12.20.07
Merry Xmas: A First Amendment Primer
As a strict Federalist, I have shocked people before by stating that I disagree with the Bill of Rights and feel that it was one of the worst decisions that our founding fathers made. While it wasn’t necessarily bad in intention, it simply was a very bad idea from the get go.
Why? Namely because you cannot easily define rights. Rights are, by nature, undefinable. It would be easier to define what one’s rights aren’t than to simply make blanket statements like the Bill of Rights did. In the end, making such vague and open-ended statements does nothing but open up the process to exceptions, misinterpretations and abuse. It allowed for Judges to define rights, which equates to legislating from the bench - which is not a good way to deal with citizen’s rights because the very concept of rights can vary drastically depending on how the bench is stacked at that particular time. That is how we end up with national headaches like gun control, Roe v. Wade and the supposed “separation of church and state.” These sorts of things aren’t in the US Constitution. They were created by judges.
Since it is that Merry Christmas time of year, I thought I would take the opportunity to address the misconception of the separation of church and state; namely because I am getting severely annoyed by all of the whining babies out there who keep claiming that the recognition of Christmas is a violation of the Constitution.
But first, a brief history lesson regarding religion in the eyes of our founding fathers. Why did the “establishment” and “free exercise” clauses of the first amendment come about? At the time, people were fleeing Europe to get away from, among other things, religious persecution. Due to the blending of government and religion in many areas of Europe, religion was not free. In some instances, Europeans had to deal with theocracies. In others, it was simply a matter of the government telling the people that they had to abide by a particular religion. With the founding of America, the founding fathers sought to prevent this from happening here. Hence, the clauses.
The “establishment” and “free exercise” clauses were put in place to keep government from legislating religion as well as to allow for the people to practice without fear of persecution. It should have ended there.
However, it didn’t. Thanks to the erroneous ways of the Bill of Rights, judges were allowed to interpret the amendments as they saw fit, using whatever context they found convenient. In turn, we now must contend with a nation where children are not allowed to pray in school, symbols are banned and any recognition of a religious holiday or event is taken to mean an official endorsement and stomped out in the name of the Constitution.
I don’t think that this is what the first amendment had in mind.
I fear that the founding fathers are rolling in their graves over the fact that their precious concept of freedom has been bastardized in our modern times and has actually been turned to work against our basic freedoms. Contrary to modern opinion, the first amendment was not designed to eliminate religion; rather it was put in place to ensure that all religions were recognized and accepted within the structure of our new nation.
So where did this misconception come from? Opinion. Opinion based an 1802 correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists regarding their protection from federal interference as a minority religion in the area. In the letter, he says:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and 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.”
To me, it sounds like Jefferson is proclaiming that the Danbury Baptists are free to practice as a minority religion and they should have no fear of having the government step in and tell them that they are wrong and must adhere to any majority. In other words, religion is something between man and god, and as such there is no right or wrong in the eyes of the law.
However, I do not see any reference to the government not recognizing or acknowledging religion - so long as they do not proclaim one to be “right” or “superior to” any other religion. In an 1808 letter to the Virginia Baptists, Jefferson touched on this again:
“We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”
Again, there is no proclamation that religion is to be specifically excluded from government. In fact, as I read this statement, one thing sticks out in my mind:
“…we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion…”
To me, this statement means that everybody is free to practice as they see fit, but again there is no reference to the denial of religion in government. In fact, Jefferson specifically states “openly” which would tell me that religion was not something that was intended to be denied or hidden from the public.
So where did the modern day interpretation of the separation of church and state come from? A judge’s opinion based on these letters from Thomas Jefferson. The entire basis for the argument of government recognizing religion as being unconstitutional was not based on the constitution itself. It was based on a judge defining rights from the court bench.
So where does this leave us today? it leaves us with the ACLU and a bunch of whining brats out there standing behind an opinion on what the Constitution could mean, but doesn’t necessarily reflect what the Constitution does mean.
