My “Viewpoint” in the latest issue of Church and State published by Americans United.
“Retaining the Fruits of Freedom by Reframing the ‘Wall of Separation’.”
“Given the level of ignorance among preacher politicians and political preachers, maybe it’s time for supporters of separation to massage our message. Let’s make it crystal clear that we aren’t out to silence any voices behind an impenetrable wall, and aren’t interested in barring people of faith from public office. We should emphasize that it serves everyone — of any faith or no faith — to defend religious freedom by “holding the line,” not against the faithful, but against power-thirsty extremists of any ilk.”
Discover more from Friendly Freethinker
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why was the Establishment Clause the very first Amendment in 1791?
Was there a call for a national religion to be established in 1790? NO! And in1790 George Washington penned his letter stating the new US government would “provide to bigotry no sanction.”
But there was a lot of religion being sanctioned in the state governments as Jefferson was writing his Virginia Statute in 1786 to “disestablish” the Church of England from state government. This type of law was the reason for the need for amendments to the new US constitution and led directly to the 1st.
So, at the convention to make the Bill of Rights, the 1st was not the press, or assembly, nor guns, it was to stop religion in its tracks from thwarting the new democracy.
They then had to write the wording and if it were about only the creation of a national religion they surely would have written, “Government(all) will not create a national(state) religion,” But they did not write that. They wrote an inclusive clause that said “NO LAW” and here law is plural and inclusive to all laws, as in the phrase “the rule of law.” Then instead of writing “with regards to” they use “respecting” to mean regarding, or having to do with, or simply about or concerning. And finally, they chose “establishment” over practice, or creeds and dogmas, to include all and anything that religion could make up for a possible law. Thus no laws what-so-ever. And, a “AN” is an indefinite article to establishment it is referring to that which has already been established. A position or belief and not the act of establishing.
The framers knew what religion could do to a nation and they wanted it blocked, but today we have the problem popping up. The 5th Court of Appeals by a very divided vote just approved Texas law, requiring mind you, the 10 Commandments in all public schools. This is blatantly unconstitutional and should be appealed, but the Supreme Court has a problem as well with allowing general taxes to support private religious schools, and allowing public discrimination in businesses, and allowing religion to mind groom students to false beliefs. And, any law on abortion that is religiously created.
So, what needs to be done? A SCOTUS solicitor for the separation of church and state needs to put the Justices on their back heals and bluntly point out the either ignorance to our history and the framers thinking, or they have agendas. It’s one or the other and how to present that gently will not be easy.
SCOTUS needs to be put on the spot for allowing this much intrusion into law by the religious establishment. The second Free Exercise clause, that prohits a single government endorsed religion, and allows the practice of one’s religions is fine as long as it is understood to mean the tenets of a religion, however, that clause does not include the right to use it against another free citizen in any way, so discrimination must be illegal if religiously based.
These two positions, on the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, must by explained in the secular manner of reason over belief. What was the reason the founders felt so strongly that they made religion the very 1st Amendment? To block all laws based on religious positions, but to still allow the individual practice of religion while not allowing one single religion as law.
Thus, as many free speech issues are looked at with SCOTUS’s words, “a heightened level of scrutiny,” so should laws and rules appearing to regard a religious position be looked at as such. All rulings that favor religion are thus fllawed rulings and must be reversed.
Please share this with anyone you think might have the ear of civil rights solicitors at the Supreme Court and other courts as well.
Most sincerely,
Andre Buz Ryland
Pensacola, FL.
Thanks for the comment/essay, Buz!