About our Father's business... Merry Christmas

A little while ago I started thinking about Jesus' words as a twelve-year-old in Luke 2:49, "...I must be about My Father's business," which He said in explanation (to His parents) of His having stayed behind in the temple when His family had left. At that time His people were celebrating a special feast. This Christmas (a special hol[y]day for Christians) there are many missionaries around the world who are "about our Father's business" sharing Christ and His wondrous love, the message of salvation with the peoples of the world. Whether in America working among the Indians, in Romania working with children, in Japan, sharing Christ with English students or anywhere else in the world, God is working through His children, who are "About our Father's business". In prison cells, in Missions, on the streets, in charities, among the persecuted, in children's services, in pastorates, where ever God calls us ... we must be doing the work of the Lord.
Praying the Lord will bless our missionaries this Christmas - Beth

How "Freedom of Religion" morphed into "Freedom from Religion"

This is a research paper I did this semester for a Constitution class (Institute on the Constitution) that my family and I were part of. If you don't have time to read it in it's entirety, please take time to read the introduction and conclusion, especially the conclusion.

How "Freedom of Religion" morphed into "Freedom from Religion"
Introduction:

Does the Bill of [our] Rights contain any protection of religion and religious practice for Americans? Hmm.. maybe something about a “separation of church and state”? Many claim this is part of the First Amendment, but upon looking at a copy of the Bill of Rights, one can see that it is not in any part of it. Where then does this ever-popular explanation of the First Amendment come from? Is it a good interpretation of the First Amendment’s religion phrases? What has the Supreme Court done with this phrase? These are some questions that headed up my research and to which I found studied answers. I have attempted in the paper below to share my researched findings.

Paper:

Well, in fact, religion and religious practice is talked about in the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights. The religion clauses of the First Amendment read:

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

Now what does this mean? First of all, we must know that the meaning of a writing can only be interpreted just as the author wrote it (in the first place) to mean.¹ Authors write what they write on purpose, using particular words intentionally²; and I believe especially in the case of those who write Constitutions and other important lasting documents, authors are particularly careful in their choice of words. So, we must know the writers’ intentions. Since all of the Framers of the Constitution are dead, we should look at their recorded writings, words, and actions to know what they purposed for the Amendments or any other part of the Constitution to mean.

Here are some quotes from the Founding Fathers:

“ ‘The moral principles… contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws.’ —Noah Webster, fighter in Revolution, ratifier of Constitution, judge”³

“ ‘ It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!’ —Patrick Henry, revolutionary and driving force behind adoption of the Bill of Rights”⁴

In Patrick Henry’s quote is found the basis of why the Framers wanted freedom of religion. It was for everyone, but they were thinking especially of Christians being free, which is not what was happening under English rule.

“ ‘[E]ducation should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.’ —Gouverneur Morris, United States Senator who actually wrote down the Constitution”⁵

“ ‘It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.’

—George Washington, first President and Chairman of the Constitutional Convention”⁶

“ ‘God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable...’

—John Witherspoon, who signed the Declaration of Independence and served on over one hundred Congressional Committees”⁷

“ ‘Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.’ – John Adams”⁸

“ ‘I see this truth… God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?… ‘except the Lord build the house, they labor in Vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this;… without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. …’ – Benjamin Franklin [in the] Constitutional Convention, [June 28,] 1787”⁹

“ ‘This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.’ –Patrick Henry[‘s] Last Will and Testament” ¹⁰

The Framers believed that the right of men to follow God according to the dictates of their own consciences was not something that the government should have a right to give or take away because it was God-given.

Let’s look at the meaning of the words of the Religious Clauses.