An element of government professing any recognition or acceptance of religion - particularly when revolving around a holiday that is celebrated by the majority population through culture and belief - is not a violation of the constitution so much as it is a violation of somebody else’s opinion. How sick is that? For an entire nation to be held to a standard of being punished for professing “Merry Christmas” or putting out a nativity scene on public land is ludicrous at best. As long as the government doesn’t specifically state that they are endorsing a particular religion as better than or exclusive over another, there is no real constitutional violation.
So with that, I say just one thing: Merry Christmas, everybody!
johnnypeepers said,
December 20, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Kudos, a readable and concise history of the FE and E clauses. The concepts are easily manipulated by those who wish to deceive the ignorant to their advantage.
mpinkeyes said,
December 20, 2007 at 10:09 pm
And Merry Christmas to you also. I have been meaning to write a post about the fallacy that is the seperation of church and state, but you have done it much better than I could have.
It is stunning to me that a judge could use something other than the constitution to interpret the constitution. It is even more stunning, perhaps that isn’t the right word, disturbing to me that not many people realize that this term does not exist in the constitution. The schools are teaching this term as though it appears in the constitution, so it is not surprising that the younger generations grow up believing that the seperation of church and state appears in the constitution.
viciemonkey said,
December 21, 2007 at 4:53 am
And that many people do not know the difference between the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I am beginning to believe that ALL should be re-required to take an course on American history as adults. That way maybe people will appreciate all we continue to fight for and against. As always, great and CONCISE post. You are my hero.
W. E. Messamore said,
December 21, 2007 at 9:53 am
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying here, but I must challenge one premise… that rights are by nature undefinable. I think we have one essential (and clearly defined) right, and all other rights are simply its corollaries: the right to be free from coercive interference in your life. Your freedom of religion is your freedom to worship without the threat of foricible reprisal. Your freedom of speech is your freedom to speak without being forcibly stopped. Your right to property is your right to enjoy that which you have wrought from nature without someone forcibly destroying or taking it. This is our one right and freedom, and I believe that as long as a society earnestly seeks to implement policies in its government to protect this freedom, men will be free.
alaskanspawn said,
December 21, 2007 at 10:05 am
I have to say that the term “seperation of church and state” may also be interpreted as freedom of religion. It really is just a different way of saying it. I agree with you all though, in that it was taken too far and interpreted too broadly.
Keep in mind that the “church” should be seperate from the “state” but that in no way means that one should be persecuted for practicing one’s religion. I have to be honest, the “faith-based” politics being practiced today scares me. Religion, to me, is fickle and unpredictable due to the wholly different interpretations out there.
Again, go ahead and say Merry Christmas to whomever you want, hell, Jesus wasn’t even born on that day anyway so I don’t see how government can truly care or say what you cannot do when it comes to religious beliefs. It’s all about Xmas or Christmas as a time of celebration and family, as far as I’m concerned. As stated in some of my other posts, I am atheist and I love Christmas. Interestingly, I have a muslim co-worker that celebrates Christmas as well (tree and everything) go figure.
Rob said,
December 21, 2007 at 10:06 am
The reason so many in our country do not understand the Consitution and the Bill of Rights is due to our schools not teaching it. I bet most kids find our history boring. And with all the revisionist history being taught. Who wants to learn about a bunch of racist white men that had slaves. Until our history and our Country’s beginning are taught with all the passion that our Founders had, our Country will be lost to those that wish to destroy it and our rights with it.
micky2 said,
December 21, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I celebrate halloween, no fangs or horns last time I checked.
Angel said,
December 21, 2007 at 3:08 pm
The judges abuse their power immeasurably dont they!.Fa la la la la to u my friend!
