Yesterday, in a decision sure to shake up the gay marriage debate, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro, ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. The law, wich was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996, defined marriage as between one man and one woman as it related to the status of married couples who receive federal benefits from programs like Social Security.
The suit had been brought by married gay couples in Massachusetts, which is one of the five states to recognize gay marriage. Because gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the plantiffs claimed that the federal government, in denying them the same benefits given to other married couples, was discriminating against them based on sexual orientation. Judge Tauro, who has been on the bench in Massachusetts since he was appointed by President Nixon in 1972, ruled that it was a clear case of discrimination, and therefore a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Interestingly, Judge Tauro also ruled that the ban was unconstitutional on the grounds of federalism, ruling that the federal law violated the rights of individual states to define marriage as they saw fit. While 21st Century Jeffersonians are strongly supportive of state's rights, this particular case may prove problematic. The right to marriage is a natural right enjoyed by all, and a state government has no more right to interfere with it than does the federal government.
All in all, this is an excellent ruling, increasing the rights of the people and rolling back the federal government's encroachment on an area where it should have no authority. 21st Century Jeffersonians can hold whatever views they please about the theological, moral, or philosophical aspects of homosexuality. But when it comes to the law and the Constitution, we believe that all citizens possess equal rights and that it's unacceptable to deny a particular group the same rights enjoyed by everyone else. We should do away with attempts to ban gay marriage for the very same reason we once did away with attempts to ban interracial marriage.
More importantly, the government has no business and no right interfering in the personal lives of its citizens. As Jefferson said, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." If a man wants to marry a man or a woman wants to marry a woman, it inflicts absolutely no harm on anyone, and therefore the government has absolutely no business getting involved.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Continued Threat of Terrorism Emphasizes Need for International Cooperation
News reports coming out today are revealing that a terrorist plot uncovered last year, which targeted the New York subway system, was larger than originally thought. Indeed, the plan also called for attacking targets in the United Kingdom as well as the United States. At the same time, other reports are surfacing of Al-Qaeda agents being detained in Norway, which has thus far escaped attacks by radical Islamists.
The threat of terrorism is often overblown, especially by people in the right-wing media. For all the damage and casualties they can cause, terrorists do not pose a threat to the continued survival of the American republic. The threat is certainly not sufficient to cause our nation to throw away the Bill of Rights or launch unprovoked invasions of sovereign states. But these terrorists are dangerous killers and reasonable steps need to be taken to protect ourselve from them.
The international nature of terrorism, especially loosely-organized networks like Al-Qaeda, require an international response. Only the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of many nations working together can effectively prevent terrorist acts, as the recent arrests demonstrate quite clearly.
Jefferson wisely advised us to stay out of permanent entangling alliances, but he also called for working together with other nations when they were confronted by a common threat. In the 1780s, during his tenure as one of American's chief diplomats in Europe, Jefferson attempted to organize a multi-national naval force, which would warships from France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and others, to launch a a punitive campaign against the Barbary Pirates of North Africa, who had been preying on merchant ships of many nations. Faced with the threat of international terrorism in the 21st Century, we should follow his advice and ensure a strong, unified response to terrorism, in which we act effectively with our allies.
The threat of terrorism is often overblown, especially by people in the right-wing media. For all the damage and casualties they can cause, terrorists do not pose a threat to the continued survival of the American republic. The threat is certainly not sufficient to cause our nation to throw away the Bill of Rights or launch unprovoked invasions of sovereign states. But these terrorists are dangerous killers and reasonable steps need to be taken to protect ourselve from them.
The international nature of terrorism, especially loosely-organized networks like Al-Qaeda, require an international response. Only the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of many nations working together can effectively prevent terrorist acts, as the recent arrests demonstrate quite clearly.
Jefferson wisely advised us to stay out of permanent entangling alliances, but he also called for working together with other nations when they were confronted by a common threat. In the 1780s, during his tenure as one of American's chief diplomats in Europe, Jefferson attempted to organize a multi-national naval force, which would warships from France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and others, to launch a a punitive campaign against the Barbary Pirates of North Africa, who had been preying on merchant ships of many nations. Faced with the threat of international terrorism in the 21st Century, we should follow his advice and ensure a strong, unified response to terrorism, in which we act effectively with our allies.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
National Debt Crisis Is Not Going Away
This article in USA Today makes for some humbling reading. In spite of all the other, seemingly more immediate problems- the BP oil spill, the campaign in Afghanistan, continuing high unemployment- the massive federal deficit and the resulting gargantuan national debt continue to spiral out of the control, and this problem is going to get worse before it gets better.
