THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN AMERICA
AMENDMENT 1
Recently a small town in North Carolina, was bullied into removing a military memorial to soldiers killed in Afghanistan because it depicted a kneeling soldier praying before a cross. A well established group called The Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit against the town of King North Carolina to remove the statue. After years of fighting this group in court and spending fifty million in legal fees the town leaders decided that they could no longer afford to spend anymore of the taxpayers money. They agreed to a two million dollar settlement of which only one million is covered by insurance. Most Americans do not realize the tremendous power given to the attorneys representing groups such as the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the A.C.L.U. This power was an unintended consequence of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and a subsequent law passed since then.
Before 1964 every individual that filed a lawsuit for any reason was responsible for his own legal fees. After 1964 if a Civil Rights violation could be proven in court the judges began reimbursing lower income persons their legal fees. This was called fee shifting. In 1975 the Supreme Court forced Congress to be more specific about the practice of fee shifting. Congress passed the Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Awards Act of 1976. This Act was originally intended to help the underprivileged who won their cases in court. Since that time the A.C.L.U. and similar groups have engineered the law to where their legal fees are reimbursed when they win a case. Because of this monetary power they are able to intimidate various townships and government entities into backing down in regard to their 1st Amendment right to display nativity scenes, plaques listing the Ten Commandments, and other religious symbols supported by the taxpayer.
On August 11, 1921 a Catholic priest named James Coyle, in Birmingham Alabama, was approached by a young couple wanting to be married. They had tried to marry at a local Catholic church but couldn't locate a priest to marry them. The young girl wanting to be married was the daughter of a well known Methodist minister who earned extra money by helping young couples obtain marriage licenses and performing wedding ceremonies at the courthouse. His name was Edwin Stephenson and he was a virulent anti-Catholic bigot, racist and member of the Ku Klux Klan. His daughter Ruth was trying to marry a Spanish laborer who because of his dark skin was sometimes confused as a Black man. Father Coyle was unusually open-minded for a city as racist and anti-Catholic as Birmingham Alabama in 1921.
Ruth had tried to become a Catholic a few years earlier but her staunchly protestant father had put an end to that notion. Father Coyle, familiar with the girls father and his bigoted beliefs performed the wedding ceremony in spite of that. Hours later Stephenson and his wife found Father Coyle enjoying the evening sitting on his front porch in the cooling breezes. The couple had been searching frantically throughout Birmingham for their daughter thinking that the Catholics had kidnapped her. Coyle admitted that he had married Ruth to a man named Pedro Gussman. Stephensen shouted, "You have married her to that nigger". "You have treated me like a dirty dog". Coyle responded in an Irish rage telling Stephenson that he was "a heretical bastard". After an exchange of more hot words Stephenson produced a pistol and blew out Father Coyles brains there in his front yard.
Stephenson was arrested and a brilliant young lawyer named Hugo Lafayette Black would represent him in court. Hugo was not a klansman at that time but he had their blessing. The judge in the trial, four of the five defense lawyers, the police chief and most of the jurors were Klansmen. Whenever Gussman was brought into court to testify Hugo Black would dim the lights in order to make the jury believe that he was a black man. The issue of race and the Catholic religion were highly exploited by Black. In the end Hugo won an acquittal for Stephenson. He went on to gain fame in Klan circles for defending other clients like Edwin Stephenson. Less than a year after the Stephenson trial Hugo Black became a Klansman. Two years later he renounced his Klan membership because he had national ambitions. In 1926 he was elected to the United States Senate and more than a decade later Franklin Roosevelt appointed him to the United States Supreme Court. Unbelievably he gained a reputation as a liberal justice. Hugo, however; showed his true colors and his Klan mindset when he wrote the majority opinion in 1947 for Everson vs. the Board of Education. This ruling would turn the 1st Amendment on it's head.
