5000 Year Leap (11 page)

   This is why the First Amendment of the Constitution provides that "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

   It is clear from the writings of the Founders as well as the
Commentaries
of Justice Story that the First Amendment was designed to eliminate forever the interference of the federal government in any religious matters within the various states. As Madison stated during the Virginia ratifying convention: "There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation."
94

   Jefferson took an identical position when he wrote the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: "It is true, as a general principle, ... that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution ... all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the states, or to the people."
95

   In the Kentucky Resolutions, Thomas Jefferson also made it clear that the federal judicial system was likewise prohibited from intermeddling with religious matters within the states. He wrote:

   "Special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...', thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press, insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others; and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religions,
are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals
."
96

   When Thomas Jefferson was serving in the Virginia legislature he helped initiate a bill to have a day of fasting and prayer, but when he became President, Jefferson said there was no authority in the federal government to proclaim religious holidays. In a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association dated January 1, 1802, he explained his position and said the Constitution had created "a wall of separation between church and state."
97

   In recent years the Supreme Court has undertaken to use this metaphor as an excuse for meddling in the religious issues arising within the various states. It has not only presumed to take jurisdiction in these disputes, but has actually forced the states to take the same hands-off position toward religious matters even though this restriction originally applied only to the federal government. This obvious distortion of the original intent of Jefferson (when he used the metaphor of a "wall" separating church and state) becomes entirely apparent when the statements and actions of Jefferson are examined in their historical context.

   It will be recalled that Jefferson and Madison were anxious that the states intervene in religious matters so as to provide for equality among all religions, and that all churches or religions assigned preferential treatment should be disestablished from such preferment. They further joined with the other Founders in expressing an anxiety that ALL religions be encouraged in order to promote the moral fiber and religious tone of the people. This, of course, would be impossible if there were an impenetrable "wall" between church and state on the state level. Jefferson's "wall" was obviously intended only for the federal government, and the Supreme Court application of this metaphor to the states has come under severe criticism.
98

   In Thomas Jefferson's second inaugural address, he virtually signalled the states to press forward in settling their religious issues since it was within their jurisdiction and not that of the federal government:

   "In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies."
99

   Jefferson, along with the other Founders, believed that it was within the power of the various states to eliminate those inequities which existed between the various faiths, and then pursue a policy of encouraging religious institutions of all kinds because it was in the public interest to use their influence to provide the moral stability needed for "good government and the happiness of mankind."
100

   Jefferson's resolution for disestablishing the Church of England in Virginia was not to set up a wall between the state and the church but simply, as he explained it, for the purpose of "taking away the privilege and preeminence of one religious sect over another, and thereby [establishing] ...
equal rights among all
."
101

   In view of the extremely inflexible and rigid position which the U.S. Supreme Court has taken in recent years concerning the raising up of a "wall" between state government and religion, it is remarkable how radically different the Founders' views were upon such matters.

   Take, for example, their approval of religious meetings in tax-supported public buildings. With the Founders there was no objection as to the propriety of using public buildings for religious purposes, for that was to be encouraged. The only question was whether or not the facilities could be made available
equally
to all denominations desiring them. Notice how Jefferson reflects his deep satisfaction in the way the churches were using the local courthouse in Charlottesville, near Jefferson's home:

   "In our village of Charlottesville, there is a good degree of religion, with a small spice only of fanaticism. We have four sects, but without either church or meeting-house. The court-house is the common temple, one Sunday in the month to each. Here, Episcopalian and Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist, meet together, join in hymning their Maker, listen with attention and devotion to each others' preachers, and all mix in society with perfect harmony."
102

   One cannot help asking the modern Supreme Court: "Where is the wall of separation between church and state when the courthouse is approved for the common temple of all the religious sects of a village?"

   Of course, Jefferson would be the first to require some other arrangement if all of the churches could not be accommodated equally, but so long as they were operating equally and harmoniously together, it was looked upon as a commendable situation. The fact that they were utilizing a tax-supported public building was not even made an issue.