“Congress” – This, the First Amendment, was only applied to Federal Congress, not the Executive or Judicial branches; because only Congress was given the authority to make and pass laws.¹¹ It was not written to apply to the states, as they had their own constitutions. This changed with the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment, which made all the amendments apply to states’ actions as well as the federal Congress.
“Respecting” - “concerning”¹² or having to do with

“Establishment of Religion” -

“When used within the context of religion in this country throughout the 1600s
and 1700s, the term “establishment” had long borne a specific, well-known,
universally understood meaning:

§ A single, dominant ecclesiastical institution (or religion, church, denomination,
faith, sect, creed, or religious society) that …

§ enjoyed a government-preferred, government-sanctioned, government-
financed, and government-protected status within a state, …

§ and which represented an indistinguishable union with government and the
preferred (or “established”) ecclesiastical institution.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary contains the following context-pertinent
definitions which it identifies as having appeared during the times referenced:
§ Establish: give legal form and recognition to (a Church) as the official church of
a country. [1350-1469]
§ Establishment: The ecclesiastical system established by law; the Established
Church. [1730-69]
§ Establishment: The action of making a church an established Church. [1630-
69]”¹³

“Established church n. A church that is officially recognized and given support
as a national institution by a government” ¹⁴

I am putting an emphasis on defining establishment because what it meant in 1789 and the years previous to that (what the Framers knew it to mean) is different than what it means today… it could mean a business, or something else in today’s vernacular.

“make no law… or Prohibiting” - “Prohibit tr.v. 1. To forbid by authority. 2. To prevent or debar.”¹⁵

“Free” – “Free adj. 3. c. Immune to arbitrary interference by a government.”¹⁶

”Exercise” – “ ’Exercise’ has to do with the participation in duties, activities, ceremonies, responsibilities, and the living out of one’s faith and belief system.” ¹⁷

From the help of these definitions we come to some understanding about the meaning of the text of this, the beginning of First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

“The First clause (called the Establishment Clause) prohibited the federal government from establishing a single national denomination; the second clause (called the Free Exercise Clause) prohibited the federal government from interfering with the people’s public religious expressions and acknowledgments. Significantly, both clauses restricted the actions of the federal government; neither restricted the actions of the citizens. … [the Framers] did expect Biblical principles and basic values to be present throughout public life and society: [which refers to the second clause of the First Amendment]…” ¹⁸

“Our Founders did not want the new government to have power over the religious lives and consciences of its citizens.”¹⁹ Congress was supposed to be incapable of stepping into jurisdiction of people’s public and private religious lives and activities. By the Constitution the Congress can NOT in any situation restrict the people of the United States from exercising religion as their consciences dictate.

But “It was never intended by the Constitution that the government should be
prohibited from recognizing religion.” ²⁰

“… the Establishment Clause never served to purge “religion” in general (or
“religious activities from government…” ²¹

We can see this in bills and resolutions the Founding Fathers passed around the same time as when they wrote the Establishment Clause.
In 1789 Congress renewed the Northwest Territory Ordinance.
“Article the 3^rd. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good
government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education
shall be forever encouraged. …”²²

We notice that religion and morality were things to be encouraged and learned about in school; for the good of all people within the Northwest Territory.

“[This declaration] would necessarily conflict with the Establishment Clause if, as
some presume, the Establishment Clause does more than merely proscribe a
‘national establishment.’ ”²³

In August 1789 the House passed a bill that included taxpayer-funded recompense for congressional chaplains. The Senate approved, and Washington signed the bill in September , “three days before Congress approved the text of the Establishment Clause.” ²⁴ This act – by some of the same people as those who signed the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) proves that the Religion Clauses were not meant to make “government disassociate itself from…religious’ subject matter or ‘religious activities.’ “²⁵

On September 25, 1789, only one day after its vote of final approval of the text of the Establishment Clause the House passed a “thanksgiving” resolution to request from the President that he would recommend to the American people a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God. The Senate agreed to ask the President, and President Washington complied with their wish. He proclaimed the same on October 3, 1789, and set the day of Thanksgiving for November 26^th that year. “That contemporaneous 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation, authored by the same institutional author of the Establishment Clause proves consistent with the purpose, function, and meaning of the Establishment Clause within historical context in which Congress wrote it…”²⁶ Congress’s Resolution and President Washington’s Proclamation serve to discredit the theory that the Establishment Clause was written to keep government from participating in non-denominational religious activities.