Mark In Irvine said,
December 21, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Nobody is interfering with my free exercise of religion, thank you very much, and I don’t want one penny of my many tax dollars supporting anyone else’s religion, or even mine, for that matter. My faith and religion are a matters between me and God (just as is true with respect to your faith): no city, county, state, or government of any kind has any business supporting or suppressing ANY religion.
arclightzero said,
December 21, 2007 at 8:05 pm
isn’t that the truth? That we have somehow put so much weight in the opinion of a judge who took some letters written between Jefferson and various religious institutions regarding their right to practice freely in America and translated them to mean that any reference of religion in government was to be forbidden is absolutely amazing. it really shows the damage that can be done by a “bill of rights” which is exactly what was warned about in the Federalist papers
arclightzero said,
December 21, 2007 at 8:12 pm
That is true. However, it should end there. the more you try to define all of the various elements of this most basic right, the more diluted it becomes and more opportunities for “exceptions” arise. It is also difficult because the more specifically rights are defined, the harder it becomes to differentiate where one’s rights end and another’s begins - which is a blatant violation of the basic right that you speak of. The best example of that is the defining of “freedom of the press” because it doesn’t define where the press’ freedom end and somebody’s right to privacy begins.
It’s a very complicated web that simply grows more complicated as people struggle to define, clarify and interpret just what “rights” are.
arclightzero said,
December 21, 2007 at 8:18 pm
I concur whole-heartedly. politics and faith should never cross. However, faith and community often times go hand in hand, and as a [theoretical] majority-rule nation, there should be no room for protest if a city hall wants to display a Christmas decoration in the community. It doesn’t mean that they endorse the religion notion as any sort of “official” statement of local government, but it does mean that the local government is part of the general community. If the community where overwhelmingly Jewish and wanted to display a menorah, that would be equally as acceptable.
The problem with religion is that it is not objective - and as such makes for a very poor base in politics. For instance, the abortion argument should never be one based on religion or faith. While faith and abortion may be a personal issue, politicians should not invoke it in arguing for or against abortion. It’s simply not objective enough to be considered legitimate arguments when law is concerned.
arclightzero said,
December 21, 2007 at 8:21 pm
That’s really the heart of the issue, isn’t it? The schools are failing to teach our children what the founding fathers intended this country to be. Instead they are taught about global warming, 1960’s counter culture and the modern-day interpretation of what civil liberties are (a’la the ACLU’s definition of civil liberties which rarely coincide with anything a true civil libertarian would agree with.)
arclightzero said,
December 21, 2007 at 8:26 pm
No, but there is nothing wrong with them acknowledging a religion or holiday. As long as there is no support or suppression, government should have no constraint in sharing tradition with the community.
Alaskanspawn said,
December 21, 2007 at 9:26 pm
I’m curious what you mean by acknowledge? Why not just stay out of it…or is that what you mean…sort of? Seriously, I’m not being a jerk or anything, I’m just curious as to what you think government should acknowledge. Is it something as simple as decorating the government buildings with christmas type displays or is it something more meaningful?
arclightzero said,
December 22, 2007 at 8:58 am
Nothing necessarily meaningful. Just decorations (without sill strings attached) and an occasional “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Hanukkah” or whatever happens to be the season. I think that, as a government of the people, for the people, if a city hall wants to decorate for or celebrate a holiday that reflects the majority population of the area, they should be free to do so without having to suffer silly accusations of officially “supporting or suppressing” religion.
Mark In Irvine said,
December 22, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Nothing necessarily meaningful. Just decorations (without sill strings attached) and an occasional “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Hanukkah” or whatever happens to be the season. I think that, as a government of the people, for the people, if a city hall wants to decorate for or celebrate a holiday that reflects the majority population of the area, they should be free to do so without having to suffer silly accusations of officially “supporting or suppressing” religion.
So, people of minority religions can expect not to see any “acknowledgment” of their faiths on the City Hall lawn, but you think it OK for their tax money to be used to decorate C.H. with the acknowledgment of someone else’s faith? That sucks. The only way to honor and respect the First Amendment’s guarantee of no government meddling in religion is for it to STAY OUT OF THE AREA ALTOGETHER. Period.
You may not like it, but that’s the only way to give all Americans the same protection. It was religious minorities who came to found the US, and if you “bless” the tyranny of the religious majorities over the minorities, you’re inviting big problems. We need to be content to have our own personal relationships with God and not insist on rubbing everyone else’s faces in our faiths if we want this country to survive the fact that American freedom and opportunity are attracting people from all over the world to our shores.