President Obama's approach to the problem has so far been mostly symbolic. He has been bringing it up in his speeches more often. A few months ago, he appointed a high-profile special commission to study the debt and expects it to report back in December. In and of itself, that's fine, but it also gives the President cover to avoid taking serious measures on the problem right away. The Republicans have been ramping up their attacks on the President over the debt issue, which is also fine, but it overlooks the fact that they themselves, when in power, took a large federal budget surplus and transformed it into a massive debt. On this issue, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have any credibility.
The problem will only get worse. As more and more Baby Boomers retire, the annual costs of Social Security, Medicare, and other legislatively-mandated programs is going to go through the roof, and massive cuts in spending or massive increases in taxes (or worse, both) will be necessary to meet these fiscal demands. This undeniable fact is bearing down on us like a freight train, but both Republicans and Democrats have their heads in the sand, pretending that the problem doesn't exist.
President Obama says that he wants to reduce the deficit "in a way that doesn't hurt the economy and doesn't hurt ordinary people." This might be an admirable sentiment, but it completely misses the point. The massive deficit and debt will require a fundamental transformation in the relationship between the federal government, the states, and the citizens of the country. We are going to have to go back to the ideals of Jefferson, where the federal government was simply not much of a presence in the lives of ordinary people. To the extent necessary, state and local governments will have to take over much of the role currently filled by the federal government, and many large departments of the federal government are simply going to have to be abolished, for there will simply not be enough money to run them.
But the most important fact is that ordinary people are going to have to regain the attitude of their ancestors, and restore the principle of self-sufficiency in their lives. The world is far too complex for us to go back entirely to the ways of the late 18th and early 19th Centuries, and one would be foolish to believe, as the modern Libertarian Party apparently does, that we can do without government altogether. But the undeniable fact is that government is going to have to be massively scaled back, and the sooner we get to grips with this fact, the better.
President Obama's approach to the problem has so far been mostly symbolic. He has been bringing it up in his speeches more often. A few months ago, he appointed a high-profile special commission to study the debt and expects it to report back in December. In and of itself, that's fine, but it also gives the President cover to avoid taking serious measures on the problem right away. The Republicans have been ramping up their attacks on the President over the debt issue, which is also fine, but it overlooks the fact that they themselves, when in power, took a large federal budget surplus and transformed it into a massive debt. On this issue, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have any credibility.
The problem will only get worse. As more and more Baby Boomers retire, the annual costs of Social Security, Medicare, and other legislatively-mandated programs is going to go through the roof, and massive cuts in spending or massive increases in taxes (or worse, both) will be necessary to meet these fiscal demands. This undeniable fact is bearing down on us like a freight train, but both Republicans and Democrats have their heads in the sand, pretending that the problem doesn't exist.
President Obama says that he wants to reduce the deficit "in a way that doesn't hurt the economy and doesn't hurt ordinary people." This might be an admirable sentiment, but it completely misses the point. The massive deficit and debt will require a fundamental transformation in the relationship between the federal government, the states, and the citizens of the country. We are going to have to go back to the ideals of Jefferson, where the federal government was simply not much of a presence in the lives of ordinary people. To the extent necessary, state and local governments will have to take over much of the role currently filled by the federal government, and many large departments of the federal government are simply going to have to be abolished, for there will simply not be enough money to run them.
But the most important fact is that ordinary people are going to have to regain the attitude of their ancestors, and restore the principle of self-sufficiency in their lives. The world is far too complex for us to go back entirely to the ways of the late 18th and early 19th Centuries, and one would be foolish to believe, as the modern Libertarian Party apparently does, that we can do without government altogether. But the undeniable fact is that government is going to have to be massively scaled back, and the sooner we get to grips with this fact, the better.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Elena Kagan Confirmation Hearings Should Focus on Constitutional Issues, Not Scoring Political Points
The Senate is scheduled to begin confirmation hearings this week for Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who has been nominated by President Obama to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court created by the impending retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens. Filling vacancies to the Supreme Court is one of the most influential acts a President can take, and the duty of the Senate to accept or reject their nominations is not something that should be taken lightly.
