"Mobilizing America's Nonbelievers for Political Activism"
"ESTABLISHMENT", THE NOUN
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…".
Many choose to define 'establishment' as 'the act of establishing', which is the third meaning in the on-line Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. I think the authors of the First Amendment intended 'establishment' to be a noun, meaning no law can be made specifically regarding any established religion or religions. This definition would include forbidding the establishing of a religion as well, for obvious reasons.
Had the authors intended to limit the meaning of the First Amendment only to 'the act of establishing' they would have been more explicit, or at least would have written '…THE establishment of religion'.
Other evidence includes Benjamin Franklin's observation, "When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." Franklin was a Christian. Other founders had various views on religion but all were intelligent enough to recognize the danger to religious liberty itself of allowing religion to creep into government.
Also, note the attitude of James Madison, author of the First Amendment:
"It is worth noting that at no point is he [Madison] more unrelenting than in his opposition to state support or aid to religion by taxation. Not even 'three pence' contribution was thus to be exacted from any citizen for such a purpose. Madison and his compatriots made no exceptions or abridgments to the complete separation they created."For Madison, his struggle was as much to prevent 'the interference of law in religion' as to restrain religious intervention in political matters. He recognized that these were two sides of the same coin."
(Above taken from atheism.about.com).
Of course, the classic defense of the authors' intent is in the letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in which he explicitly used the term, 'separation between Church & State'.
President Bush has violated the spirit of the founders and the letter of the First Amendment by giving tax money to religious organizations through the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives. His approach was either naïve or sneaky and disingenuous. Given what is known about how his administration uses distortions and propaganda to sway public opinion, I strongly suspect the latter.
He first couched the issue as one of equal treatment, claiming that to exclude faith-based organizations from competing for federal funds was discriminatory. In fact, it IS discriminatory because the Constitution was written to both allow freedom of religion and forbid government entanglement in religion. When you understand that the Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress, it's clear that 'pass no law respecting an establishment of religion' includes not funding religion.
Not giving money to religious institutions does not violate the '…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' clause. While pushing a non-existent 'equal treatment for religion' concept, in violation of a Constitution specifically excluding religion from government concern, Bush assured the country that the money would not be used for proselytizing and would not violate anti-discrimination laws. Now that the money is being made available it is clear that requiring religious institutions to change their basic nature just because they're receiving federal funds DOES constitute 'prohibiting the free exercise' of religion.
The primary cause of the problem is that we have a president, and many in congress, who think it's virtuous to place their god above the government of the United States. I have seen some religious right diagrams depicting 'god' on top, the government next and the citizenry next as the hierarchy of authority. The concept of 'freedom of religion' requires an authority to ensure true freedom of religion. It's quite possible that the founders may have had in mind a side by side arrangement, but there's no way a god can be on top without getting into a bloody war over who's god should be there. Such is the nature of religion. Therefore, the government must be the ultimate arbiter among religions and, as such, cannot become involved with any one or a few of them.
The only way out of the mess Bush has created is to respect the founders' concept, and the Constitution's specific intent, of non-entanglement. To press forward with Bush's policy is to keep the door open to federal funding for religious proselytizing, followed by a power struggle over which religions get how much money and, ultimately, a majority-rule national religion-one of many formulae for establishing a theocracy.
Jeffrey K. Lewis
Political Director, the Godless American Political Action Committee
(www.gampac.org)