Another proof of the freedom of religion the Founders afforded themselves to enjoy in public offices (government), and also a proof that they stood upon their belief in Almighty God and the necessity of all men to live under His judgment, was the writing of the oath of office (for Justice of the Supreme Court) which included this phrase, “So help me God”.²⁷

Five things Congress did in later years, which did not defy the authority of the Bill of Rights (as part of the Constitution), but allowed religious freedom for people were:
1. (1864) - Putting “In God We Trust” on coins as a “motto” for the United States

2. (1931) - “The Star-Spangled Banner”, with phrase “In God is our trust”, was made

the National Anthem.

3. (1952) – Congress proclaimed a “National Day of Prayer” (which was reaffirmed in
1998)

4. (1954) - Adding to the Pledge of Allegiance the phrase “One Nation under God”
5. (1956) - Congress solidified “In God We Trust” as the national motto. ²⁸

If all these things are true, then how did we get into the mess we’re in right now? Everyone has heard the phrase “separation of church and state”. What is its origin? Is it a constitutional idea?
This phrase is one line of a letter President Thomas Jefferson wrote in January 1802 in reply to the Danbury Baptist association (from Connecticut) who had written him in October of the year before. Let it be noted that the purpose of the letter the Danbury Baptists wrote was not to complain of religious activity but

“to complain about the establishment evils of Connecticut’s Congregationalist [a state, not national, church], precisely the kind of dominant ecclesiastical institution that the Establishment Clause prohibits on a national level.”²⁹

So “Jefferson’s famous letter ‘was a political statement written to reassure Jefferson’s Baptist constituents in New England of his continuing commitment to their religious rights. …’ ”³⁰

I will quote here part of Jefferson’s letter, as it will help to explain itself; and the context will be helpful for interpretation. This is [the second of three paragraphs of] the letter ⁹:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”³¹

Notice that Jefferson quoted the First Amendment’s religion phrases and then summarized in his own words by saying, “thus building a wall of separation between church and state”.

He was agreeing with the First Amendment as it was written and not interpreting it in a different way. He was not suggesting that all religious activity should be kept away from the government, but reinforcing the fact that the “state” can not establish a church denomination. He himself was against Presidents calling for days of prayer or thanksgiving, as he saw it as interference with the people’s freedom of conscience.³²

“… the ‘wall’ of the Danbury letter [was] not to limit religious activities in public; rather [it was] to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.³³

“…the grammatical context of Jefferson’s ‘wall’ suggests that, to the extent that it ‘separates’ anything, it disables the ‘state’ from interfering with the ‘church’ in the arena of ‘opinions’, but not with respect to ‘actions’.” ³⁴

In other words, the wall suggests that government can not punish people for opinions, but only for hurtful deeds. One phrase of Jefferson’s 1781 Notes on the State of Virginia is very parallel to one phrase of his Danbury letter.

“1781 Notes: ‘the legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are
injurious to others.’
1802 letter: ‘the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not
opinions.’”³⁵

Regardless of Jefferson’s personal beliefs and what he put in his letter, Jefferson should not have ever been considered an authority- rightly explaining the full “scope and effect of the Establishment Clause”³⁶ - on the Constitution and Bill of Rights because he didn’t help write the Constitution and he wasn’t a member of the team of ninety³⁷ who crafted the First Amendment, either. Furthermore he was in France from July 1784 – November 1789, which included the whole of the time the Framers were working on the Constitution and the First Amendment. His “wall of separation” phrase was first written “more than 12 years after Congress finalized the Establishment Clause in September 1789.” ³⁸

The other problem, besides Jefferson’s lack of genuine authority, is that the Court (in taking his words and making a big deal about them) eventually took them completely out of context of what he wanted to say.

