Separation of Church and State
1
Read the 1st Amendment...read it carefully. Note the word CONGRESS! There is nothing "implied" there- it says what it means and means what it says. There is no such thing as a "separation clause".
Update: The legitimatacy of judicial review is an issue which has been hotly contested since the time leading up to our constitutional convention, a debate that led to Marbury v. Madison. While the debate continues in certain circles and on certain occasions, the USSC continues to exercise this power. There is nothing- no language whatsoever- in the US Constitution which gives the Supreme Court this power. That is a fact; but to leave it there would be to ignore a lot of history, the writings of our founding fathers, the Federalist Papers, etc. Close study of these illustrates the point that a certain (limited) power of judicial review was intended to be bestowed upon the high court. Similarly, to correctly "interpret" the 1st Amendment it has unfortunately become necessary to look beyond the simple language therein pertaining to government and religion in this country.
Among the founding fathers, no one is more often cited in this debate than Thomas Jefferson. Like the Amendment itself, Jefferson's writings make it clear that his concern was the prevention of government interference with religion. Unlike many people today, Jefferson knew the history of the formation of his nation, that people fled Europe and England pursuing the freedom to worship as they might choose. In his writings, Jefferson goes to great lengths to point out that this also includes the right not to worship at all. In short, the cause championed by Jefferson and the rest of our founding fathers was one of freedom from a state church, like the Church of England. That is iterated, very simply, in the opening text of the 1st Amendment.
The problem faced today is one of perversion by groups like the ACLU and certain judicial activists. Hamilton wrote, in the Federalist Papers, that the Supreme Court was to serve as an intermediary body- between the people and their elected representatives. It was never intended that the courts should or would actually make law; yet that is what we have seen, particularly in the last 30 to 40 years. Further, there is nothing in the body of the Constitution, the writings of Hamilton, Jefferson, or any other of our founders, that says or is indicative of a "separation clause" as it is speciously referred to today. If a group of people in Bumblefuzz, Mississippi want to put a nativity scene up in the local post office, that is NOT government establishing a religion. The presence of a statue of Jesus erected by some WW1 veterans in western California by a desert road- land now called "federal"...this is not government establishing a religion. Hence, all of this garbage, from "no crosses on federal land" to no "Christmas trees" at Macy's is, again, a gross perversion of the 1st Amendment. We all favor religious freedom. Only a certain agenda-driven minority favor a Supreme Court -led attack on Christianity in the US.
Update 2: "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle"...George Washington, from his farewell address.
Check the quotes I have posted in the comments section. Washington did in fact profess his Christianity publicly. This debate cuts to the core of the US Constitution, and there is a reason that the first amendment is FIRST. The attempt to call our founding fathers atheists, agnostics, Deists, etc., is an exercise in futility, and I have proven it. Our founding fathers wanted no established state religion. They wanted no government interference with the free excercise thereof (AS THEY WROTE).
