"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…"
– First Amendment of the United States Constitution
The words seem so straightforward and simple. Yet no other part of the Constitution of the United States is so misunderstood and misconstrued as the First Amendment, particularly the first ten words which deal with freedom of religion. Bestselling author Stephen Mansfield delves into the history of the amendment that has caused more uproar and more court battles than any other in his outstanding new book Ten Tortured Words: How the Founding Fathers Tried to Protect Religion in America…and What’s Happened Since.
Mansfield, who has spent many years working on behalf of religious liberty all over the world, starts with a careful examination of the Founders original intent in crafing the First Amendment. He takes the reader back inside the debates within the Constitutional Convention and the amendment is being debated. By relying on the transcripts from the Convention, he shares the Founders thoughts in their own words. As the original intent behind the amendment is revealed it is easy to see how these ten words have been so twisted over time.
But the story doesn’t just end there. In fact, the drafting of the amendment is really only the beginning of the story. Mansfield moves on to a detailed examination of the man whose words in a private letter have become the basis for almost all battles over religious liberty in the United States for the past sixty years: Thomas Jefferson.
On January 1, 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The Danbury Baptists had written to Jefferson regarding concerns they had about the government’s role in religion. Jefferson’s reply included a phrase that has since become familiar to many Americans: "a wall of separation between church and state". Although Jefferson’s intent was to simply emphasize that the First Amendment prohibited the federal government from establishing any particular religion (similar to the Church of England in Britain), many courts have taken the phrase to mean that the government should not have any role in religion and vice versa.
It was the Supreme Court, in the case of Everson vs. Board of Education (1947) that would first use the "wall of separation" phrase. What’s most interesting about this decision is not so much the case itself (although the case is quoted in the appendices and reveals the convoluted logic the Court used to arrive at its decision) but the personalities behind the case, particularly Justice Hugo Black who authored the decision.
Perhaps most surprising is the chapter on the ACLU and their involvement in First Amendment litigation. Many readers will no doubt be shocked to learn how the ACLU has turned this type of litigation into a profit-making endeavor by taking advantage of loopholes in current civil rights statutes.
Ten Tortured Words brings history alive through its engaging narrative. Mansfield avoids the trap of getting bogged down in legalese in discussing the court cases and instead focuses as much attention on the personalities involved in the battles. As a result, it is a highly entertaining and informative book.
I agree. I therefore support prayers to Allah and Satan in the public schools.
Daddypundit,
While skeptic is trolling around taking pot shots, can you talk a little more about the content of the book? Maybe give some examples of the quotes of the founders?
Why is this a potshot? As I understand it, religious believers think we should be able to have Christian prayer in schools. Secularists, who believe in a wall between church and state, disagree. But if we allow prayers to God, why not prayers to Allah, or Shiva, or Satan? This is a pertinent question.
Why is this a potshot?
First, since you don't actually support prayer in schools, your statement was sarcastic, or at least facetious. And since it was so short, and without any reasoning, it was just thrown out there as an accusation, or pot shot.
As I understand it, religious believers think we should be able to have Christian prayer in schools.
You misunderstand. Most xians don't want school-sponsored christian prayer in schools, they only want prayer allowed. Sure, some rules are needed to protect the rights of others.
Secularists, who believe in a wall between church and state, disagree.
Christians also believe in a separation of powers, but not the extreme anti-religious type that secularists push. While the secularist likes to paint the religious right as theocratic and desiring the opposite extreme from the radical anti-religious policies of secularists, rightists do not want a theocracy either.
But if we allow prayers to God, why not prayers to Allah, or Shiva, or Satan? This is a pertinent question.
That is a good question, but the answer is not to disallow all or none. The answer is to form principles for when and where such prayers are allowed (after school, in graduation, at football games), who can offer them (staff, students), and how sectarian they can be.
I would also allow for some special pleading in the case of xianity and judaism based on their role in our history. And because they are the mouthpieces of the one true god ;)
Seeker, I'll be glad to share a few quotes. ONe of the appendices to the book is twenty essential quotes from the Founders on faith and government. Here's a sample:
"Religion and Virtue are the only Foundations, not only of Republicanism and of all free Government, but of social felicity under all Governments and in all Combinations of human Society." – John Adams
"Without morals a republica cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore, who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure, which denounces against the wicked, the eternal misery, and insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundations of morlas, the best security for the duration of free governments." – Charles Carroll
"No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian Religion applied and accepted by all the classes. Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance, men are certain to shed their responsibilities for licentiousness and this great experiment will then surely be doomed." – John Jay
Well, your final comment sort of gives the game away doesn't it?
I, myself, never had to pray in public school. But, as I recall, there was never any prohibition against prayer, just against public prayer. I think this is right and proper. If, say, I were a Hindu, or Buddhist, or Atheist, why should I have to participate in a western-centered form of public prayer? After all, I'm not in church. I like watching NASCAR on tv, and it bugs me that I have to watch a prayer before a car race. What gives? Is it a religious gathering?
I dislike being forced to participate in stuff that should be private. For example, I hate being forced to listen to other people's taste in music when I go out to eat or shop (I love Starbucks, but hate most of their music). And, when I attend a concert, why should I have to stand and sing the national anthem?
I wish Christians would be more sensitive about these sorts of issues. I'm all for their right to have churches and pray there, or Bible-study groups after school, or Christmas trees, but I'm not for their attempts to make me participate, unwillingly. I think religion should be voluntary and a personal matter. I'm uneasy about the militancy of current Christians (like you, seeker), and feel they are just hurting their cause.
But, as I recall, there was never any prohibition against prayer, just against public prayer.
I think I agree. Public school prayer is problematic, as you mentioned.
I think religion should be voluntary and a personal matter.
You know… (soap box coming up;) )
I think the problem is that "public school" is not actually a "personal" or "voluntary" place. Children are forced to be there. They are forced to do whatever the state requires, regardless of their personal preferences.
People have their religion, no matter what it is. And they are bringing up their children in that religion. No matter who they are. When you stick the children all together and say "Keep your religion out of it" that is where it begins to be problematic. Children, of course, are still learning their religion. And religion as you say, is very personal, and important to people. HArd to keep it out of their child's daily life!
It just puts parents in a bad position with differing beliefs about prayer, which is HIGHLY personal, even for different christians.
Another reason our current public school system is just a bad idea, imo.
Ok, soap box is away for the mo ;)
I'm sorry to disagree, Lawanda, but I feel your position is without merit. It's true that children must attend school, but they can also be home-schooled, or sent to private schools (including Christian institutions). But, since we require some form of schooling for children (a very good thing!), and public schools are provided, it is necessary to keep them free from sectarian influence. If this were an exclusively Christian society with a theocratic form of government, then it would be proper to school them according to religious principles (c.f., Arab cultures), but since we are a multi-cultural culture with a secular government, it is necessary to keep religion out of public schools. Children are free to pray, just not to pray in a public and organized form. They also get a chance to meet and mingle with people who are different from them. Really, if you think this is a danger to your children's religious beliefs, you must not have much faith in your religion's truth and efficacy. If you really believe that your religion is true and your God the only true God, then you should have a little faith in both it and your children. Don't be so frightened!