The Constitution and The Commandments
by Trevor Thomas
December 27, 2003
In declaring government religious (mainly Christian)
expression unconstitutional, the courts refer to the First Amendment, and they
interpret that amendment through the words of
It is interesting that
It is also interesting to look at other writings and deeds of
Fisher Ames, who, as stated above, was one of the principal authors of
the First Amendment, said this in a magazine article published on September 20,
1789:
“We have a dangerous trend
beginning to take place in our education. We’re starting to put more and more
textbooks into our schools… We’ve become accustomed of late of putting little
books into the hands of children containing fables and moral lessons… We are
spending less time in the classroom on the Bible, which should be the principal
text in our schools… The Bible states these great moral lessons better than any
manmade book.”
Does it sounds like Mr. Ames, one
of the authors of the First amendment, would be for removing prayer from school
or the Ten Commandments from government buildings? Maybe our current justices
should consider this article instead of
However, that is really the problem: For the past five or six decades judges have been “interpreting” our Constitution instead of honoring the original words and intent of the text. Liberal judges have “interpreted” the First Amendment beyond recognition. The words are plain enough, but a bit of history makes things more obvious.
The initial draft of the First Amendment was made by James Madison on June 8, 1789. His wording was:
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.
The House Select Committee on August 15, 1789 revised
No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.
A representative from
It might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether.
The words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion.
…believes that the people feared one sect
might obtain a preeminence, or two combine and
establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.
The House agreed on the following, proposed by
Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.
The Senate then took up the debate with versions that read:
Congress shall not make any
law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or
society.
Congress shall make no law
establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another…
Congress shall make no law establishing one religious society in preference to others…
Both houses agreed on the wording we have today:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
Given this small bit of history, one can see that what our
Founders were trying to accomplish with the initial part of the First Amendment
was to prevent an “official” government denomination/religion, one that people
could be required to follow, not the removal of God and His Word from our
government. This becomes more obvious when one examines the summary of words
and deeds of all our Founders and not just the eight words of
Copyright 2003, Trevor Grant Thomas