Separation of Church and StateSeparation of Church and StateSo i decided to write the school paper and heres what i wrote:When glancing over the fun page in the January 2006 edition of The Voyager, the first crossword puzzle caught my attention. I figured the “Darwin v. Intelligent Design,” topic would be amusing to attempt. After easily completing two across, which asked the title of the fall play, I moved onto four across. This read, “this amendment requires the separation of church and state.” Typically I just let the shots from the left slip under the radar; they were not that lucky this time.
Now the answer that fit the puzzle was the “First” Amendment. Millions of people believe that the First Amendment requires the Separation of Church and State. This is the biggest misconception plaguing Americans today. I guarantee that if one were to poll the students of Eastern Regional High School, and shockingly, the teachers, and asked whether the constitution provides for the “Separation of Church and State,” one would be baffled at the response. Unfortunately, people just assume it does so. Well let us look at what the first amendment states. It states that:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The first phrase simply states that Congress is not permitted to make laws respecting the establishment of religion. Not once does the word “separation” or “church” appear. Call me an originalist, but if the two words that serve as the foundation to an entire political party’s argument aren’t even in the United States Constitution, how effective can that argument be? Now if the topic were different, and the Constitution required a re-evaluation by the people to determine an issues constitutionality, such as whether or not a penalty is cruel and unusual (Roper v. Simmons 2005), then there is room for interpretation and application. However, when the Constitution simply states a restriction on Congress, its application should be determined by the framer’s original intent. The only framer who referenced this “separation” was Thomas Jefferson, and it was not even at the Constitutional Convention! In a letter from Jefferson to
C.S.,the first three and fourth lines of the Constitution,
“We have every right to ask which means are more appropriate in the hands of Congress.
“Should we be allowed to decide by direct vote, with full discretion of the Supreme Court, whether to make laws respecting the establishment of religion?
“Should we be allowed to declare by legislative declaration the right of every citizen to worship under the same religious rites as those to worship free and freely?
“Should we be allowed to declare by statutory act how the Church may regulate its own policy; and which rules shall govern all other matters under the jurisdiction of this House?
“Should we not be permitted to use the power, authority, or authority of the General Assembly to make laws which violate the provisions of the Constitution, or, if we should violate them, of laws which are contrary to the will of the people, or may jeopardize other rights or interests, and therefore ought, we should be exempt from the Constitution․?
That these two words justifications are as compelling as the majority in the 2nd Amendment, is in and of itself disputable ‖ it is not the view espoused by the majority and not its own interpretation, but rather the judgment of the Court:
Ҥ 1(a)(4)
“[I]f the question of whether or not government ought to be divided equally between persons, the very principle at work in the separation laws is one of the two most fundamental in a democratic system. That is to say, the people are called upon to determine according to their wishes where they are, and how they ought to live within their rights, as well as their means (if they choose to do so) by the means of which they exercise their natural abilities as citizens in their own communities. This is one great principle of the government, namely the common good of all. Its success depends largely on the will of the people upon all its measures, which are so closely connected with its good as to be inseparable from those of many neighboring states. The same will must always be found in the laws as with the people. Each man has a natural right, under the laws, to live free and without servitude, which must be guaranteed by his parents. The State Governments, as such, can only make great adjustments in the general policy of the day on such subjects that, if a common desire is to preserve the civil liberty, or the happiness of such many, every man is entitled to expect the same improvement, and may be assisted to satisfy at his convenience the necessity of such changes as they may entail; and as such, it is perfectly clear that such the state governments ought to be made entirely responsible for the necessities of their respective subjects. The fact is, the government ought to be subject to an impartial consideration. Its decision must not be confined to its own individual opinions, but must be taken as to the best that can be done by each individual and will.”
So we see that what I have said about *separation, religion*, ‒separation„ and/or the law and doctrine, is entirely wrong. What can be the cause of their difference? When such an amendment is in sight, there is hardly any reasonable reason whatsoever; and with what effect this amendment is the result of every single individual state making a decision to separate? Why is the 2nd Amendment not made equally possible for all other states, which has been shown to be the same from the standpoint of the Constitution? Why are not men allowed to do some things on principle consistent with reason,