   What doctrines were Americans so anxious to teach one another in order that they might remain united and well governed? These religious precepts turned out to be the heart and soul of the entire American political philosophy. They were taken from the books of John Locke, Sir William Blackstone, and other great thinkers of the day, who took them directly from the Bible. Thus, religion and the American institutions of freedom were combined. In fact, the Founders had taken the five truths we have already identified as "religion" and had built the whole Constitutional framework on top of them. The sanctity of civil rights and property rights, as well as the obligation of citizens to support the Constitution in protecting their unalienable rights, were all based on these religious precepts. Therefore, having established the general principle that "without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained," we now turn to the specific principles on which this general concept was based.

   The Founders vigorously affirm throughout their writings that the foundation of all reality is the existence of the Creator, who is the designer of all things in nature and the promulgator of all the laws which govern nature.

   The Founders were in harmony with the thinking of John Locke as expressed in his famous
Essay Concerning Human Understanding
. In it Locke pointed out that it defies the most elementary aspects of reason and experience to presuppose that everything in existence developed as a result of fortuitous circumstance. The mind, for example, will not accept the proposition that the forces of nature, churning about among themselves, would ever produce a watch, or even a lead pencil, let alone the marvelous intricacies of the human eye, the ear, or even the simplest of the organisms found in nature. All these are the product of intelligent design and high-precision engineering.

   Locke felt that a person who calls himself an "atheist" is merely confessing that he has never dealt with the issue of the Creator's existence. Therefore, to Locke an atheist would be to that extent "irrational," and out of touch with reality; in fact, out of touch with the most important and fundamental reality.

   In his
Essay Concerning Human Understanding
, John Locke insisted that everyone can know there is a divine Creator. It is simply a case of thinking about it.
103

   To begin with, each person knows that he exists. With Descartes each person can say, "
Cogito ergo sum.
" With God, each person can say, "
I am!
"

   Furthermore, each person knows that he is
something
. He also knows that a
something
could not be produced by a
nothing
. Therefore, whatever brought man and everything else into existence also had to be
something
.

   It follows that this
something
which did all of this organizing and arranging would have to be all-knowing to the full extent required for such an organization and arrangement.

   This
something
would therefore have to be superior to everything which had resulted from this effort. This element of superiority makes this
something
the ultimate "good" for all that has been organized and arranged. In the Anglo-Saxon language, the word for supreme or ultimate good is "God."

   Man is capable of knowing many things about God, Locke said. The Creator must of necessity be a cogitative (reasoning or thinking) being, for man is a cogitative (reasoning) being. Certainly a non-cogitative being like a rock could never have produced a cogitative being like a man. We may also know that the divine Creator has a sense of compassion and love, for he gave mankind these sublime qualities.

   The Creator would also reflect a fine sense of right and wrong, and also a sense of indignation or even anger with those who violate the laws of "right" action. In other words, God has a strong sense of "justice." Remorse for wrong also arouses a sense of compassion in the Creator, just as it does in human beings whom he designed.

   There are other attributes of man which human beings must necessarily share with their Creator if man is "made in the image of God." One would be a sense of humor. The Creator must also be a great artist on the visual plane. Everything the Creator organizes is in terms of beauty through color, form, and contrasts. Obviously, man can enjoy only to a finite degree the capacity of his Creator to appreciate the vast panorama of sensory satisfaction which we call "beauty."

   So, as John Locke says, there are many things man can know about God. And because any thoughtful person can gain an appreciation and conviction of these many attributes of the Creator, Locke felt that an atheist has failed to apply his divine capacity for reason and observation.

   The American Founding Fathers agreed with Locke. They considered the existence of the Creator as the most fundamental premise underlying ALL self-evident truth. It will be noted as we proceed through this study that every single self-evident truth enunciated by the Founders is rooted in the presupposition of a divine Creator.