On the First Amendment and "Separation of Church and State"

By RE CASTEL

Religious groups, such as the Catholics, Baptist, Adventists, etc., build institutions, schools, hospitals, and etc., to provide for the people's needs in terms of what these religious groups can offer according to their religious beliefs. If other people cannot accept what these religious groups offer, then these other people can go elsewhere to get the services they need. But the religious groups cannot be forced to do what they do not want to do on account of their religious beliefs.

Various religious groups, by way of unconstitutional legislations and policies, are now being forced by the government to do things that are against their core religious beliefs.

The problem is that lately the legislative branch has put forth laws and the executive branch interpreted those laws and formulated and executed policies that enforce what some religious groups do not want to do on account of their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court (mostly by being silent and by not doing the diligent examinations) has ratified the legislations and policies, disregarding the fact that some legislations and policies are not according to the US Constitution. So, the people get imposed upon by the unconstitutional laws and unfair policies.

The worst part of it is that lately the Executive circumvented Congress and has formulated and executed policies not 'technically' covered by congressional legislations...

The phrase "separation of church and state" is popular. But this phrase is not really in-keeping with what the First Amendment prescribes. The First Amendment simply says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is clear that the First Amendment does not say "separation of church and state." Thomas Jefferson may have said "separation of church and state", but Thomas Jefferson is not the US Constitution.

So, Congress should not make laws that establish any religion in particular or prohibit the free exercise of any religion in particular.

Absent such constitutional laws, the Executive should not formulate and execute policies that establish for the general populace the practices of any particular religion, and especially to the suppression of the practices in the other religions.

For as long as the practices of any particular religion do not infringe on the rights of others and are not criminal acts, such practices cannot be denied nor suppressed. This fact is according to the rights inherently allowed by the US Constitution.

The First Amendment has never been amended through direct legislation. But it is insidiously being amended by the amoral government legislations and policies and by the establishment of creepy precedents promoted by corrupt people (e.g., corrupt lawyers, judges, and politicians) that subtily undermine the First Amendment.

An insidious amendment of the First Amendment is that regarding the right to pray or not to pray in certain venues according to the leadership privileges of the leaders in such venues.

If the leaders in such venues were theists, they could have facilitated the prayers according to their leadership privileges and constitutional rights. By the same token, if the leaders were atheists, they could have disregarded the prayer activity and it would be according to their leadership privileges and constitutional rights. There would have been nothing unlawful and unfair in both cases.

But what has happened is that the government has unfairly favored the atheists. Because amoral atheists do not want to pray, the theists who would rather pray have been imposed upon by the government's curtailment of the privileges of their leaders to facilitate such prayers. This has been done according to the insidious phrase "separation of church and state," which is nowhere found in the original US Constitution and its Amendments.

All the atheists could have done while others are praying is to respectfully keep quiet and not pray according to their beliefs, and vice versa. Thusly, both the theists and the atheists could have practiced their religions at the same time. Instead, government has unconstitutionally imposed the religion of the atheists upon everyone else in the name of "separation of church and state."

Moreover, if an atheist gets elected or appointed and he decides not to facilitate any godly religious practices within the purview of his office and according to his privilege as the leader, then it is lawfully his constitutional right. He can be construed as simply using his own leadership smarts for the purpose of achieving social goals deemed to be in consonance with the law.

On the other hand, if a theist gets elected or appointed and he facilitates godly religious practices within the purview of his office and according to his lawful privilege as the leader, then it is lawfully his constitutional right. In like manner, he can be construed as simply using his own leadership smarts for the purpose of achieving social goals deemed to be in consonance with the law.

For as long as the atheistic or the theistic leader does not force others to facilitate certain practices against their will and against their rights, there is no violation of anyone's rights.

For as long as their practices do not deny, violate, or infringe on the rights of others, individuals may exercise their equal rights under the Constitution.

The rights of individuals remain equal in spite of the fact that one may be enjoying his pertinent privileges under the more conducive circumstance, while the other is unable to enjoy under the same circumstance what would have been his pertinent privileges according to his own rights had the circumstance been more pertinently conducive.

To clarify, the rights of an atheist is equal to the rights of a theist (and similarly to that of others by extension). But, by their own choice, although equal, their definite rights are not the same definite rights. Because what is right according to the beliefs of the atheist is not the same right according to the beliefs of the theist. Their rights are essentially in conflict. So, the conducive circumstances for their privileges according to their rights also differ significantly. The conducive circumstances are lawfully delivered according to the democratic process. When the democratic process delivers the conducive circumstance for one group, it becomes necessary for the other to defer or postpone his claims. There are of course many instances where both may enjoy their privileges under the same circumstance, albeit with due tolerance for each other.

It is sad that some may enjoy in the prevailing circumstance while the others cannot. But this is according to the results of the democratic process. Once a leader has been elected and he has appointed leaders under him who embrace the same ideals that he embraces, the prevailing circumstance that they establish by their leadership is considered according to the voice of the majority of the people.

So, the others will have to wait for their due time to change the prevailing circumstance during the next scheduled democratic process or until the elected and appointed leaders violate and overstep the bounds set by the Constitution.

What is evidently happening now is that others are trying to impose their particular religion on others. The atheists are trying to undermine a government that is weak in morals in order to facilitate the imposition of the atheistic and/or amoral religion on others, and in spite of their evident violation of the fundamental principles of the Constitution. This is a very dangerous situation.

A weak government could get undermined and pushed, by forces from within and from without, into the clear violation of the fundamental principles of the US Constitution. And this could be the ruin of the people if the people by their complacence will let this happen.

It is obvious that there is more of the idea of "God and religion" in the US Constitution than the idea of "no God and no religion." So, it is rather easy to see which one is more constitutional between the atheistic religion and the theistic religion.

The Founding Fathers crafted and framed the Constitution with the implicit idea of decency according to the Decalogue. The crafting and framing of the Constitution was done by the fiery forge of a revolution. It will no doubt go through the same but more fiery forge if the Constitution will again be recrafted and reframed with new or renewed fundamentals.

The US Constitution has served the people well. There is apparently no need to amend the Constitution in order to ensure that the people may disregard the 'God' idea and the 'good' idea. Evidently, godlessness and 'goodlessness' do not promote the general welfare; and so, they are clearly not according to the spirit of the Constitution. Now, therefore, more than at any other time in history, there is the very urgent necessity for the people to actively defend, preserve and uphold the US Constitution.

Evidently, people may be good to others and they are free to do so under the law; but people may not be bad to others and remain without restraints under the law. Thus, the good may remain free with their privileges, while the bad incurs and must suffer the due penalties, both under the law.

The phrase "separation of church and state" is catchy. But it does not follow that this phrase conveys the right idea presented by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.