I suspect this type of thing will be more common in future election cycles.
Presidential Commission on Religious Freedom
(A Proposed “On Day One” Executive Order of Newt Gingrich’s 21st Century Contract with America)
Establishing a presidential commission to examine and document threats or impediments to religious freedom in the United States and to propose steps for reaffirming and protecting the foundational principle of freedom of thought,conscience, and religious belief upon which our republic is built and thrives
Enter the right wing meme... their rights are being supressed
Public expressions of faith in some quarters have gone from normal to unacceptable. The abuses are well documented. Year after year, our courts are filled with hundreds of cases based upon the anti-religious misconceptions of the First Amendment, which are then reinforced by judges determined to impose their own views on other citizens.
Moreover, as litigants demand that courts and judges intervene to create new “rights” out of whole cloth, such litigants and their supporters seek to limit the freedom of others to express their deeply held religious commitments to, for example, the value of every human life and to marriage as between one man and one woman.
This situation poses a stark challenge to religious freedom in the United States.
This last summer, the first ever "Gay Pride" parade was held in Salisbury, NC. The next day, there were a litany of "Letters to the Editor" in the local paper decrying the oppression of Christian Community by "The Gay Agenda" and the fact that the people who participated in and organized the event were not tolerant of religious conviction.
I constantly hear this type of odd self-victimization. Last year, when Christine O'Donnell was attempting to speak about this issue, she said "The words "separation of church and state" are not in the US Constitution.".
I emailed her campaign manager.
Jonathan Moseley,
While I applaud your attempt to spin your candidates lack of understanding of the constitution, everyone knows that the words "separation of church and state" doesn't exist anywhere in the constitution anymore than the word "gun" exists. The phrase was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on Jan 1, 1802. The entirety of the letter is below.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
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, & 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 & 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.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
In addition, John Locke and Thomas Paine both espoused separation of church and state in many writings.
The most interesting aspect of this diatribe against secular government is that allowing religion in schools or any other government run agency is in effect opening the gate to any recognized religion to have the same rights. I understand that alot of conservatives would like to eliminate the Department of Education or at the very least allow local school districts to teach religious doctrine (such as creation). The problem with that is that you aren't considering the slippery slope that this issue really is. If teachers can teach a Christian doctrine... why couldn't they teach a Jewish doctrine or an Islamic doctrine or a Pagan doctrine? All of those religions share the right to equal treatment.
Best Regards
He responded - (in extra large bold font, I should mention)
The words "separation of church and state" are not in the US Constitution.
The phrase comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson.
However, Thomas Jefferson was in PARIS as the Ambassador to France when the US Constitution was drafted and enacted. He was also not part of the First Congress that passed the Bill of Rights.
We do not use letters as part of our US Constitution.
We especialy do not use letters by someone WHO WAS IN FRANCE when the US Constitution was debated, drafted, and enacted.
Moreover, in substance, this also is not a separation conceptually.
The First Amendment you you quote makes it unconstitutional for goverment to prohibit the free exercise of religion.
If there were a separation, this would violate the 2nd prong.
If there is any place in American life or government where religion is not welcome, then by definition the exercise of religion is not free.
The First Amendment NEITHER contains the phrase "separation of church and state" NOR the substance of separation of church and state.
Explain how there can be FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION if there is any place in American society where the exercise of religion is not free?
Therefore, it is unconstitutional under the First Amendment for there to be any separation of church and State.
There cannot be a separation of church and state in the US Constitution without unconstitutionally violating the "FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION" prong of the First Amendment.
The US Supreme Court has gotten it wrong -- just as many US Supreme Court justices themselves have argued in dissenting opinions.
Jon Moseley
As you can see, he completely failed to address my question... so I emailed him back - and received no response.
Mr. Moseley,
I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my email and for presenting a reasoned argument rather than the hyperbole that frequents a discussion like this one.
It is important to note that you didn't address the slippery slope issue that I mentioned in my previous email. Would you defend the equal protection of any religion to teach their doctrine in a public school? This is where the Establishment Clause applies.
The Constitution is the foundation of our laws but not the embodiment. As a lawyer, you know that it is the courts duty to issue rulings that are not only based on the literal text of a law... but in many cases they have to evaluate the intent. James Madison was the primary author of the Constitution and he also espoused the same sentiment about the Establishment Clause that Jefferson did in many writings. Although Jefferson was in France at the time of the ratification, in 1786 he saw the enactment of his Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom which also espoused in detail the principle of separation. It is these outlying indicators of intent that have led to the rulings of the Supreme Court.
There has been dissent about separation of church and state since the beginning. However, the intent that the Founders had is pretty clear by the body of writings on the subject.
I would be happy to continue this debate. My personal view is that the principle of separation of church and state protects us all when you consider the equal protection that all religions share (or freedom from any religion). I would not like to see a day when any particular religion could supersede another as a matter of law and certainly do not want to see free reign of all religions to impose their doctrines upon my children in a public school. I will agree that some of the application of the principle of separation seems ridiculous but I would rather maintain that principle than abolish it.
Best Regards
And so should we argue with Newt Gingrich