This is the basis of the most misused and misquoted passage in any federal document in existence. This passage is one that is used more now as a shield to push and accomplish goals and ideals: The First Amendment. Out of all the amendments to the constitution this is the one more fought over and used as a tool. So why is this? What is the actual meaning of the 1st amendment? Why is now more important than ever to make sure that this egregious error be corrected? Hopefully by telling you what I believe to be true, it will make you think.
Part 1:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Amendment number 1. The first. The opening statement. The first pitch. Anytime you have something in the beginning whether its a song, a book, a movie, or in this case a federal document, the first thing that someone sees or hears is the clincher. The attention grabber. The thing that draws people in and compels them to continue reading. When the 1st amendment was ratified and attached to the Constitution in 1791 this was the first amendment they put on it. We know by studying history that what the 1st amendment is hitting at is the core of the values upon which this country was formed. The early colonists and residents of Jamestown wanted to be free from the rule of Great Britain and the church of England. So flash forward to 2009 it is only fitting that with so many more mainstream religions in the world today that the 1st be the most crucial amendment.
But it seems to be getting more difficult to freely exercise one's religion now. Schools can't mention Jesus, school choirs can't even use Christmas songs in them that mention Jesus or God, which narrows it down to everything ever used on those stop motion animation Christmas special from the 60's and 70's. It's even offensive to some people to use the phrase Merry Christmas due to the first 6 letter of the second word. Never mind the fact that: a.) if you are saying this from a religious perspective that you are wishing someone good tidings and cheer in this season that celebrates the birth of our lord and savior whether they are of a christian faith or not. b.) If you are saying this from a non-religious perspective that you are simply wishing that they have a Merry (as in happy or joyous) Christmas (the time of year from Thanksgiving to New Years). So never mind you are doing something positive unto your fellow man and the planet, you are being evil for cramming religion down someone's throat by uttering mere words. You didn't force a bible in their hand, you didn't kidnap them and throw them into bible school, nor did you barricade them inside a church...... you did something far worse! YOU LOVED YOUR FELLOW MAN!!! (please not tones of sarcasm in the previous sentences)
One of the other common examples of the alleged existence of separation of Church and state is the pledge of allegiance. While I was growing up I simply said the damn thing. I never felt like I was under the gun or forced to do so even when it came down to the “under God” part. But now I can't say that because little Ricky is having Christianity rammed down his throat because of a word. I don't understand how this is a problem. There aren't armed guards going down the aisles making sure every kid says those words. There is nothing stopping a child from simply mumbling random noises instead of the words when they get to that part. Or even they could simply pause while the other kids say those words. I also even wonder if the term God can't simply have the meaning changed to whatever God, person, or deity you worship. You can say under Allah. Under Mohammed. Under Selene. WHATEVER. Or maybe the terms God means whatever God you worship. The point is that there is no one forcing you or today's children to say them. If there is then that person should be fired.
Why do we care so much about what the other person does? I mean as long as they are not holding you by gunpoint to do what they are doing, who cares? I think this whole culture of supressing anything that is different especially if its christian is ridiculous. Which brings me to Part Two.....
“Or prohibiting the free exercise there of”
This will be a very short part. This is the part of the amendment that so many PC-oriented people seem to forget. This means that if George Bush or Barack “Fly Assassin” Obama wish to end a speech with the phrase “God Bless America,” then they have a constitutionally protected right to do so.
In an episode of the wonderful show “The West Wing” entitled “Red Mass” The president's aid, Charlie is helping out a young man, Anthony, in a Big Brother sort of way. Charlie remarks about Red Mass and explains that it is a special service that is held the Sunday before the First Monday in October in which the Supreme Court Convenes. Its is attended by the Supreme Court itself the Cabinet, members of Congress, and the President. Anthony calls in to question the service and how it might violate church and state.
Charlie later asks this of the President, played by the brilliant Martin Sheen, who responds: “And so how isn't it a Constitutional issue? It is, but sometimes you say, "Big deal." It was the intention not to have a national religion, not to have anyone's religious views imposed on anyone else, and not to have the government encourage a national display of piety as a substitute for real action.”
What he is saying, at least to me, is that it's OK for Red Mass because even the President, Supreme Justices, and Cabinet members are human beings. So for one group to say that it's not right for them to do this and infringe on their right to freely exercise their religion is not what the framers had in mind.
To be quite frank: The words “Separation of Church and State” do NOT appear in any federal document. I think people are wound too tightly and should simply live by the principle a wise old ethics teacher once taught me: Be nice. It doesn't matter what God someone worships. It doesn't matter to what flag they pledge allegiance. It doesn't matter if they are christian, Nudist, Mormon, Atheist, Wiccan, or Methodist. As long as the person is not imposing their views on you or is forcing you to watch or participate: Why do you care? If people would let people be in peace, I think the world would be a lot better off. Unfortunately a lot of us have the opinion that we have a right to know what people are doing in their own lives. But I wonder how they would feel if the microscope was on them for awhile?