For years the Supreme Court did not distort the First Amendment. For example, the Supreme Court decided in Reynolds v. United States (1878) that

“… the federal government was only to inhibit religious expressions that were ‘subversive of good order’ or ‘broke out into overt acts against peace and good order,’ that Court… provided examples of the types of ‘religious’ acts into which the government did have legitimate reason to intrude – acts such as human sacrifice,… injury to children, etc. But in traditional religious practices (whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, etc.) the government was never to interfere.³⁹

The idea was that a person could not be punished for religious practice, unless it “worked ill to his neighbor.”⁴⁰

Thus, the distinction of those “religious” things the government could and could not interfere in, became the “… clearly understood meaning of Jefferson’s separation letter and the manner in which it was applied for [150 yrs.]”⁴¹

In the mid 1900s things went “down hill”. One example: the Supreme Court (in Everson v. Board of Education, 1947), assumed without logical explanation “that Jefferson’s allegorical ‘church’ referenced religion in general, as opposed to the more probable reference to a physical institution of the kind always associated with an ‘establishment’… an association of the term ‘church’ to anything but a single dominant ecclesiastical institution within the context of the Establishment Clause simply makes no sense…”⁴²

The Supreme Court thus “interpreted the ‘separation’ phrase as requiring the federal government to remove religious expressions from the public arena – that is, it interpreted the First Amendment not as a limitation on government interference but rather as a limitation on religious expressions and principles.” ⁴³

The Everson Court decision solidified Jefferson’s “wall” in the vernacular, thought, and future decisions of the Court regarding the First Amendment. In this decision the Judges, who were supposedly only considering the Establishment Clause, added to it, and applied what they came up with to not only the Congress at a federal level, but also to the individual States. ⁴⁴

It was, again, so ridiculous that the Court was basing a decision about the First Amendment on a short little part of a letter that wasn’t authoritative or all-encompassing on the subject at hand.

The Court also changed definitions of ‘church’ and ‘state’ (found in Jefferson’s letter) in Engel v. Vitale (1962). Church went from meaning a federal denomination to meaning public religious activity, and State went from meaning federal government to public square. This brought about a new consideration for Jefferson’s “separation of church and state” phrase as a whole. The old meaning was this:

“federal government [can] not establish a federal denomination”⁴⁵,

while the new meaning was

“… religious expressions must be kept separate from the public square.⁴⁶

“The result is that the First Amendment is now used to prohibit the very religious activities that the Founders themselves once encouraged under that same Amendment”⁴⁷ In Abington v. Schempp (1963) it was decided that the Bible and its principles and teachings would no longer be permitted in public education. This went against two centuries of precedent. The reason was that unexplained portions of the New Testament, having been read to a class, could and had brought psychologically harmful effects to students.⁴⁸ If the Court had always “tuned in” to the wisdom of Benjamin Rush, Noah Webster, Robert Winthrop and other Founding Fathers, we would not be in the mess we are today; for these Fathers warned that if the Bible was taken out of schools or society, crimes would escalate. That’s exactly what happened after the 1962-1963 court decisions.⁴⁹

“…In Stone v. Graham [1980], the Supreme Court ruled that because of the new ‘separation of church and state’ it was unconstitutional for a student at school to continue, even voluntarily, to see a copy of the Ten Commandments. The Court explained: ‘If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey the Commandments… [T]his… is not a permissible… objective.’ ” ⁵⁰

While wickedness has prevailed in the U.S. (partially due to the Court’s actions) studies demonstrate that basic religious principles do “produce morality and self-control” as Washington, Fisher Ames, and other Framers and Founding Fathers said.⁵¹

There have been other cases, which considered the First Amendment, however, whose outcomes were Constitutional or in which one or more justices had Constitutional input. Marsh v. Chambers (1983) is an example of this kind of case. The Supreme Court decided in this case that… “Nebraska Legislature’s practice of opening each legislative day with a non-denominational prayer by a chaplain paid by the state [did not run] afoul of the Establishment Clause.”⁵² Chief Justice Burger ruled, “In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an establishment of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgement of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.”⁵³ (Emphasis my own.)

