Challenge ... Wait For it ... Accepted!

By Michael The Libertarian

So, the gauntlet's been thrown down. The line's been drawn in the sand and the challenge has been issued.

No there's not going to be any fisticuffs or even a “wrasslin' match”.

However, I have been challenged and I LOVE a good challenge! I should explain:

I went out to meet a friend, last night. I guess I'm going to be backing up, quite a bit, here. My “friend” (and he is a true friend) was one of my journalism instructors in college, just a few years ago. I was in a class that he once quipped I should be teaching.

Anyway, I believe he might have asked me to “back off” on answering too many questions in class (another professor used to actually say: “No, Michael. You can't answer” or: “Okay, everyone BUT Michael ...”). Be that as it may, he didn't want me answering this one particular question.

To be fair, this was a 101 or 201 class so, not everyone was interested in being a journalist, necessarily, but I can tell you from being in that class, that a large percentage of the class was there for just that purpose; whether it was photo, sports or “regular” journalism.

So, my friend (just a professor at the time because this man's ethics are beyond reproach) asks the question: “What are the protections listed in the first amendment?” My memory isn't as good as it used to be, but I think I may have been the only one that could name all five of them.

Now to be fair, most of the other students were fresh out of high school. They were young enough to be my (late-in-life) children or, even close to being young enough to be my grandchildren (my eldest was born in early '01).

So, last night, as we're sitting in a really great little eatin' and waterin' hole (More about that place in another piece), my friend and I were talking about the “death of the first amendment” (I know. I know. Most guys would talk sports or “chicks”, but this is us!).

I was explaining a contention that someone had made to me, online that the words “separation of church and state” were contained in the U.S. Constitution. Don't look for them, they're not there. The words: “wall of separation” in regards to religion and government do appear in a letter from President Jefferson to some religious clerics in Danbury, Connecticut.

So, I was making the argument that, in fact, the constitution does not create a “separation of church and state”, but is actually a one-way wall (the legal term, unfortunately is a “Chinese Wall” where one attorney can share what they know with another attorney, but the second attorney cannot reciprocate).

Of course, my friend challenged my contention and I broke it down for him. Before I was finished, he said: “This is a new topic for you.” So, I got on my high horse and said: “I'll write it, tonight, if you'll read it, tomorrow!” He reckoned he'd get to it over the weekend and I was agreeable to that.

So, you, my lucky readers are in for a treat because I have decided to dissect all five protections listed in the first amendment (one per day). Buckle up!

Let's start with the very first protection in the very first amendment to the constitution, shall we?

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

Not that there's a lot to digest, here, but let's split it up, okay?

“Congress shall make no law (the most beautiful phrase in the English language says this Libertarian) respecting an establishment of religion ...”

Pretty simple and pretty cool. Congress cannot make a law, telling us what we must believe. I like it. I love it! I wouldn't change a word.

“ … or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...”

Congress can't pass a law, telling me how I can practice my religion. I'm very okay with that, also. Is everyone with me, so far? Do we agree?

So far, we have no “separation of church and state” phrase, but earlier on in the constitution body (Art. VI, section 3) we do have:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

So, we have: 1) Congress (the government) can't tell us what we have to believe. 2) They can't tell us how we're allowed to worship and 3) The government can't require any religious belief of it's employees or elected officials.

I won't even get into the whole 10^th amendment thing about how any “powers” not retained by the federal government automatically revert to the people or the states. Forget that.

So, nowhere in the Constitution does the phrase “separation of church and state” appear, but please notice, also: nothing in the constitution says that religion can't influence government or that the religious amongst us can't be elected.

Therefore, as I posited to my friend, what is to stop him and me (I LOVE doing that to people! It doesn't sound right. Does it?) from forming a political party that will only accept people/candidates of “faith”? What is to stop us from only giving money and other means of electoral support to people who believe as we do? The answer is: Not a blessed thing.

There is no reason (save for financial) we can't recruit and support candidates of faith. We'll call it the “Dove Party”.

If – and I grant that is a big “if” - we can get 290 congress critters elected and 66 senators and a president and vice president, we could, in effect, have a “theocracy”; a government that is guided by religious principles (assuming the elected officials really are motivated by those principles).

Please believe me, when I tell you that I am not advocating this idea. I am just saying according to the constitution, it could happen.

Many are saying: “But, but, but the Supreme Court ...”. So, they can get things wrong, too. Think they can't? How many think the “Roe v. Wade” decision specifically guarantees a “right” for a woman to have an abortion? Don't bet me.

Here's your homework: Go look up that decision and see what it's really about.

- Michael