The War on Christmas is not Authorized by the Constitution

Readability

The War on Christmas is not Authorized by the Constitution

The pro­gres­sive war on Christ­mas has become one of the fun­da­men­tal con­stants of the uni­verse. Here is one of the more egre­gious exam­ples from this year’s annual bat­tle to make sure all things reli­gious are exiled from any prop­erty that may be con­sid­ered pub­lic and the dreaded Merry Christ­mas is never uttered.

Indi­ana Town Removes Cross From Christ­mas Tree After ACLU Lawsuit

The myth­i­cal sep­a­ra­tion of church and state was once again used as a jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for van­quish­ing this cross, which was used for decades. All it took was one com­plaint and the ACLU bul­lied the small town into sub­mis­sion with a law­suit they could not pos­si­bly afford to fight. Yes, the sep­a­ra­tion church and state is myth­i­cal. It is a fairy­tale cre­ated by Jus­tice Hugo Black when he wrote his deci­sion for the 1947 Supreme Court case Ever­son ver­sus Board of Edu­ca­tion. Jus­tice Black claimed that the estab­lish­ment clause of First Amend­ment pre­vented any gov­ern­ment orga­ni­za­tion, at any level, from par­tic­i­pat­ing in any type reli­gious activ­ity because that clause built a wall of sep­a­ra­tion of church and state. This rul­ing was a com­plete depar­ture from the real­ity that existed in this coun­try from the very instant of the rat­i­fi­ca­tion of the Bill of Rights right up until the instant he deliv­ered this rul­ing. It com­pletely con­tra­dicts the tran­scripts from the writ­ing of the Bill of Rights and the tran­scripts of the rat­i­fi­ca­tion debates in the States. Here is what James Madi­son had to say dur­ing the debates when this clause was written:

Mr. Madi­son said, he appre­hended the mean­ing of the words to be, that Con­gress should not estab­lish a reli­gion, and enforce the legal obser­va­tion of it by law, nor com­pel men to wor­ship God in any man­ner con­trary to their conscience.

It is quite clear from this quote, the Estab­lish­ment Clause pre­vents the fed­eral gov­ern­ment from pass­ing laws that would estab­lish an offi­cial reli­gion and it pre­vents the pas­sage of laws that would force indi­vid­u­als to wor­ship in a spe­cific man­ner. Rather than use the offi­cial tran­scripts, Jus­tice Black based this sweep­ing new con­sti­tu­tional doc­trine on a per­sonal let­ter between Thomas Jef­fer­son and the Dan­bury Bap­tist Church. To add insult to injury, he com­pletely dis­torted the actual text and mean­ing of that letter.

What makes the Ever­son rul­ing even more inac­cu­rate; Jus­tice Black com­pletely dis­re­garded the free exer­cise of reli­gion clause of the First Amend­ment. This clause specif­i­cally pre­vents the fed­eral gov­ern­ment from pass­ing laws that would pre­vent indi­vid­u­als from freely exer­cis­ing their reli­gious beliefs. Free exer­cise of reli­gion is one of the most impor­tant god-​given nat­ural rights that every indi­vid­ual is endowed with. Here is what George Mason had to say about free exer­cise of reli­gion when he wrote the Vir­ginia Dec­la­ra­tion of Rights in 1776.

That reli­gion, or the duty which we owe to our Cre­ator, and the man­ner of dis­charg­ing it, can be directed only by rea­son and con­vic­tion, not by force or vio­lence; and there­fore all men are equally enti­tled to the free exer­cise of reli­gion, accord­ing to the dic­tates of con­science; and that it is the mutual duty of all to prac­tice Chris­t­ian for­bear­ance, love, and char­ity, towards each other.

The Vir­ginia Dec­la­ra­tion of Rights served as the model for the US Bill of Rights and George Mason played a promi­nent role in the writ­ing of the US Constitution,

Jus­tice Hugo Black com­pletely mas­sa­cred one more fun­da­men­tal con­sti­tu­tional prin­ci­ple when he wrote the Ever­son rul­ing = The United States Bill of Rights only applies to the fed­eral gov­ern­ment. It never applied to the States and it most cer­tainly never applied to cities and towns. That is abun­dantly clear from the tran­scripts of the State rat­i­fy­ing con­ven­tions for the Con­sti­tu­tion when a Bill of Rights was demanded, from the tran­scripts in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives and Sen­ate when the Bill of Rights was writ­ten, and from the tran­scripts when the Bill of Rights was rat­i­fied by the States. How can the estab­lish­ment clause pre­vent a town from hav­ing a cross on a Christ­mas tree or any other type of reli­gious dis­play? It can­not. There is no con­sti­tu­tional basis or this law­suit nor any sim­i­lar law­suit filed by the ACLU.

The progressive war on Christmas has become one of the fundamental constants of the universe.  Here is one of the more egregious examples from this year’s annual battle to make sure all things religious are exiled from any property that may be considered public and the dreaded Merry Christmas is never uttered.

Indiana Town Removes Cross From Christmas Tree After ACLU Lawsuit

The mythical separation of church and state was once again used as a justification for vanquishing this cross, which was used for decades.  All it took was one complaint and the ACLU bullied the small town into submission with a lawsuit they could not possibly afford to fight.  Yes, the separation church and state is mythical.  It is a fairytale created by Justice Hugo Black when he wrote his decision for the 1947 Supreme Court case Everson versus Board of Education.  Justice Black claimed that the establishment clause of First Amendment prevented any government organization, at any level, from participating in any type religious activity because that clause built a wall of separation of church and state.  This ruling was a complete departure from the reality that existed in this country from the very instant of the ratification of the Bill of Rights right up until the instant he delivered this ruling.  It completely contradicts the transcripts from the writing of the Bill of Rights and the transcripts of the ratification debates in the States.  Here is what James Madison had to say during the debates when this clause was written:

Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.

It is quite clear from this quote, the Establishment Clause prevents the federal government from passing laws that would establish an official religion and it prevents the passage of laws that would force individuals to worship in a specific manner.  Rather than use the official transcripts, Justice Black based this sweeping new constitutional doctrine on a personal letter between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Church.  To add insult to injury, he completely distorted the actual text and meaning of that letter.

What makes the Everson ruling even more inaccurate; Justice Black completely disregarded the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment.  This clause specifically prevents the federal government from passing laws that would prevent individuals from freely exercising their religious beliefs.  Free exercise of religion is one of the most important god-given natural rights that every individual is endowed with.  Here is what George Mason had to say about free exercise of religion when he wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776.

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights served as the model for the US Bill of Rights and George Mason played a prominent role in the writing of the US Constitution,

Justice Hugo Black completely massacred one more fundamental constitutional principle when he wrote the Everson ruling = The United States Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government.  It never applied to the States and it most certainly never applied to cities and towns.  That is abundantly clear from the transcripts of the State ratifying conventions for the Constitution when a Bill of Rights was demanded, from the transcripts in the House of Representatives and Senate when the Bill of Rights was written, and from the transcripts when the Bill of Rights was ratified by the States.  How can the establishment clause prevent a town from having a cross on a Christmas tree or any other type of religious display?  It cannot.  There is no constitutional basis or this lawsuit nor any similar lawsuit filed by the ACLU.