To the editor:
Atop conservative voters’ desires are the return of judicial decisions based on the U.S. Constitution. Former U.S. Supreme Court Judge Anton Scalia once stated, “democracy does not work unless the courts stick to the original meaning of the words found in the Constitution.” His response was to counter the arguments that many have made that the Constitution was to be a “living document.”
In that context, I wish to take Scalia’s position when discussing one of the Constitution’s most debated articles, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” The 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.
Prior to the Revolution and the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, most of the Colonies had “state religions” which amongst other things, imprisoned, fined or taxed individuals that did not practice the religion set forth. Some clergy were mobbed, beaten and driven from their pulpits. In 1786, Virginia passed the first Establishment Clause, to end the practice of “state religions.” The following year, the Establishment Clause was included in the ratified U.S. Constitution.
If we are to follow Justice Scalia’s plea to “stick to the original meaning of the words found in the Constitution,” we must understand how our forefathers came to these conclusions. They had first hand experiences dealing with the Church of England and their own experiments in having “state religions.” These experiences were not positive to say the least. It was evident to them that our democracy could not thrive with state sanctioned religions. Their experiences showed them individuals should be free to make their own decision with regards to religion and as a government, is was best to protect the religious practices of all religions, and those who chose not to have a religious affiliation, on an equal basis.
A further point of emphasis, nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does our forefathers state a majority religion has extra protections or have power over individuals who are of a different religion or those who do not practice religion.
I pause before going further. My intent is not to throw any one religion under the bus. I merely wish to point out how our government has deviated from our Founding Father’s intent regarding the Establishment Clause. Our government, if it is going to follow the “original meaning of the words,” must treat all religions the same.
The Founding Fathers would see that Blue Laws (regardless of the day of rest for the working man deflection, which could have been accomplished on any day) that were enacted were not in the spirit of the Establishment Clause, as only one religion has its Sabbath on Sundays. It would also have issue with Blue Laws as it punishes non-religious citizens, which the Establish Clause protects as well.
What guidance would the Founding Fathers have for our local governmental leaders? First and foremost, as individuals, you have the right to select a religion of your own choosing. You also have the right not to have a religion. But as an elected official, they would charge you with defending and supporting all religions equally. A county commissioner who permits religious symbols of one religion on the courthouse square must permit other religion’s symbols as well. If you are a mayor, if an event is held in your name or the city’s to “pray for the well-being” of your city, you need to invite all the religions of your citizens, not just one religion. If we permit opening prayers at public events, we must allow prayers from all religions. And when we make those decisions, we must make them honestly and “stick to the original meaning of the words found in the Constitution.” A Christmas tree is a secular symbol, a manger is a religious symbol.
A few weeks ago, the following Daily Journal article was published:
“At a time when the country seems more divided than ever, local religious leaders are hoping to unite the community in faith. People are invited to gather for the National Day of Prayer… Local pastors will read scripture and lead prayers for Franklin, the county and the entire country, all centered around the theme of “Love One Another.”
I think it is wonderful that we have people wanting to pray for our country; however, I think we need to address the “elephant in the room.” Of all the things dividing our country right now, Religion is near the top of the list. If we really want to address the lack of unity, bringing the different religions together would have better achieved the goal of “Love One Another.”
I close by saying I do not care what your religion is, or even if you do not have a religion. Paraphrasing a quote from the movie “Dogma,” whatever your religion, do not treat it as a burden, treat your faith as a joy.
Jay Goad
Franklin
