Dear Editor:
In America religion is to be voluntary. Government is the essence of coercion. Religion should not be imposed upon Americans by government, at any level--national, state, county, city, or school district.
The intent of the Founding Fathers is misrepresented by arguments which change and distort the Founder's words. Words mean things. The Constitution uses words to express legal principles through specific prohibition of certain legislation and through specific guarantees of certain freedoms. Fundamental objections to religion laws and to religion anarchy are easily summarized:
1. America was founded upon the principles of the 1788 Constitution, as expressed by the Founding Fathers, and its words, for example, do not include "God."
2. The 1791 First Amendment, written by the First Congress, does not guarantee unlimited "free exercise" of religion, as polygamists learned in 1879 (Reynolds v. U.S.).
The religion commandments of the "supreme law of the land" clearly state the principles: (1) "no religious test shall ever be required," (2) "make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and (3) make no law "prohibiting" (which means totally) "the free exercise thereof."
What part of "no" is difficult to understand? What part of "religion" is difficult to understand? What part of "prohibiting" is difficult to understand? A religion test shall not be required, a religion law shall not be made, and the free exercise of religion shall not be prohibited, which means totally. The Constitution makes a clear distinction in respect to religion actions: "prohibiting" totally applies to the "exercise" of religion, while "abridging," which means reducing, applies to speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition.
From our nationšs beginning there have been attempts to ignore the words of the Constitution's religion commandments. James Madison ("Father of the Constitution") wrote: "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" ("Detached Memoranda," William and Mary Quarterly, 3:555).
On February 21 and 28, 1811, President Madison vetoed, as unconstitutional violations of the Establishment Clause, two laws passed by Congress because (1) "the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions" and (2) "the bill ... comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies" (Writings, 8:132-133).
Religion tests and religion laws are unconstitutional, and the free exercise clause is not a license for anarchy. In other words, (1) Public Law 396 (the 1954 "under God" law) and California Educational Code #52720 (the California law at issue) are unconstitutional because they are laws which establish "religion," and (2) all actions, even in the name of religion, must conform to the laws of the land, including, for example, public school dress codes.
Gene Garman
Pittsburg, KS
Copyright 2003 Gene Garman