10 thoughts on “Ideology vs Faith – The War on Christmas”

1. Well, this sucks, but….there’s absolutely nothing stopping the Christ believing members of this town from placing lighted crosses on their own property, and mean, HIGHLY lighted, enough so that the Chinese can find it from space…let’s see these assholes sue everyone in a town without going broke!
   I put one up every year and have yet to hear a peep, but this IS Carroll County, Ohio, small but VERY conservative…I do get a lot of drive by beeps, though, and that’s kinda cool!

2. 1. By focusing solely on the First Amendment, you overlook the other aspects of the Constitution that separate government and religion. Indeed, Madison regarded the original Constitution to effectively separate government and religion and, for that reason, thought an amendment to confirm that principle was unnecessary. He later proposed such an amendment as part of a Bill of Rights simply to accommodate others who agreed to ratify the Constitution only if a Bill of Rights was added to provide confirmation and clarification.

   2. You make much of the First Amendment’s reference to “Congress.” By your literal reading, are we to suppose the President could, by proclamation, establish a national religion or prohibit the free exercise of one or more religions? Nonsense. First, Congress itself cannot make any law whatsoever without the approval of the President, except in the instance of overriding a President’s veto, so to read the language as simplistically and literally as you suggest would actually do violence to the intent of the Amendment. As laws in the ordinary course are “made” by actions by both Congress and the Executive, the establishment clause is reasonably understood to constrain both branches of government. By the literal reading you suggest, it would, I suppose, only stop Congress from overriding a veto to make a law establishing a religion–a manifestly silly result. If the clause were interpreted to leave the Executive free, by proclamation or some such, to establish a religion, what really would be the point of the clause? No, such an interpretation would enable the Executive to eviscerate the purpose of the clause.

   3. While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from “establishing” a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.

   4. You assert that no government at any level has ever established a religion. Simply not so. When the Constitution was ratified, nearly all states had established religions. It is instructive to recall that the Constitution’s separation of church and state reflected, at the federal level, a “disestablishment” political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the 1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term “antidisestablishmentarianism,” which amused some of us as kids.) It is worth noting, as well, that this disestablishment movement largely coincided with another movement, the Great Awakening. The people of the time saw separation of church and state as a boon, not a burden, to religion.

   This sentiment was recorded by a famous observer of the American experiment: “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).

   While the First Amendment limited only the federal government, the Constitution was later amended to protect from infringement by states and their political subdivisions the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process, and equal protection of the laws. The courts naturally have looked to the Bill of Rights for the important rights thus protected by the 14th Amendment and have ruled that it effectively extends the First Amendment’s guarantees vis a vis the federal government to the states. While the founders drafted the First Amendment to constrain the federal government, they certainly understood that later amendments could extend the Bill of Rights’ constraints to state governments.

   5. Finally, it is telling that no court in the history of our nation has ever held that the First Amendment means as little as you propose.

3. Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.

   That the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered a smoking gun solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

   To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

   It is important to distinguish between the “public square” and “government” and between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., city officials deciding how to decorate the city’s water tower), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.

   The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.

   • Doug,

     I included, in the article, the EXACT wording from the Constitution regarding religion.

     You will note that it says “CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion” and indeed, CONGRESS has NOT made ANY law establishing ANY religion…Have they???

     Note too the the word is, “ESTABLISH” it is NOT…”ENDORSE” and as the founders were well aware of the difference between the two words, one must believe had they MEANT ‘Endorse” they would have USED “endorse.”

     The Constitution ALSO says that congress is not to prohibit the free exercise OF religion.

     Now…IF you care to substitute GOVERNMENT for CONGRESS and say that by the word “Congress” our founders meant “Government” well…NO government at ANY level…local, state OR federal has EVER made a law to “ESTABLISH” any religion HOWEVER…Governments ARE striking the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF…aren’t they?

4. I’ll second that motion, Scott!

5. First, I think we need to stop with those so-called “unnammed” complaints. The towns have a right to face the accuser. I’ll bet you that most of these “unnammed sources” are not even from the town.

   Second, I’d like to see these small town not comply with the lawsuit. Just ignore it. Make the freedom from religion folks come down, and get the photo of the national guard being used to take the Christmas decoration down. Maybe then that will finally wake people up.

6. Eh, the atheists have their own holiday…April Fools Day….as the scripture says, “Only a fool says there is no God”!

7. I’m in Prescott, AZ right now. I hope they still have their Christmas parade and celebrations!

8. And of course then there is Chris Rock saying that Obama is his lord and Saviour, and the depiction of Barack on the cross with a crown of thorns. God is not mocked. Christians need to fight back in a clever way, and I have an idea that will drive the godless CRAZY:)

9. Why listen or even give the atheist two minutes of publicity. If they don`t like Christmas or Easter, tell them to take a shortcut to hell. There are more Christian people in America than atheist, put up your Christmas display and tell them to take a hike. I guess there is really nothing wrong by calling it a Holiday tree, IF you don`t try to take Christ out of CHRISTmas

Comments are closed.