MRFF Sr. Research Director Responds to Gazette.com Editorial

Click here to read the editorial by Wayne Laugesen

---

MRFF Sr. Research Director Chris Rodda Responds to Laugesen

Mr. Laugesen …

As a writer, I have always found that it is usually a good idea to do a bit of research and get the facts right before writing and publishing a piece. You, on the other hand, don’t seem to find this aspect of the writing process to be very important. In the case of your latest editorial, “Anti-religion suit is based on a myth,” a bit of real research into Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists and James Madison’s interpretation of the First Amendment might have stopped you from revealing your obvious ignorance of American history.

First of all, the Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson about the discrimination they faced as a minority religion in a state whose government was controlled by the Congregationalists, not the Church of England. A national religion was the farthest thing from their minds. Apparently, you don’t even know enough basic American history to know that not all of the states were controlled by the Church of England. The states that actually were under the Church of England, such as Virginia, had disestablished the church during the Revolutionary War — 25 years before the Baptists wrote to Jefferson. The New England states, however, being the “Bible belt” of the day, held onto their religious establishments as long as they could. When Connecticut finally did disestablish its Congregationalist church by voting out the state’s theocratic government in 1817, Thomas Jefferson was ecstatic, writing to John Adams: “I join you therefore in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at length broken up, and that a protestant popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character.”

Also, Jefferson had absolutely nothing to do with organizing the religious services in executive branches in Washington. He did attend the ones in the House of Representatives, but, according to first-hand accounts, these were more social gatherings than religious services. Small groups did meet for religious services in departments under the control of the executive branch, but this was because these people found the services at the Capitol not to be serious religious services.

Judging by the account of Margaret Bayard Smith, the wife of Samuel Harrison Smith, a Philadelphia newspaper editor who moved to Washington in 1800 to establish a national newspaper, the services at the Capitol certainly appear to have been the weekly social event more than religious services. It’s not surprising at all that Jefferson, who often complained about the lack of any social life in Washington, routinely attended.

Here’s how Mrs. Smith described these Capitol religious services:

“I have called these Sunday assemblies in the capitol, a congregation, but the almost exclusive appropriation of that word to religious assemblies, prevents its being a descriptive term as applied in the present case, since the gay company who thronged the H. R. looked very little like a religious assembly. The occasion presented for display was not only a novel, but a favourable one for the youth, beauty and fashion of the city, Georgetown and environs. The members of Congress, gladly gave up their seats for such fair auditors, and either lounged in the lobbies, or round the fire places, or stood beside the ladies of their acquaintance. This sabbathday-resort became so fashionable, that the floor of the house offered insufficient space, the platform behind the Speaker’s chair, and every spot where a chair could be wedged in was crowded with ladies in their gayest costume and their attendant beaux and who led them to their seats with the same gallantry as is exhibited in a ball room. Smiles, nods, whispers, nay sometimes tittering marked their recognition of each other, and beguiled the tedium of the service. Often, when cold, a lady would leave her seat and led by her attending beau would make her way through the crowd to one of the fire-places where she could laugh and talk at her ease.”

You are also very wrong about James Madison. If you had read the records of Congress, you would know that Madison actually proposed that a clause be added to the Constitution extending the religion clauses embodied in the First Amendment to the states, so he absolutely was not just thinking about the federal government.

Of course, this whole federal or state government argument is completely irrelevant anyway, given that the Air Force Academy is a FEDERAL institution.

You might also want to read up on Madison’s vetoes as president. The bills he vetoed did not even come close to establishing a national religion. Nevertheless, he thought they violated the establishment clause. Clearly, James Madison’s vetoes — one to block the incorporation of a church in Washington; another to stop a small piece of federal land from being given to a small Baptist church; and a “pocket veto” to stop a bill exempting a Bible Society from taxes — show that his intent and application of the First Amendment was absolutely not limited only to preventing a national religion.

Chris Rodda
Senior Research Director
Military Religious Freedom Foundation

---

MRFF Lawyer David Lane Responds to Laugesen

Editorial Board
Colorado Springs Gazette

Re: Air Force Academy Prayer Luncheon

The Editor is indeed correct in citing Christine O’Donnell’s view that the words “separation of church and state” appear nowhere in the First Amendment. Similarly, the words “privacy,” “abortion,” and “handgun” never make an appearance either, however all are deemed by the Supreme Court to be of Constitutional magnitude.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government may not, within the bounds of the First Amendment, take a position regarding the propriety of one particular brand of religion over another, or of religion over non-religion. See McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union, a 2005 decision. “When the government associates one set of religious beliefs with the state and identifies nonadherents as outsiders, it encroaches upon the individual’s decision about whether and how to worship.” The Court has also said that. “Government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion” in a case known as Grumet. The Supreme Court has further held that the “government may not promote or affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization, may not discriminate among persons on the basis of their religious beliefs and practices, may not delegate a governmental power to a religious institution, and may not involve itself too deeply in such an institution’s affairs.”(Epperson v. Arkansas). Lastly the Court has held that “Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”

When the command structure at the Air Force Academy sponsors, promotes, endorses and organizes a religious event such as a prayer luncheon, the government has crossed the line separating church from state. That is precisely what has occurred in this case. As such, it matters not whether the keynote speaker is a Christian, Jew, Muslim or Buddhist. Our government is not in the religion business unlike the governments of such countries as Saudi Arabia, Iran and most other middle-eastern nations. Whether the luncheon is voluntary or not and whether the event promotes many religions or simply one is irrelevant to the constitution. History has repeatedly shown that religion can only flourish when freed from governmental management and sponsorship. That applies to the Air Force Academy.

Sincerely,
David A. Lane

KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP

Click here to read pdf version