Unfortunately, if the present evidence is any indication, the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are more likely going to focus on scoring political points and making headlines for themselves than properly investigating Ms. Kagan's genuine fitness for the position. So far, the statements by Republicans seem fixated only her actions related to military recruiters when she was dean of the Harvard School of Law, as opposed to any of her positions on constitutional issues.
The questions the Senators should be prepared to ask in these hearings should focus on Ms. Kagan's positions regarding such matters as the separation of church and state, federalism, the extent of executive power, the extent to which the 4th Amendment protects the privacy of citizens, whether or not the First Amendment covers campaign donations in addition to speech and writings, and so forth.
Sadly, we're likelyto see little or none of this. What we are likely to see is the Democratic half of the committee telling her how great she is and defending her from Republican attacks, while the Republican half of the committee dig up meritless criticisms for the sake of the television cameras, being intent more on embarrasing President Obama than doing the job they were sent to Washington to do. If there is going to be an exception to this otherwise dismal rule, it will probably be Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who often is the sole member of the Judiciary Committee who seems intent on actually doing his job rather than toeing the party line.
For all I know, Ms. Kagan could turn out to be an outstanding Supreme Court justice. But if the recent past is any indication, her confirmation hearings are going to be nothing more than a session of partisan bickering and a demonstration of everything that is currently wrong with representative goverment in America.
Unfortunately, if the present evidence is any indication, the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are more likely going to focus on scoring political points and making headlines for themselves than properly investigating Ms. Kagan's genuine fitness for the position. So far, the statements by Republicans seem fixated only her actions related to military recruiters when she was dean of the Harvard School of Law, as opposed to any of her positions on constitutional issues.
The questions the Senators should be prepared to ask in these hearings should focus on Ms. Kagan's positions regarding such matters as the separation of church and state, federalism, the extent of executive power, the extent to which the 4th Amendment protects the privacy of citizens, whether or not the First Amendment covers campaign donations in addition to speech and writings, and so forth.
Sadly, we're likelyto see little or none of this. What we are likely to see is the Democratic half of the committee telling her how great she is and defending her from Republican attacks, while the Republican half of the committee dig up meritless criticisms for the sake of the television cameras, being intent more on embarrasing President Obama than doing the job they were sent to Washington to do. If there is going to be an exception to this otherwise dismal rule, it will probably be Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who often is the sole member of the Judiciary Committee who seems intent on actually doing his job rather than toeing the party line.
For all I know, Ms. Kagan could turn out to be an outstanding Supreme Court justice. But if the recent past is any indication, her confirmation hearings are going to be nothing more than a session of partisan bickering and a demonstration of everything that is currently wrong with representative goverment in America.
Monday, May 24, 2010
United States Should Ratify Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
The invention of nuclear weapons should have severely shaken Thomas Jefferson's optimistic view of the unlimited potential of humanity. The fact it was the United States which first created and deployed them would have perhaps caused him to despair. Jefferson was a scientific man, but he would have been dismayed to see the fruits of scientific knowledge bent towards the creation of weapons so powerful that they could easily destroy all of humanity. Had he lived to see the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is likely Jefferson would have agreed with what the philosopher Albert Camus said a few days after the attacks:
An important step in the cause of establishing proper nuclear controls would be for the United States to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which was adopted by the United Nations back in 1996. The United States signed the treaty, but has never ratified it. As a result, it still lacks the force of international law.
The CTBT is very simple: all those nations who are party to the treaty are forbidden to carry out any nuclear explosions of any kind at any time. Needless to say, the entry of this traty into force would would greatly simplify efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to new states. It would also be a powerful symbolic statement by the nations of the world that humanity might one day achieve the dream of abolishing nuclear weapons altogether.
