Cross on Public Property ~ Dugger, Indiana Facing Legal Action

Stories like this both sadden and anger me.  It is another supposed violation of the separation of church and state.  It is stories like this that inspired me to start my First Amendment series, which currently is on hold.  This story is a great example of how far we as a country have strayed from the original meaning of the First Amendment. 

The article basically states that Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have sent a letter to Dugger, Indiana, population 915 as of 2011, threatening legal action and informing that the twenty-six foot tall cross located there in Dugger on public property is a violation of the Establishment Clause.  In case you're not familiar, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  The cross was built by a private citizen at his own expense, and the town council approved the cross's current location.  The council does not believe they can afford, much less win, a lawsuit.  And because of that, there was much debate over what to do.  The council has now decided to sell the property so that the cross can remain in its current position.

I applaud them for not taking the cross down.  But they shouldn't have to sell the property to avoid a lawsuit.  No violation to the Constitution has been committed.  If this was a situation where the citizens of Dugger wanted the cross removed from public property, I would understand.  The town council acts as representatives of the citizens and should act accordingly.  From what I can understand, though, the protest has not come from the citizens.  Does that mean there are no citizens in Dugger who want the cross down? Not necessarily.

I've made no attempt at hiding the fact that I am a Christian.  And just in case you're wondering, I would not have a different opinion if the issue was an atheist sign.  For example, if a private citizen built a sign that was "anti-christian" or "anti-religion" or even representing a different religion for that matter, and the town council approved the sign being displayed on public property, and the citizens had no problem with the sign, I wouldn't object.  An atheist's rights are protected by the First Amendment just as much as the Christian's or other religious person's rights are.  If I was travelling through a town that had a sign which was contrary to my beliefs, I wouldn't even go out of my way to turn my head to prevent myself from looking at it.  The sign wouldn't threaten me or my beliefs.  It wouldn't change my view, just as a cross probably won't change the view of an atheist.  And the same goes for symbols of other religions such as Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc.  If I saw a large Buddha located on public property, I wouldn't accuse the town of "establishing Buddhism."  The town would merely be using the Buddha as a representation to their religious beliefs.  And they would have that right.

This whole false concept of the separation of church and state infuriates me.  My biggest concern is that we as a people have come too far, that there's no going back to the original meaning of the First Amendment.  And before I start ranting, I better end this post.  But let me end with this:

One person's rights cannot be granted by taking away another's.

2.1 Beginning of a Nation

Introduction
1. The First Amendment

In last week's post, I stated that the early settler's believed in God.  So let's take a moment to go back a bit further in time in order to review evidence for that statement.  In Christian Life and Character of Civil Institutions of the United States, Benjamin Franklin Morris declared, "We have a noble nation, full of the evidences of the moulding presence of Christian truth, and of the power and goodness of Divine wisdom is rearing up a Christian republic for all time." (See preface).  In that same book, Morris offers the following:

~In New Jersey, the people were determined to carry on Godly government. (pg. 90)
~In Delaware, the Christian colonization began in 1638 after a royal member of a Sweden family decided to "aid in the Christian settlement of the New World." (pg. 91, 92)
~Virginia began in 1607 after King James granted territories and acknowledged that the work performed there would be aided by the propagation of the Christian religion. (pg. 92)
~Maryland was settled in 1632 by Lord Baltimore who hoped to further the Catholic religion.  Lord Baltimore was granted a charter because of his "...laudable zeal for extending the Christian religion...."  Additionally, when Lord Baltimore's brother, Leonard Calvert, arrived in Maryland, he erected a cross and took possession for "our Lord Jesus Christ...." (pg. 94, 95)
~South Carolina's beginnings were due to the Christian religion. (pg. 96)
~In North Carolina, the settlers were of various Christian sects who were seeking refuge from Virginia's strict Catholic laws. (pg. 98)
~Georgia received its beginning in 1732 when James Ogelthorpe landed with several emigrants to further his Christian motives. (pg. 101)

Morris goes on to say that in Massachusetts and Connecticut, all free people and civil rulers had to be in communion with the church so they could promote the Christian church. (pg. 106)

Several state charters confirmed the settler's desire to uphold the Christian religion.  For example, the Virginia charter stated that the people came to America to bring the “Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God.” 

And:

Connecticut's charter states, "...whereby Our said People Inhabitants there, may be so religiously, peaceably and civilly governed, as their good Life and orderly Conversation may win and invite the Natives of the Country to the Knowledge and Obedience of the only true GOD, and He Saviour of Mankind, and the Christian Faith, which in Our Royal Intentions, and the adventurers free Possession, is the only and principal End of this Plantation;"

Delaware's charter states, "BECAUSE no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship: And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits; and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare..."

Georgia's charter states, "...we do by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, grant, establish and ordain, that forever hereafter, there shall be a liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God, to all persons inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within our said provinces..."

Maryland's charter states, "Whereas our well beloved and right trusty Subject Caecilius Calvert...being animated with a laudable, and pious Zeal for extending the Christian Religion..."

Copies of the original thirteen charters can be found here at the Yale Law School website. 

Interestingly enough, the majority of charters that mention religion declare that Christian people will not be prejudiced against.  This suggests that the people were concerned that the government would treat them in a negative manner based on their religion.  By the time America later declared independence from Great Britain, religious views hadn't changed.  The Declaration of Independence was signed by fifty-six men on July 4^th, 1776.  When those men placed their signatures on this document, they agreed “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  Although Patrick Henry was not one of the signers of the Declaration, he is considered a Founding Father.  He announced, “There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations…” See here for that quote along with several others he made regarding religion.  Also, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, queried, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?” 

