abuse of the entire basis of the Constitution.
This guy is ridiculous, verging on hypocritical. He claims that by misinterpretation of the Constitution, these annoying activists have completely divorced the document from any significance it originally held.
But who is he to claim he knows, for sure, what the original intent of the Framers was? Was he there? No. And the malleability of the Constitution is probably the most significant feature of the incredible document.
I say, that by asserting that only one interpretation of the Constitution can be accepted, he is divorcing the document from any significance it originally held.
All in all, I don't see why this guy is complaining.
2 comments:
I'm not even sure where to start disagreeing with you.
The concept of the "Separation of Church and State" as we know it today may have its roots in the clause you mentioned, but it's not what the clause was intended to do. That's a fact that is undeniable (even if some instructors choose to gloss over it in history classes) and you can come to that same understanding by simply reading those 10 words.
It establishes a restriction in a single direction, Congress to religion, essentially saying that Congress may not interfere with religious practice (and I'll save the list of Congressional infractions for another time). Nothing is mentioned about religious influence in politics. There is no restriction of that sort found anywhere in the Constitution.
Now, how you made the connection to "separate, but not equal", I have no idea. I think you missed Mansfield's point. "Separate, but not equal" was a valid response to a faulty, ill-intended work-around and I doubt he would suggest that it be taken back.
Everyone has their own system of beliefs and ways of establishing morals right and wrong. For some people, church plays no part, and for some people, church has a significant role in that moral development.
So if a person wants to decide for themselves that a certain behavior is right or wrong, who are you to tell them their opinion is invalid just because they go to church?
Actually, the Constitutional restriction is quite clear. No law may respect the establishment of a religion. Since the Lemon case, this has been read to mean that any law must have a clear secular purpose, and that its primary purpose can't be to promote a religion.
The Founding Fathers' intention was also quite clear. They fled from Europe because they wanted to practice their religion free of the church, and as such there was a great deal of religious diversity, what with the Puritans and all. It was decided that the reason they were unable to practice religion freely in Britain was that the British government endorsed a certain church.
They made it clear they felt that in order for one nation to have complete religious freedom, the government must operate totally independent from the church.
Thomas Jefferson's writings were quite clear as to the nature and necessity of a "wall of separation between church and state."
Mansfield said something that was LIKE a point, but really several successful governments are secular, and many of the nonsecular ones have instances of religious intolerance. Really, in order for a nation to have religious freedom, the government must divorce itself from religion entirely. That's what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote the First Amendment, and Mansfield is doing his best to blur the line.
Mansfield would hate for the Muslim religion, or Buddhism, or Jainism to be a part of the government. He wants to blur the line between the Christian church and state.
In other words, he wants to promote Christianity at the expense of religious freedom.
Post a Comment