True Interpretation of the 1st Amendment

Well, coming off of talking about the American Heritage Series I decided to post an essay that I wrote for school that reflects some of what is discussed in the DVDs. This is a topic that I feel strongly about and wish to see corrected in our country. Happy Reading!

 

True Interpretation of the 1^st Amendment

 Although the 1^st Amendment is often paraphrased, “separation of church and state,” that particular statement never appears in any official document from the founding period. Nevertheless, it is so often used in place of the original document that we as a nation believe it to be the 1^st Amendment in its entirety. A look into history, however, reveals a completely different view of the document.

            Understanding a written work begins with reading it. The 1^st Amendment simply states, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Directly defined, Congress may not create a national religion based on one particular denomination, nor are they permitted to stop anyone’s free exercise of their beliefs. The founding fathers gave direct, clear statements concerning the relationship between church and state in America. For years, Congress upheld this direct meaning as demonstrated in a Congressional report given in 1854 in response to a group who wanted to stop public religious expression. After debating their suggestion, Congress rejected the idea replying, “At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and its amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one sect [denomination].” However, for some, even the measures given to protect the church aroused concern that the government might one day end religious freedom.

In 1801, a group of Baptist ministers wrote to President Thomas Jefferson expressing their apprehension that, since the Constitution outlined religious freedom as a state-given right, the government might one day decide to take away that right. Jefferson sympathetically replied urging them not to worry because, “there is a wall of separation between church and state” that would prevent government from ever regulating free exercise of religion. The contexts of Jefferson’s letter and his use of the phrase “separation of church and state” are extremely important when interpreting its meaning.  For example, in 1878 and 1947, the Supreme Court made two extremely contrasting decisions based on this section of the letter. In 1878 a group tried to use the separation phrase without reference to the letter in order to accomplish their goal. In their ruling, the Supreme Court reprinted a lengthy section of Jefferson’s letter, emphasizing the importance of context. Contrastingly, in a 1947 ruling, the Supreme Court cited only Jefferson’s separation metaphor and ignored the rest of the letter. When cited out of context with the rest of Jefferson’s letter, “separation of church and state,” has come to mean the exact opposite of its original intent.

Few people are taught the important history behind the small phrase, “separation of church and state.” Today it defines any public religious activity as unconstitutional based off of a 1962 Supreme Court case in which the court ruled to outlaw voluntary prayer in public schools using “separation of church and state” out of context as the foundation for its decision. Although Jefferson’s letter is most often referred to when declaring “separation of church and state,” was he the first to employ this phrase? As it turns out, the Protestant Reformation first saw the usage of the expression long before Jefferson even lived. It originally indicated that the state and the church should not control each other but perform as independent establishments. It also intended this separation to be institutional, not influential. The Founding Fathers understood this and they wrote the 1^st Amendment to protect the church from ever being controlled by the government. To confirm that the founders approved of religious influence in state affairs, one only need look at their lives.

The Founding Fathers often expressed their religious conviction in the public arena. For example, George Washington performed seven decidedly religious acts at his inauguration including adding, “So help me God,” to the oath of office and publicly praying over the nation. Washington also attended church with the members of Congress as part of the inaugural ceremony. They attended church that day as an official act of Congress. Also, one of the first Congressional acts passed when the Congress moved to its current location in 1800 was to allow that the Capitol building should serve as a church building. Corporate prayer became a regular practice during sessions of Congress as well. Many Presidents have set religious examples for the nation. Several, such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, issued national decrees for prayer and fasting. When addressing Congress, John Adams declared, “Here and throughout our country may simple manners, pure morals, and true religion flourish forever!” That would be an astonishing statement coming from a President today, but it was nothing unusual then. John Quincy Adams also demonstrated his beliefs as he made it his practice to read the entire Bible every year. Furthermore, he wished his son to learn how to study the Bible even though he lived overseas as an ambassador. So, he wrote nine letters, now published in the book titled Letters from John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings, to his son giving instruction on how to get the most from his reading. The Founding Fathers certainly did not oppose public demonstration of religious convictions.

Dr. William James, the father of modern psychology once stated, “There is nothing so absurd but that if you repeat it often enough people will believe it.” This is certainly true in the case of the 1^st Amendment. Misinterpretation of the 1^st Amendment is being widely accepted in the minds of many Americans. Don’t be fooled; start a new understanding of our Constitution by researching original source documents instead of simply taking a professor’s word. Your research could change your life.

Wow! you read the whole thing! :) Congratulations! I told you I felt strongly about this and for me that means lots of words! (I try to be concise. I'm still working it :) So now that you have read my organized ramblings you are ready to go out and tell the world right! Well... maybe not.That's okay too. ;)

Hope you learned something. God Bless! :)