What's in a Phrase? -
Separation of Church and State
One of the rhetorical ploys used by the Bush administration to "justify" the faith-based social welfare agenda aims to neutralize the well-established principle of separation between government and religion, more commonly phrased as separation between church and state. Evidently, the administration's view is that because the exact wording "separation between church and state" doesn't appear in the Constitution, it has no legal basis. Therefore, as the implication goes, "partnerships' between government and religious establishments are lawfully admissible (Article). This kind of insidious sophistry and obfuscation truly characterizes the anarchistic motives underlying the "faith-based" agenda. Would a diamond suddenly quit being a diamond because somebody called it as a jewel made out of carbon? Would murder quit being murder because the alternative terms like "homicide" or "wrongful death" were being used to define the act? The First Amendment states, "Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." The mandate contained therein is clear and unequivocal for anyone of reasonable literacy. The phraseology "no law" forbids of any exception!
Churches or other institutions and organizations dedicated to the purpose of venerating a religious deity or deities and/or propagating religious doctrine are establishments of religion. The fact that the term "church" is not specifically embedded in the wording of the First Amendment, does not exempt churches or any other type of religious establishment from its mandate. Congress is an agent of state as the term "state" has always been applied to government. Only congress has the right to pass laws and then only within the boundaries specified by the Constitution and its standing amendments. The phrase "separation between church and state" is a linguistically valid expression of an elemental legal mandate as specified by the First Amendment as well as the Sixth Article! And this is so regardless of the irresponsible hair-splitting that some politicians and their legal gophers think is fair gamesmanship.
One should also be cognizant of the fact that terms like "god", "worship", "faith", and "prayer" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution either, and quite notably not even in any equivalent terminology. There is a reason for this, which is implied by the elaboration of the First Amendment's religious establishment and free exercise clauses, as quoted in part above. It is because a "god" or "gods" as the terms apply to objects of worship, are foundational to a religion's identity relative to other religions, and also relative to this nation's institution of government as characterized by its body of non-majoritive organic law and its symbols of nationalism, authority, and power. By constitutional mandate, congress doesn't have the right to legislate how many gods, religions, or theisms their are, or legislate belief in or allegiance to any of them, or in deity worship, or in religious affiliation. To do so would be tampering with "the free exercise thereof", which is the second of the First Amendment's religion clauses. Not anywhere among the articles or amendments is there any suggestion that any establishment of religion is exempt from accountability before those two Constitutional mandates. Therefore, it should be rather evident that Congress doesn't have the right to legislate or authorize partnership of any kind between government and religion, not to the peoples of this nation or to their social welfare system. In spite of this, the present administration and its constitutionally destructive office of faith-based and community initiatives is endeavoring to steer the government into doing those very things.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the afore mentioned agenda of misinterpretation, the faith-based movement has allies on both sides of the major party divide. "Blurring the lines between Church and State" is the politically correct way to express it. For example, in response to a letter of concern about faith-based legislation, California Republican Congressman Howard "Buck" McKeon stated, "While the Constitution bans the government from establishing one religion, the First Amendment also provides that the government shall not prohibit the "free exercise" of religion." A cleaver play on words, although it is in hideous contradiction to the true intent of the religion clauses. Evidently, McKeon would have us believe that as long as the faith-based legislation is crafted to favor several different denominational or sectarian flavors, then the establishment clause is not violated. Bladder dash! McKeon's rap would only be justified if the First Amendment said, "Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion, except if more then one religious sect is respected by it". That is not what the First Amendment says, now is it?
If Congress passes a law that puts government money and authority
in the hands of the Catholic Church or any of its charity organizations, for
instance, then a law respecting an establishment of religion has surely been enacted
in defiance of the First Amendment. If the religious
establishment in question were Jewish, Islamic, Protestant, or some other
singular religious persuasion, then the situation would be exactly the
same. In addition, however, if the legislation were crafted to put tax
payer money and authority in the hands of more then one or all of the above
stated religious establishments, the First Amendment would still be violated
because religious establishments are being respected (endorsed) by the legislation.
The establishment clause is unequivocal, "Congress will make no law
respecting an establishment of religion", and that really means no law
respecting any religion, plural or singular. Further, any honorable interpretation of the second part of the establishment
clause could not possibly conclude that the "free exercise thereof"
extends to religious organizations seizing tax payer money and
government authority in defiance of the endorsement part of the of the religion
clauses.
McKeon is right in asserting that the Constitution bans government from "establishing
one religion", but he fails to admit that it just as equally bans
government from "establishing" or endorsing any number of religions or
sectarian persuasions greater then
one as well! The 25th District of California needs to be appraised that
given the continued license, McKeon is likely to eventually "interpret" all of our First Amendment rights and
protections out of existence.