Dear Editor:
Paul Greenberg's March 15, 2003, column, ("Church, state and the Pledge") provides example of "confusion galore." He misstates the Constitution by writing there is no more "confusing area of constitutional law than church and state." The words "church and state" are not in the Constitution.
The issue is about violation of the First Amendment: Congress shall make "no law" respecting an establishment of religion. In 1954, Congress passed Public Law 396 which established "God" in the Pledge. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Congress has no authority to make such a law. It is simple, except for those confused revisionists who assert "religion" does not include "God."
Greenberg (like Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas) rewrites the Constitution in order to make his argument. He ignores the wording as written and changes the First Amendment word "religion" to "a government church." If that were the case, the word "thereof" in the Free Exercise Clause would have to grammatically be understood as relating to the "free exercise" of a government church.
Greenberg distorts the issue with claims of attempts to outlaw "religion in public life." Religion freely flourishes in America. The intent of the Constitution's religion clauses is to prohibit government from making religion laws: "no religious test" (Art. 6., Sec. 3.) and "no law" (First Amendment) even respecting an establishment of religion. The constitutional principle of separation recognizes government as the essence of coercion and guarantees voluntarism in matters of religion.
As James Madison wrote, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States" (William and Mary Quarterly, 3:555).
As the great Baptist preacher John Leland wrote in 1791, "The federal constitution ... forbids Congress ever to establish any kind of religion." (Writings of John Leland, 191).
Gene Garman
Copyright 2003 Gene Garman