Everson vs. the Board of education was a bad decision by a sitting Supreme Court. This decision forever perverted our view of the 1st Amendment. The township of Ewing New Jersey passed a resolution authorizing reimbursement to parents for the money they spent on public transportation that was the means of transporting their children back and forth to both public and Catholic schools beginning in 1941. A citizen named Arch Everson filed a lawsuit to stop the practice. He felt that his taxes were being used for private purposes and to support the Catholic Church which was a violation of both the New Jersey State constitution and the U.S. constitution in his opinion. In reality this practice was right in line with the original meaning of the 1st Amendment. States were allowed to determine their own conduct of religious affairs without intervention from the Federal government. All courts until 1947 would have sided with the township of Ewing New Jersey and against Mr. Everson. A case can be built that Hugo Blacks opinion in Everson was based more on his anti-Catholic bias than any legal jurisprudence. Black would write that "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach".
The meaning of the 1st Amendment is very simple. There is the Establishment clause and the Exercise clause. The Founding Fathers did not want an established denomination like there had been in England and the colonies before the revolution. The states could have their own established denominations if they wanted to but Congress could not establish a national denomination. The Exercise clause meant that Congress could not suppress public religious expressions as it does now. It's role was to protect public religious expression. Black refers to Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in his ruling. Jefferson was in France when the 1st Amendment was passed. Other than expressing his opinions on the matter to friends in letters he had nothing to do with the wording of the 1st Amendment. Jefferson did hope that each state, on their own, would adapt the same language as the U.S. Constitution into their own state constitutions but he did not want to force this change on the states. He was firmly committed to the idea of states rights which is a sound Constitutional principle. Jefferson, along with James Madison had helped disestablish the Anglican church in Virginia as a state supported religion in 1776. He had fought for the right of religious expression for all Christians in the state of Virginia such as the Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics etc.
In the Danbury letter ministers were commending Jefferson on his stand for religious freedom. Connecticut had a state religion and Baptists suffered religious persecution there as a result. Black, quoting the "Wall of Separation" part of the letter took Jefferson totally out of context. As I have noted Jefferson believed in the constitutional concept of states rights. He would never violate the Constitution and force each state to worship according to his beliefs. Each state is allowed to conduct religious affairs as they and their citizens believe are in their best interests. That is without interference from the Federal government. In other words if the citizens want the Ten Commandments in their courthouses or religious symbols on government property they can have them. If a teacher wants to lead a prayer or a coach wants to lead a prayer or participate in one with his players they should be able to do so. Nativity scenes on government property or memorials with religious themes would also be okay. All things religious are up to the the state and not the Federal government. Religious practices performed by by a public official and on public property do not fall under the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. It simply means that the Federal government cannot establish a national religion. Jefferson established a Christian church in the U.S.capital and he attended regularly during both terms of his presidency. Obviously he was not hostile to religious practices and displays on public property.
The sad thing is that the A.C.L.U. and it's sister groups realize what Jefferson meant. Their lawyers understand the original meaning of the Constitution but they don't care because they incorrectly view the Constitution as a living document that they can mold to their perverted thinking. Everson vs. the Board of Education is a perfect example of the modern court legislating from the bench. This practice, however is really not new. Such court cases as Marbury vs. Madison, the Dred Scott decision, and Plessy vs. Ferguson were cases of a similar nature with varying negative consequences. What far too many members of our three branches of government over the years have failed to realize is that the Founding Fathers in their wisdom provided us with the means to make legitimate constitutional changes. It is called the amendment process.
 |
| Hugo Black |
THE DANBURY LETTER
The address of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut; assembled October 7th 1801. To Thomas Jefferson Esq., the President of the united States of America. Sir, Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoy’d in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere. Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty – That Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals – That no man ought to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions – That the legitimate Power of civil Government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbour: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our antient charter, together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted as the Basis of our government at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws & usages, & such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; & therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power & gain under the pretence of government & Religion should reproach their fellowmen – should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the united States is not the national Legislator & also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial Effect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine & prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cal’d you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermin’d opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people. And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Association, Neh’h Dodge The Committee Eph’m Robbins Stephen S. Nelson
Jefferson’s Reply: To mess. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut. 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 & 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 and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem. Th. Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802.
Comments
Post a Comment