Posted by
Tom L. on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:02:16 AM
The Supreme Court has ruled a white cross, erected as a war memorial and placed on national parkland in the California desert, does not violate the constitutional separation of church and state. At issue before the justices was whether the display fundamentally violates the first ten words of the Bill of Right.
Putting a religious symbol on public property (not quite the case just decided) does not establish an official state religion (unless all other religious symbols are prohibited). Not allowing a religious symbol on public property does prohibit the free exercise thereof.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…” Many may know the preamble to the Constitution of the United States; very few (including judges) know the postample:
“Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.”
Then the are those first ten words of the first admendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…” Few (including judges) know the six words that follow: “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
Almost every state included in its Constitution radification document either “Anno Domini” or “in the year of our Lord”.
Clearly the overwhelming number of the founding fathers, those drafting the Constitution, and those ratifying it, believed in God, faith, and religion. Not just any religion, “Year of our Lord” and “Anno Domini” can only refer to one religion, Christianity.
But what about “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”? Having seen and suffered under a state religion, the founders wanted to prohibit an official state religion, which they understood could cause the state to surpress those who did not believe in that religion.
The founders also understood that it was not enough to stop the government from establishing a religion, as men of faith they knew it was necessary to stop the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
In simple terms the government cannot make an official religion, nor can it prohibit the practice of any religion.
Putting a religious symbol on public property (not quite the case just decided) does not establish an official state religion (unless all other religious symbols are prohibited). Not allowing a religious symbol on public property does prohibit the free exercise thereof.