Editor:
Mr. Wilber and Pastor Garcia could use a brief lesson in constitutional law.
The interpretation of the First Amendment is crucial to the separation debate, but so are the assumptions of the framers with regard to the unamended Constitution. The purpose of the Constitution was to specify and distribute the powers of the federal government. The well documented assumption of the framers was that the federal government could exercise only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution. Undelegated powers were assumed to be reserved to the states. Since the original Constitution delegated no power over religion, the question of whether the First Amendment bans aid to religion is moot. If there is no power to aid, no aid can be given, regardless of whether there is a ban.
Separationists hold that the original Constitution grants no power, either positive or negative, to the federal government over religion, and that the First Amendment was intended to reaffirm this. They also generally hold to the broad interpretation of the establishment clause, and believe it was intended to specifically prohibit government from supporting or promoting religious beliefs or practices, even if that promotion favors no particular sect or religion. This is supported by material contemporary to the drafting of the First Amendment, particularly material from James Madison, who is often called "The Father of the Constitution". More than any other framer he is responsible for the content and form of the First Amendment. In addition there is the congressional record, which shows that the legislature specifically rejected narrowly worded versions of the First Amendment before they approved it in its broadly worded form, showing that they intended it to be interpreted in the broad sense.
Mr. Wilber tries to make much of the fact that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the text of the Constitution. This catch-phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson in 1802. The fact that it does not appear in the Constitution is irrelevant to the principle involved. The phrases 'Bill of Rights', 'right to a fair trial' and 'religious liberty' do not appear in the Constitution, but they are certainly constitutional principles, as is the 'separation of church and state'.
When you examine the contemporary writings, the clear intent in the specific wording of the First Amendment becomes obvious. The 1962/63 Supreme Court decisions did not expand the definition, but rather reaffirmed it. In addition, the framers had a more severe separation in mind than what we see today. I would hope that everyone would become familiar with the Constitution, and the solid, historical reasons why it is written in the way that it is.
Finally, let me quote from the Supreme Court decision in Everson vs. Board of Education (1947): The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.
I wish that I had space to quote extensively from the vast body of documentation that constitutes the separationist argument. However, let me point people to an excellent website on the issue; http://homer.louisville.edu/~tnpete01/church/