The meanings of words. They never fail to change when people use them, especially over long periods of time. Take for example the words separation of church and state.
Some vouch for the idea of separation of church and state as a ‘constitutional principle’ yet are unable to pin-point exactly where it can be found in the constitution. Others, who vouch for the idea of separation of church and state (it does sound like a good thing to vouch for), argue that the first amendment makes their case.
Well, I read the first amendment (below) and all I could get out of it was that government should keep its dirty little hands off religion — not foreboding it and not mandating it.
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.
Were I James Madison wanting to include the principle of separation of church and state, I would have most likely written something along the lines of …
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. In addition — Congress shall not recognize the fact that religions exist and shall handle all matters with an outwardly pagan, atheistic worldview.
The real meaning of the words separation of church and state can be found in the context of the document in which they were written. Can you guess which document I am talking about? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not the U.S. Constitution.
That’s right, the phrase separation of church and state actually comes from the Danbury letters, a private correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists. If you read the letters, you will find that Jefferson used the term “a wall of separation between church and state,” to signify the need to keep government from corrupting the church and vice versa. This is most likely because of what has happened in the past when the two are mixed together (Hints: Crusades, Holy War, Church of England, Henry VIII, etc.).
In no way did Jefferson or Madison imply that government officials should not be religious, pray at public events, remove religion from schools (in fact there were no public schools back then) or embrace the particular religion of atheism or secularism (they are religions after all). If that were the case, Jefferson and Madison were awful hypocrites because they, along with the rest of Congress, practiced all of those forbidden things (including using the ‘G’ word in their speeches and some of the founding documents of the United States). Heck — half of the Continental Congress were individuals trained in seminaries to go into the ministry.
And yet we have organizations today like the Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) that trump around the country with mission statements like: “Americans United (AU) is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state separation as the only way to ensure religious freedom for all Americans.”
Better yet, these organizations (ACLU included) scour and police the nation to find any connections they deem to be in violation of their sacred — yet contrived — “separation of church and state” clause.
One such connection was recently found by AU at Liberty University which, being a not-for-profit organization, does not have government clearance to endorse a particular political candidate or party. The rule, which of course has been unhesitatingly accepted for years (I don’t know the history behind that one), does not make much sense to me. Here is how I understand it: You do not pay money to the government because you do not make a profit, therefore you should not have any say in government or politics whatsoever.
So we went from:
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.
To:
You do not pay money to the government because you do not make a profit, therefore you should not have any opinion in government or politics whatsoever.
Okay. I can make my peace with that. But here is where I trip up: I just can’t find that connection sometimes.
AU is taking beef with Liberty University for using school resources to “intervene” in the November house of delegates race between Scott Garrett and Shannon Valentine. Below is the AU press release.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State today asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate a pattern of partisan politics at Liberty University, asserting that Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. used school resources to intervene in a November House of Delegates election.
In a letter to the IRS, Americans United says Falwell and other Liberty officials used the official school newspaper, Liberty Champion, to repeatedly attack incumbent Shannon Valentine and endorse her opponent, Scott Garrett. Garrett won the election by about 200 votes after returns came in from a precinct heavily populated by Liberty students.
“We have documented a clear pattern of partisan intervention orchestrated by top Liberty officials,” said Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn. “I believe the evidence is clear that Liberty officials have violated the law.”
AU’s letter – the result of more than three months of investigating – makes the following allegations:
– Falwell and other university officials used Liberty Champion, ostensibly a student publication but one that is actually subject to university control, to run a series of articles attacking Valentine and endorsing Garrett.
– University officials twice arranged for a “voter guide” published by the Virginia Family Foundation to appear in the Champion. The guide distorted Valentine’s views and was stacked to endorse Garrett. Copies of the Oct. 27 issue of the newspaper were mailed to all Lynchburg residents.
– On Election Day, Ergun Caner, a top university official, drove around campus with the College Republicans, rounding up voters.
– Falwell and other Liberty officials later boasted that their actions had swayed the election to Garrett. They have vowed to intervene in future elections.
“This is one of the most blatant and dishonest attempts to influence an election by a non-profit religious organization I have ever seen,” Lynn said. “We hope the IRS acts swiftly to stop Liberty’s overt partisan politicking.”
In his letter to the IRS, Lynn noted that Falwell has vowed to repeat these partisan activities.
“Indeed, Falwell has already stated that he hopes the results of the Nov. 3 election will impact the decisions of the Lynchburg City Council elections,” wrote Lynn. “The audacity of this move is, I submit, nothing short of breathtaking.”
DO YOUR HOMEWORK AU. The Champion is not “ostensibly” a student newspaper; The Champion is a student newspaper. That’s why it says Student-run since 1971 in the masthead. The disclaimer on every paper reads: Letters and columns that appear are the opinion of the author solely, not the Champion editorial board or Liberty University.
The only staff member that is not a student, Deborah Huff, acts as its supervisor. Huff doesn’t tell students what to write about nor what they cannot write about (unless it is offensive or inappropriate material). She fills the role of a coordinator who hires editors, manages money and gives advice where needed. In no way do university officials “control” the content of the Champion. I know this because I have been writing for the Champion for almost two years now!
I read the papers — front to back — the weeks preceding the Scott Garrett/Shannon Valentine election. They were painstakingly fair. Editorials were written in favor of both candidates (here and here) and advertisements were run side-by-side for both candidates. You would hardly believe that the Champion was the newspaper of a conservative Christian school if you happened to read our paper last November. I even remember Professor Huff going crazy in the Champion office because the advertisement that Valentine bought did not appear exactly as it should have. Two news articles (devoid of any opinion whatsoever) were printed that listed questions (the same questions for both candidates) and then answers for each candidate.
Of course Shannon Valentine (the liberal Democrat) shot herself in the foot when she placed, in her Champion advertisement, a bullet point stating that she was endorsed by a pro-life organization. Editorials in the following issue clarified that, although the ad stated Valentine was endorsed by a pro-life organization, that did not mean she was pro-life. She also got tore up for pretending to espouse conservative values in other ways. Let’s just say her voting record speaks for itself. I guess that’s what you get when you try to insult the intelligence of an editorial board by trying to run such a blatant lie in their newspaper.
In other news, Liberty students are planning to barrage (not literally) a city council meeting at the Lynchburg City Hall tonight because the council (a majority of which are liberals), fearing Liberty’s increasingly visible voting influence after the Valentine/Garrett election, decided to move our polling location to a place much less accessible. I will blog about that tomorrow. I am wiped.