In another Supreme Court case (Meek v. Pettinger, 1975) Justice William Rehnquist had a Constitutional viewpoint in regards to the Establishment Clause when he said, “I am disturbed as much by the overtones of the Court’s opinion as by its actual holding. The Court apparently believes that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment not only mandates religious neutrality on the part of the government, but also requires that this Court go further and throw its weight on the side of those who believe that our society as a whole should be a purely secular one. Nothing in the First Amendment or in the cases interpreting it requires such an extreme approach.”⁵⁴ Justice William Rehnquist was (sadly) right when he said that the Court [was acting like it believed] that it was their duty to help American society be completely secular.

The fact is that we must have a Court which uses the rules of historical interpretation, reflecting the intent of the authors of the Constitution, or “we are left to the subjective whims of the majority of the Court.”⁵⁵

Conclusion:

“Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.⁵⁶ Using the idea of one-way streets, we can see a picture of what the 1) First Amendment and the 2) ‘current thought’ restrain and protect, for they are indeed near opposites. The First Amendment as written by our Founding Fathers restrains the Federal government from having one national church, while it protects people from having to support a state church and provides freedom of conscience to U.S. citizens. The ‘current thought’ – going one-way in the opposite direction restrains people from public religious expression and “protects” society from being polluted by Christian religion – it is ‘freedom from religion’. In fact, “freedom from religion” is a common phrase used in letters to the editor in our local paper; in reference to the First Amendment.

Endnotes:

¹ Adamson p.126-7

² Adamson p.11

³ all quotes from Leah Farish’s book p. 54

⁴ all quotes from Leah Farish’s book p. 54
⁵ all quotes from Leah Farish’s book p. 54

⁶ all quotes from Leah Farish’s book p. 54
⁷ all quotes from Leah Farish’s book p. 54
⁸ Institute on the Constitution student workbook p. 50
⁹ Institute on the Constitution student workbook p.37
¹⁰ Institute on the Constitution student workbook p.38
¹¹ Kennedy p.15

¹² Dictionary p.1053

¹³ Adamson p.19

¹⁴ Dictionary p.466

¹⁵ Dictionary p.990

¹⁶ Dictionary p. 531

¹⁷ Janet Albertson direct quote

¹⁸ Barton booklet p.7

¹⁹ Kennedy p.15

²⁰ Adamson p.26

²¹ Adamson p. 141

²² Adamson p. 143

²³ Adamson p. 146

²⁴ Adamson p. 139

²⁵ Ibid. p. 139

²⁶ Adamson p. 148

²⁷ Adamson p. 141

²⁸ Adamson p. 149-156

²⁹ Adamson p.193

³⁰ Adamson p. 185

³¹ Adamson p.182-3

³² Adamson p. 177
³³ Barton paper off web para. 24

³⁴ Adamson p.189

³⁵ Adamson p.190

³⁶ Adamson p.17

³⁷ Barton paper off web para. 35

³⁸ Adamson p. 175

³⁹ Barton booklet p. 13
⁴⁰ Barton paper off web para. 7

⁴¹ Barton booklet p. 13

⁴² Adamson p. 193

⁴³ Barton booklet p.13-14

⁴⁴ Adamson p. 230-1

⁴⁵ Barton booklet p.14

⁴⁶ Ibid. p.14

⁴⁷ Barton booklet p. 7

⁴⁸ Barton booklet p.15

⁴⁹ Barton booklet p.8-9

⁵⁰ Barton booklet p.14

⁵¹ Barton booklet p.19

⁵² Adamson p.139-41

⁵³ Kennedy p. 29

⁵⁴ Kennedy p. 26

⁵⁵ Kennedy p. 25

⁵⁶ Barton paper off web para. 36

Pictures from Thanksgiving 2009 (pt 2)

Make a Smilebox photobook

Pictures from Thanksgiving 2009 (pt 1)

Make a Smilebox photobook