The Establishment Clause

George Will provides some historical context to expose exactly how twisted and inconsistent and generally lame the Supreme Court has become in its rulings on religion.

The First Amendment states:

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.

Regarding the Establishment Clause, George Will points out some facts about the era in which it was written.

In 1789, the First Amendment was drafted by the first Congress -- after it had hired a chaplain. Although President Jefferson's religion was a watery deism, he regularly attended Christian worship services, often with the Marine band participating, in the hall of the House of Representatives. The House was used because of the shortage of suitable venues in the newly founded District of Columbia.

Jefferson, who coined the metaphor "wall of separation" about relations between church and state, also allowed the War Office and Treasury to be used for religious services that were open to the public. The Supreme Court chamber also was used for services.

On the Fourth of July, 1801, a reverend took up a collection on the House floor to support services he conducted at a nearby hotel. Jefferson contributed $25 to the cause. The Speaker's chair served as a pulpit for Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist and Quaker clergy.

In 1813, a Massachusetts congressman reported that "two very Christian discourses" were "preached in the hall introductory to a contribution for the purpose of spreading a knowledge of the gospel in Asia." Services were conducted in the old House, now Statuary Hall, until 1857.

The generation that wrote and ratified the First Amendment obviously thought that none of these practices -- all recounted in James H. Hutson's book "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic," published by the Library of Congress and based on an exhibition there -- violated the Establishment Clause.

Will offers an explanation as to why today's court is "preoccupied with the supposed problem of mere displays of the Commandments." He believes it's "because beginning about 25 years ago the court evidently decided that the Establishment Clause's historical context, and the Framers' intentions regarding it, are irrelevant."

He goes on to suggest that "nowadays many people delight in being distressed. They cultivate exquisitely tender sensibilities and practice moral exhibitionism, waxing indignant about minor encounters with thoughts and symbols they dislike. So just to lower the decibel level of American life, perhaps communities should refrain from religious displays other than in religious contexts.

"But this is a merely prudential, not a constitutional consideration. On Monday the justices churned out 140 pages of opinions and dissents about the Texas and Kentucky displays. Here is a one-sentence opinion that should suffice in such cases:

"'Because the display on public grounds does not do what the Establishment Clause was written to prevent -- does not impose a state-sponsored creed or significantly advantage or disadvantage one sect or sects -- the display is constitutional.'"

I really don't know why people can't seem to comprehend that the Constitution does not protect one from being offended by others' religious beliefs. For example, if someone doesn't like the presence of a display of the Ten Commandments, too bad.

The Establishment Clause protects one from being coerced by the state into practicing a specific religion. It does not protect one from being offended by seeing a cross or the star of David, if one considers those symbols offensive. As Will points out, purging religion from the public square is not what the framers had in mind. It is not how they lived their lives.

Wouldn't you think that the display of religious symbols would be celebrated and looked upon as quintessentially American, rather than something that our society must try to eliminate?

It seems odd that exercising our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion elicits the wrath of the ACLU and results in a slew of court cases. Why are these people bent on fighting to limit our freedoms?

Isn't tolerance and respect for our differences an important American principle?

I'm not offended when I see the religious symbols of another faith, whether it be on public or private land.


Scalia's dissent in McCreary County vs. ACLU begins on page 45 of the pdf file of the ruling.

Read it to understand the difference between interpreting the Constitution and rewriting it.