The Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment
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 understand the "Establishment Clause" you need to understand the founders of our country.  In 1534 Henry the 8th, through the "Act of Supremacy"  declared the king to be the only Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England.  Later the "Treasons Act" made it punishable by death to not acknowledge that idea.   Because the ministers of the Church of England were paid by the king, they effectively became his "mouth-pieces" to disseminate the "kings truth" rather than "God's truth".  Later groups of "separatists" decided to worship their own way in their own homes.   This caused alarm by the government, leading them to pass the "Act of Uniformity" that required all citizens to attend the Church of England every Sunday.  A person who chose not to attend would be fined 1 shilling every Sunday.   People conducting non-conforming church services would be imprisoned or executed. These acts were what drove our founders, the Pilgrims, to take the long and dangerous voyage over the Atlantic and risk their very lives to come here.

This is what "establishing a religion" really looks like.

Placing a nativity on a courthouse lawn does not EVEN COMPARE with having a church bought and paid for by the government and forcing citizens to attend it.   If our founders saw what some in this country consider "establishing a religion" they would be mortified, because they risked life and limb at the hands of their government while people today just have to say "their feelings were hurt" or "they felt left out" in order to evoke the "establishment clause".

The government has always in the past tried to encourage religion without establishing one.  For example, 1782 Congress reviewed and recommended the printing of the Aitken Bible (also known as the Bible of the Revolution).  Why did they do this?  Because at the time the only Bibles available were the English translation and they were in short supply after the Revolutionary War.  Aitken's paid for the printing of the bible, but he requested Congress to review it and give a recommendation so he could get it printed.  Here is a statement printed inside the bible:

"Reverend Gentlemen,
"Our knowledge of our piety and public spirit leads us without apology to recommend to your particular attention the edition of the Holy Scriptures publishing by Mr. Aitken. He undertook this expensive work at a time when, from the circumstances of the war, and English edition of the Bible could not be imported, nor any opinion formed how long the obstruction might continue. On this account particularly he deserves applause and encouragement. We therefore wish you, Reverend Gentlemen, to examine the execution of the work, and if approved, to give the sanction of our judgment, and the weigh of your recommendation. 

Was this establishing a religion?  No.  Not in the least!  It was promoting it though and there in lies the difference.  To illustrate my point, consider that the federal government promotes home ownership by allowing home-buyers to deduct their mortgage interest and property taxes from their income.  Why? Because homeowners are a benefit to society.  We become better citizens by putting down roots in our towns and cities.  We become INVESTED into our communities.   If, however, the federal government MANDATED that everyone over the age of 25 buy a home or pay a penalty (kind of sounds like Obama-care doesn't it?) ... then that would be ESTABLISHING home ownership.

Putting up Christmas Trees or having Thanksgiving celebrations does not MANDATE or ESTABLISH a religion... it PROMOTES it.  Why should the government promote religion?  For the same reason it promotes home-ownership.  It makes us better citizens and it helps support the Republic. George Washington said in his Farewell Address the following:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness

A moral and ethical people are the foundation of a Republic.  A moral people will not

• steal from the government
• lie to the public
• steal votes
• take advantage of others
• show charity out of their own wealth.
• etc..etc.. etc..

What about Al-Qaeda and Muslim Extremists?  Should government promote them as well?  The answer here is simply NO!  You may be asking  "But why not?  Are they not religions as well?".  My answer here is simple, "Because they do not support the tenets of our Republic".

1. Do they support Freedom of Religion?             No.  
2. Do they support Freedom of Speech?               No
3. Do they support Freedom of the Press?            No.
4. Do they support the ownership of property?    No (not if your not muslim).
5. Do they support a woman's right to vote?        No.

So therefore, unless they are "moderate muslims" who DO support these tenets the government does not have to promote it (though it cannot entirely dissuade them either ... except if they break the law).

The Republic needs religion to survive but religion only needs the Republic to leave it alone.