You are here:
[Home]
-> [Separation]
-> [Articles]
-> [Allen#2]

Throughout these pages I will be adding commentary to the letters and columns by other authors.  My commentary will be in [ bracketed red text ]. - wjh

Editor:

Stuart Allen's letter (June 29) not only misstates my argument, but makes several factual errors as well.

S. Allen states that I "argue that James Madison supported separation of church and state and that, therefore so did the Constitutional Convention." On the contrary, my argument is that the most influential person in the formulation of the First Amendment was James Madison, and therefore when interpreting the intent of the First, great weight should be given to Madison's interpretation. Furthermore, while S. Allen recommends Justice Story's "Commentaries", he appears not to have fully studied them: "It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife, and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power." Justice J. Story - 'Commentaries', 1833)

The Constitutional Convention (5/25 to 9/17, 1787) did not draft the First Amendment, rather it was drafted by the First Congress and sent to the state legislatures in 1789. The opinion of the Constitutional Convention is therefore irrelevant, even if it could be shown that they opposed separation. [ Which they did not. In fact, the attitude of the framers was that any power not specifically granted to the federal government was denied to it. - wjh ]

The point that some colonies had established state religions is well taken, but it does not impact my argument. The Constitution enumerated the powers and limits of the federal government, not the governments of the states. It was not until much later that the Constitution was expanded to govern the states as well. Jefferson's famous letter to the Baptist congregation in Danbury, CT. was in response to their complaint that they were being taxed to support the state religion of Connecticut.

In 'Everson v. Board of Education' (1947) the Supreme Court held that public money could be spent to bus children to religious schools, equating it with the salary of a policeman who protects those same children should they walk to school. This in no way supports mandated prayer or religious texts in public schools.

S. Allen argues that atheism is the state religion. The First Amendment mandates that the government is to be neutral to religion, not hostile to it (as China is today, and as the Soviet Union was). In case after case of claimed suppression of religious activities, those activities have been shown to tap public funds to the benefit of a single religion or sect, therefore are clearly prohibited by the First. This is not to say that abuses of the First have not occurred; undoubtedly some have, as have abuses of other constitutional principles. This does not mean that we should abaondon the First and move to a Theocracy.

Neither athiesm nor separation are religions. Supporting either does not automatically make one a 'Liberal'. Religious people and conservatives all over this country support separation.

Phillip Allen; Gilroy