Holly said,
December 23, 2007 at 10:52 am
“In turn, we now must contend with a nation where children are not allowed to pray in school, symbols are banned and any recognition of a religious holiday or event is taken to mean an official endorsement and stomped out in the name of the Constitution.”
Unless your muslim-then we’ll install foot baths and build you your own prayer room!!
arclightzero said,
December 23, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Alaskanspawn said,
December 23, 2007 at 11:13 pm
I find myself in the middle here, both sides have decent arguments.
On the one hand I like Christmas decorations wherever and whomever puts them up. I think it puts people in a good mood, regardless of religious background (however, nativity scenes are ugly lol). On the other hand, if we allow government (since that seems to be the root of the argument) to put up, even psuedo, religious decorations then doesn’t that open the door to other religions asking for prayer rooms and foot baths? I know it seems like a stretch but really that’s what the whole “politically correct” movement is all about, stretching/skewing the meaning of whatever the hot topic is…right?
It seems to be a vicious circle. So, I’m not really providing answers but my hope is to ask the right question to lead to the right answer.
Happy…err Merry…err, well let’s just leave it at that since that’s really the point right? Let’s all be Happy and Merry!
micky2 said,
December 24, 2007 at 9:39 am
I hung some big huge red balls on my Christmas tree yesterday.
That made it a BUSH!
Peace and love everyone. And have a Merry Christmas !
arclightzero said,
December 24, 2007 at 11:21 am
Well, I look at it this way: Government should reflect the community. If a community predominantly celebrates Christmas, then putting out a Christmas tree, a Nativity scene or a big lighted sign that says “Merry Christmas” should be acceptable because it shows that the government is in tune with the community and can show holiday spirit with the people.
Again, though, not with tax money. If people want to donate time and decorations to decorate a public space and share their joy with the entire community, then so be it.
If somebody is offended by this and wants to complain, let them. As I have said many times, this nation was built on a premise of being free from government tyranny and excessive control. In all actuality, the very premise of this nation ensures people’s right to offend and be offended - not the other way around. Exerting government control in ensuring people aren’t offended and criminalizing offensive behavior is quite unconstitutional, yet the disturbing trend of misinterpreting the constitution to support this bizarre politically correct society has flipped the whole thing on its head.
As for the schools putting in foot baths or prayer rooms… I take no issue with it so long as its not done with public money and so long as they uphold the first amendment and treat all religions in equal light. Government should not provide, fund or otherwise directly support religion - but they are there to ensure that it can exist. As such, saying yes to foot baths and no to Christmas decorations is wrong. Saying no to foot baths and yes to Christmas decorations is wrong. Saying no to everything is oppressive, so you allow those things that the community wants.
Either way, it’s all about tradition anyway. Celebrating Christmas in America is something that we have done and is part of our heritage. In communities where it is not or the demographics have changed, then they can celebrate whatever they want. If a Jewish community wants to display a menorah, it’s all good. If an Asian community wants to display… Whatever it is they display, then great! If a Christian community wants to display a Nativity scene, outstanding! It all is part of a greater thing. Regardless of belief, it’s a time of happiness and enjoying the season. I would rather have a plethora of different festivities and decorations in different communities than a stark, barren “secular” landscape that is governed by the desire to not offend anybody.
People just need to stop bitching and just enjoy the season for what it is. Spend time with the families. Go out and look at the lights and decorations. A for Pete’s sake, grow some thicker skin and accept that you might see something that you don’t agree with without losing your mind and thinking that you have the right not to see it.
alaskancamel said,
December 28, 2007 at 12:14 pm
I think we have one essential (and clearly defined) right, and all other rights are simply its corollaries: the right to be free from coercive interference in your life.
I agree with the statement in theory, but our government for the last 100 years or more has eroded away that simple right. Just try not to pay your property taxes and see how free from coercive interference you are.