by Kelly Collins
The URL above, is a data base that is searchable. I have searched through the constitution using that data base in regards to “Separation of Church and State.”
I have not found any law or clause that requires this. The only thing on Church or religion is in the first amendment. It does not say anything about separation of church and state.
“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.”
District Judge Michael Caperton of Kentucky is being criticized for allowing people to go to worship services instead of rehab centers and jail. ACLU lawyers are saying that this will have serious constitutional problems. They are using the myth of separation of church and state again.
Joseph Story (1779-1845) a constitutional scholar wrote, ‘'at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.'' The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment.
How do we now call for separation of church and state? Is it because of a looser interpretation of the constitution? If so the original purpose of the constitution has been changed. There is built into the constitution a process of change that has not been used to change things in this case. Strict adherence would require things to be amended or abolished which takes a ratification state by state.
What liberalism has done is to take away states rights in the ratification process by bypassing it. Not only with the separation of church and state myth, but with some of the laws that are being passed or reinterpreted recently.
The ACLU has singled out Christianity in it's zeal to use separation of church and state. Other religions are not “gone after” by the ACLU. That is clearly unconstitutional as it smacks of religious persecution.
I am not against change, I am against change with out the legal process for that change. We are supposedly a democratic society and we should be allowed our rights to vote for or against such changes to our constitution. If the majority of “we the people” want to see the church and state separated then amend the constitution and have it ratified by the states as set down in the laws of our country.
Judge Michael Caperton has done nothing unconstitutional in his actions to have drug and alcohol offenders attend worship services as it is left to the offender to choose to go or not to go. Further the judge has not specified any particular services and has not shown preferences to any one religion or sect. This is keeping within the guidelines of the first amendment.
Boise City News