ArthurDent's Journal: Separation totally out of hand

I've been reading about the whole issue of the sculpture that has the ten commandments inscribed on it that has been placed in a state courthouse in Alabama, and it's been making me more and more angry as the days go by.

Though I believe that the issue in Alabama is really a state one, not a federal one, I think we'd all agree the the idea here was derived from a federal idea.

The first amendment to our Constition reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now, for quite a while now, a doctrine has been ingrained in American society that says that this implies some sort of "separation" of "church" and "state". (I'm sorry about the quotes here, but I think it's important to really disect this idea.) Notice that that phrase does not appear in the first amendment where it's proponents usually go crawling off to when they want to back it up. The problem is that it's not the idea of the separation that's wrong, it's what it's come to be known as.

The term "state" has come to mean any government or government financed organization. The term "church" has come to mean anything that could remotely be termed "religion" whether or not the majority of the people believe what the particular religion in question says or not. I think we can all agree that the ten commandments are pretty good rules of thumb, and that the historical and religious backgrounds out of which they spring does not devalue them as an ethical standard.

Here's where the whole thing goes nuts. The term "separation" has come to mean that the goverment cannot support any sort of religion in any way. Government has to be run as if religion doesn't exist in some ways.

I am convinced that that is not what the founding fathers intended. Let's think back to our history. What were the founding fathers afraid of when they wrote the first amendment? The were thinking of what caused the first people to come to the new world. They were thinking of the Puritans who came here to escape being persecuted by a government that was not tolerant of any religion but a "state religion". They were thinking of the problems that arose out of the protestant reformation. They themselves for the most part happened to come from a protestant Christian background, and they formed the values of our Constition from that background, but they did not intend to make that a "state religion".

What the first amendment does say is that Congress can not hinder any religion, nor prevent anybody from saying what's on their mind. It does not even say that Congress cannot promote any religion, only that it cannot attempt to establish a state religion at the expense of any or all others. The people must be free to worship whatever or whomever they please.

Now we come back to the situation in Alabama. Will somebody please explain to me how having that sculpture in the courthouse hinders anybody from practicing any other religion? If the people of Alabama believe that it does then let their legislators act to have the sculpture removed. However, if we're only removing it because government must be "separate" from "church" then we need to think about where we came from and where the heck we're really going as a country.

There. I feel better now. :)