John Whitehead's Commentary
Has Freedom Become A Hollow Word?
For far too long, the phrase "separation of church and state" has been used as a bludgeon to suppress an entire class of citizens--religious people--from rightly exercising their basic freedoms. Two recent court decisions illustrate this point.
One day after the federal appeals court decision that ruled the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, another federal appeals court threatened to undermine the very freedoms that are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
This ruling, by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, declared that school officials at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., had a right to censor tiles created in memory of students slain there three years ago that they found "objectionable."
The case arose several months after the 1999 shootings that claimed the lives of 12 students and a teacher. School officials at Columbine High School had invited families of the victims and other members of the community to participate in painting the 4"x 4" tiles that line the school's hallways, which were intended to serve as a memorial to the deceased. However, when the parties were gathered and the paintbrushes distributed, the families were told by school officials that the tiles could not contain any names or dates. Religious messages, as well, were prohibited.
Brian Rohrbough, father of one of the slain students, objected because his son Daniel was a devout Christian. To script a message on one of the small tiles on the campus where his son was gunned down, without even mentioning Daniel or his faith, Mr. Rohrbough explained, was not possible. Other families were similarly upset that they could not express their faith and sentiments without being censored.
Following this outcry, school officials reversed their position and allowed religious messages to be painted on the tiles. Soon thereafter, however, they returned to their original policy of censoring the tiles because they were afraid of being sued by the ACLU for violating "the separation of church and state." And because of this fear, they even tore down approximately 80 of the tiles that had been painted by the families. Several were destroyed in the process, simply because the small 4" x 4" tiles contained religious references or imagery.
So the families turned to The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties organization, and the courts for help in honoring the faith of their loved ones. And although the Tenth Circuit issued a stunning blow to the families of the slain students, the case is far from over--with a likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. But if justice is to prevail in this case--and in so many others where legitimate religious speech is censored--then our understanding of the role of religion in American life must first change.
The phrase "wall of separation" is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the phrase "church and state" is not even in the First Amendment. The phrase's origins--and subsequent misinterpretations--can be traced to an 1802 letter written by Thomas Jefferson. When asked his opinion of the First Amendment, Jefferson replied that the First Amendment erected a "wall of separation between Church and State." In his Second Inaugural Address three years later, Jefferson gave his interpretation of what the phrase really meant.
In effect, Jefferson said the actual wall of separation, in his opinion, was to be placed around the church to protect it from any interference with its rights to religious freedom by the newly formed federal government. However, both Jefferson's words and intent were doomed to later misinterpretation by the courts. Indeed, the modern U.S. Supreme Court has held that various religious practices are unconstitutional if they occur in the public schools or other public places.
One of the Supreme Court's major arguments in eliminating most of the vestiges of religion from American public schools has been Jefferson's so-called wall of separation philosophy.
The recent furor over "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance underscores the confusion that has arisen over this issue. Yet it was clearly understood by the Founding Fathers that the First Amendment was intended to provide freedom for religion--not, as we so often hear today, freedom from religion.
And if school officials at Columbine High School are allowed to have their way in this particular matter, school officials across America will have virtually unlimited power to censor religious speech, simply because it may be "offensive" to some.
On a larger scale, this will reduce freedom of expression to nothing more than a hollow phrase and dishonor all those who, in the course of our nation's history, have died expressing--or fighting to defend--their religious beliefs.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Grasping for the Wind. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
One day after the federal appeals court decision that ruled the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, another federal appeals court threatened to undermine the very freedoms that are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
This ruling, by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, declared that school officials at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., had a right to censor tiles created in memory of students slain there three years ago that they found "objectionable."
The case arose several months after the 1999 shootings that claimed the lives of 12 students and a teacher. School officials at Columbine High School had invited families of the victims and other members of the community to participate in painting the 4"x 4" tiles that line the school's hallways, which were intended to serve as a memorial to the deceased. However, when the parties were gathered and the paintbrushes distributed, the families were told by school officials that the tiles could not contain any names or dates. Religious messages, as well, were prohibited.
Brian Rohrbough, father of one of the slain students, objected because his son Daniel was a devout Christian. To script a message on one of the small tiles on the campus where his son was gunned down, without even mentioning Daniel or his faith, Mr. Rohrbough explained, was not possible. Other families were similarly upset that they could not express their faith and sentiments without being censored.
Following this outcry, school officials reversed their position and allowed religious messages to be painted on the tiles. Soon thereafter, however, they returned to their original policy of censoring the tiles because they were afraid of being sued by the ACLU for violating "the separation of church and state." And because of this fear, they even tore down approximately 80 of the tiles that had been painted by the families. Several were destroyed in the process, simply because the small 4" x 4" tiles contained religious references or imagery.
So the families turned to The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties organization, and the courts for help in honoring the faith of their loved ones. And although the Tenth Circuit issued a stunning blow to the families of the slain students, the case is far from over--with a likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. But if justice is to prevail in this case--and in so many others where legitimate religious speech is censored--then our understanding of the role of religion in American life must first change.
The phrase "wall of separation" is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the phrase "church and state" is not even in the First Amendment. The phrase's origins--and subsequent misinterpretations--can be traced to an 1802 letter written by Thomas Jefferson. When asked his opinion of the First Amendment, Jefferson replied that the First Amendment erected a "wall of separation between Church and State." In his Second Inaugural Address three years later, Jefferson gave his interpretation of what the phrase really meant.
In effect, Jefferson said the actual wall of separation, in his opinion, was to be placed around the church to protect it from any interference with its rights to religious freedom by the newly formed federal government. However, both Jefferson's words and intent were doomed to later misinterpretation by the courts. Indeed, the modern U.S. Supreme Court has held that various religious practices are unconstitutional if they occur in the public schools or other public places.
One of the Supreme Court's major arguments in eliminating most of the vestiges of religion from American public schools has been Jefferson's so-called wall of separation philosophy.
The recent furor over "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance underscores the confusion that has arisen over this issue. Yet it was clearly understood by the Founding Fathers that the First Amendment was intended to provide freedom for religion--not, as we so often hear today, freedom from religion.
And if school officials at Columbine High School are allowed to have their way in this particular matter, school officials across America will have virtually unlimited power to censor religious speech, simply because it may be "offensive" to some.
On a larger scale, this will reduce freedom of expression to nothing more than a hollow phrase and dishonor all those who, in the course of our nation's history, have died expressing--or fighting to defend--their religious beliefs.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Grasping for the Wind. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