Considering all this information, is it any surprise that the citizens of the new nation wanted assurance that the government would not interfere with their religious beliefs and that their rights would not be violated? This is the reason the Founding Fathers included religion in the First Amendment.  The Establishment Clause and the Exercise Clause were only meant to prohibit any laws from being made that would violate the religious rights of the people.  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has used the First Amendment to do the opposite of what the Founding Fathers intended.

Next week, I will continue with the:

Beginning of a Nation

1. The First Amendment

Introduction

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” 

It seems the common belief today is that the First Amendment requires the separation of church and state.  This is inaccurate.  As the United States was being formed, the people believed in God, and they believed people had the right to worship God however they saw fit.  They certainly did not want any entity, whether king or a national government, demanding they practice a particular religion.  By the time the Constitution was written, several Christian sects had already sprung up throughout the states.  That being the case, it would make sense that the people wanted assurance that the newly formed government could not enforce a national religion. Thus, what today is referred to as the Establishment Clause was introduced into the First Amendment.  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”  Our government was set up so that only Congress could make laws.  And the wording of the Establishment Clause was meant to assure the people that Congress could not establish a national religion.  In other words, Congress cannot make a law requiring the people of the United States to participate in a particular religion.  Furthermore, the Exercise Clause which states “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” was meant to assure that Congress could not forbid United States citizens from practicing their religion.  Yet the Supreme Court has on numerous occasions declared certain religious practices as being unconstitutional.  On what grounds? The absurd idea of separation of church and state, which the Court believes is implied by the First Amendment.

Where did that idea come from?

When the Constitution was written, Thomas Jefferson was in France.  And when the Bill of Rights was introduced, he had not yet returned to the United States.  Later, in 1802, he wrote a letter to members of the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut as a response to a letter he had received from them.  In their letter, they had expressed concern that the wording in the First Amendment was not enough to keep Congress from making a law adverse to their religious doctrine.  Jefferson’s response was meant to assure the association that their fears were unfounded.  “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”  A copy of the letter can be found here.  Because of this letter, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to mean that the State, whether that be a state or its government buildings or its court or its funded schools, cannot and should not allow any religious practices within its structure.  So according to the Supreme Court, even though Jefferson was not part of the Constitutional Convention and did not take part in the Bill of Rights, his letter defined the First Amendment.   Interestingly, Jefferson believed that the national government had no power to make laws regarding religion.  However, he did believe that the states had the authority to do so.  In a letter written by Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Miller, Jefferson stated, "Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority."

The First Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights only to prevent the government from forming a national religion. Go here to review the statements made during the Congressional debates.  Elbridge Gerry said the First Amendment would read better if it was stated as, “No religious doctrine shall be established by law.”  James Madison suggested the First Amendment should be worded to read, “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.”  Indeed, after the First Amendment was written, Madison interpreted it to mean that Congress could not establish a national religion.  George Mason also believed that no sect of Christianity should be established in preference (pg. 244) of any other.  Furthermore, while speaking at the ratifying convention in North Carolina, Samuel Johnston expressed his belief that the Constitution would not allow the establishment of any one religion, and that there was no reason to fear such an event.**  However,  Peter Sylvester was afraid the First Amendment could be used to do away with religion altogether.  Considering the many decisions by the Supreme Court, it seems Sylvester’s fears were not unmerited.

**Can be verified by accessing ELLIOT'S DEBATES from the Library of Congress, Volume 4, pg. 198, 199. (Link won't work by copying and pasting)


Next Friday: 2. Beginning of a Nation

Introduction to my First Amendment series

Planning this series has been quite a task, but a necessary one.  The idea of "the separation of church and state" has been a hot button issue for me for a long time.  And the more I learn, the more irritated I become.  So irritated, in fact, that I feel the need to speak out.

As you follow along with me, please know this is not an attempt to shove religion down anybody's throat.  I still maintain that each person has a right to his/her beliefs.  Nobody should be forced into any religious practice.  However, I also believe nobody should be denied his right to his religion.  And that's where the problem is.  

The supposed demand for the "separation of church and state" is to blame.  That phrase is listed nowhere in the United States Constitution, and it is certainly not implied by the First Amendment.  Nevertheless, that phrase is tossed around as if it is absolute truth. 

When I consider the reasoning used by the Supreme Court in their decisions of cases involving religious matters, I wonder what our Founding Fathers would say.  However, more than two hundred years have passed since they wrote the Constitution, and the men responsible for this document that Americans consider to be the law of the land cannot defend their positions or their decisions.  Thankfully there are many documents we can look to, and we should look to them. 

This is the beginning of my First Amendment series.  Specifically, I will be discussing the the first portion of the amendment, which deals with religion.  My purpose in writing this is mainly to share the knowledge I have gained regarding the intent of our Founding Fathers when they framed the United States Constitution.  

Over the next several weeks, I will be sharing what I have learned about our nation’s history.  This series is meant to be educational, and I hope you will find it to be so.  Whenever possible, I will include links so you can verify the information I give.  If none are available, I will let you know where I obtained the information.  Two books that inspired me to take this stand are America's Providential History and Original Intent.  Needless to say, you will see references to both those books.

A new essay will be posted each Friday of the week.  I hope you'll follow along.

Coming next Friday... 1. The First Amendment