Theocracy in action:
Pat Boone's Timely Boon for Free Exercise of Religion Supporters
By Michael J. Gaynor
MichNews.com
Nov 8, 2005
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_10223.shtml
[excerpt]
In 1947, in Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court
eagerly, but erroneously, embraced secular extremism. Its majority opinion
stated:
"This Court has previously recognized that the provisions of the First
Amendment, in the drafting and adoption of which Madison and Jefferson
played such leading roles, had the same objective and were intended to
provide the same protection against governmental intrusion on religious
liberty as the Virginia statute. Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth
Amendment, the First Amendment did not apply as a restraint against the
states. Most of them did soon provide similar constitutional protections
for religious liberty. But some states persisted for about half a century
in imposing restraints upon the free exercise of religion and in
discriminating against particular religious groups. In recent years, so far
as the provision against the establishment of a religion is concerned, the
question has most frequently arisen in connection with proposed state aid
to church schools and efforts to carry on religious teachings in the public
schools in accordance with the tenets of a particular sect. Some churches
have either sought or accepted state financial support for their schools.
Here again the efforts to obtain state aid or acceptance of it have not
been limited to any one particular faith. The state courts, in the main,
have remained faithful to the language of their own constitutional
provisions designed to protect religious freedom and to separate religions
and governments. Their decisions, however, show the difficulty in drawing
the line between tax legislation which provides funds for the welfare of
the general public and that which is designed to support institutions which
teach religion.
"The meaning and scope of the First Amendment, preventing establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in the light of its
history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress, have been
several times elaborated by the decisions of this Court prior to the
application of the First Amendment to the states by the Fourteenth. The
broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted
by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's religious freedom
rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the
prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious
freedom. There is every reason to give the same application and broad
interpretation to the 'establishment of religion' clause. 'The structure
of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the
temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it
has secured religious liberty from the invasion of the civil authority.'
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer
one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go
to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a
belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for
entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church
attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be
levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they
may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice
religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or
secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or
groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against
establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of
separation between church and State.'"
In ruling that government must be neutral as between religion and
irreligion and neither federal nor state governments "can pass laws which
aid...all religions," the Supreme Court disregarded America's history and
misconstrued the Constitution at the urging of the secular extremist
minority and the expense of the overwhelming religious majority.
In doing so, it presumptuously substituted its personal view for the views
of those who had founded the United States, written and ratified the
Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, and adopted the First
Amendment and grossly miscued a much-quoted letter in which Thomas
Jefferson had described the First Amendment as "building a wall of
separation between church and state."
The First Amendment did not create a wall between church and state. It
prohibited Congress from making a law "respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The kind of separation that was intended is suggested by Pierre L'Enfant's
plan for a national cathedral. In 1791, Congress selected the site to be
the capital of the United States. George Washington, previously President
of the Constitutional Convention and later President of the United States,
then commissioned L'Enfant to design an overall plan for the future seat of
government. That plan included a church "intended for national purposes,
such as public prayer, thanksgiving, funeral orations, etc., and assigned
to the special use of no particular Sect of denomination, but equally open
to all." The Founders and Framers favored governmental neutrality among
denominations, but they never expected government to be barred from
supporting religion generally to please a tiny Godless minority.
In a footnote to his irrefutable dissent in the infamous Kentucky Ten
Commandments case, decided earlier this year, Justice Antonin Scalia not
only lamented the insidious effect of Everson, but its utter speciousness:
"The fountainhead of this jurisprudence, Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing,
based its dictum that '[n]either a state nor the Federal Government . . .
can pass laws which . . . aid all religions,' 330 U.S., at 15, on a review
of historical evidence that focused on the debate leading up to the passage
of the Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty, see id., at 11 ? 13. A
prominent commentator of the time remarked (after a thorough review of the
evidence himself) that it appeared the Court had been 'sold . . . a bill of
goods.' Corwin, The Supreme Court as National School Board, 14 Law &
Contempt. Prob. 3, 16 (1949)."
A bill of bogus goods that the Court has been passing off as legitimate
ever since. Like the emperor in the children's story who insisted he was
magnificently dressed, but actually was naked.
Pat Boone is a descendent of the legendary pioneer Daniel Boone. A
top-selling recording artist, the star of his own hit TV series, a movie
star, a Broadway headliner, and a best-selling author in a career that has
spanned half a century, he sold more records than any artist except Elvis
Presley during the classic rock & roll era of the 1950s.
[end excerpt]
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