Advances in computer modeling mean that the United States does not require physical nuclear detonations to ensure the continued viability of its existing nuclear arsenal. The fact that our country has yet to ratify the treaty has been used by other non-ratifying states, including India, as a justification for their continued rejection of the treaty. The country has not tested a nuclear weapon for nearly two decades, which makes our continued refusal to ratify the treaty all the more inexplicable.
President Obama has been outspoken in his calls for greater nuclear controls and the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons. But he has yet to make a serious push in the Senate for the ratification of the treaty. This should be done without delay, especially as the chances for ratification may take a sharp turn for the worse after this year's mid-term elections.
21st Century Jeffersonians should ask: what is President Obama waiting for?
If he lived in the 21st Century, Jefferson would have seen the American nuclear arsenal of more than 5,000 nuclear weapons as ridiculous and obscene, especially when less than one-tenth of that would be more than sufficient to deter any enemy. He would be a fierce proponent of strong nuclear controls, the long-term objective being the abolition of nuclear weapons altogether.Mechanized civilization has just reached the ultimate state of barbarism. In a near future, we will have to choose between mass suicide and intelligent use of scientific conquest. This can no longer be simply a prayer; it must become an order which goes upward from the peoples to the governments, an order to make a definitive choice between hell and reason.
An important step in the cause of establishing proper nuclear controls would be for the United States to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which was adopted by the United Nations back in 1996. The United States signed the treaty, but has never ratified it. As a result, it still lacks the force of international law.
The CTBT is very simple: all those nations who are party to the treaty are forbidden to carry out any nuclear explosions of any kind at any time. Needless to say, the entry of this traty into force would would greatly simplify efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to new states. It would also be a powerful symbolic statement by the nations of the world that humanity might one day achieve the dream of abolishing nuclear weapons altogether.
Advances in computer modeling mean that the United States does not require physical nuclear detonations to ensure the continued viability of its existing nuclear arsenal. The fact that our country has yet to ratify the treaty has been used by other non-ratifying states, including India, as a justification for their continued rejection of the treaty. The country has not tested a nuclear weapon for nearly two decades, which makes our continued refusal to ratify the treaty all the more inexplicable.
President Obama has been outspoken in his calls for greater nuclear controls and the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons. But he has yet to make a serious push in the Senate for the ratification of the treaty. This should be done without delay, especially as the chances for ratification may take a sharp turn for the worse after this year's mid-term elections.
21st Century Jeffersonians should ask: what is President Obama waiting for?
Monday, May 17, 2010
Turn Off the Television
April 19-25 was TV Turnoff Week, during which all citizens are encouraged to keep their "idiot boxes" turned off. Originally organized by the anti-consumerist group Adbusters and now run by the nonprofit group Center for Screentime Awareness, the event has been held regularly since 1994.
Television could have proven to be the most Jeffersonian invention since the printing press. Had the powers-that-be in the network world upheld civic virtue rather than succumb to a mere profit motive, the programming on television could have been focused on quality drama and comedy, well-made intellectual documentaries, and news programs that fully explore complex issues. They could, in short, have made television into a great source of enlightenment, education, and uplifiting of the spirit.
Instead, we have the infamous "vast wasteland." Television was so described by Newton Minow, then chairman of the FCC, in a famous speech in 1961. Back then, there were only three networks in the country, and if the quality of the programming was not particularly good, at least there wasn't that much of it. Today, by contrast, we have a much vaster wasteland to deal with, literally hundreds of channels all peddling the same lowest-common-denominator drivel that is dissolving our national spirit like a steady dripping of acid.
What do we see when we look at the vast wasteland today? We see reality shows that follow the moronic antics of immoral people trying to achieve some useless or degraded objective. We see formulatic comedies, the vast majority of which focus almost exclusively on crude and sexual humor that no decent person would find amusing. We see game shows the message of which seems to be that Americans should be as stupid as possible. After fifteen minutes of watching standard American television, one feels the need to take a shower.
There remain a few programs of worthwile and intelligent content. Public television, funding directly by citizens and therefore not dependent on corporate advertising for its revenue, regularly features excellent documentaries and the last remaining news programs of any value in America. A few of the cable networks produce some excellent drama and comedy programs as well. But these diamonds in the dunghill are few and far between, and their numbers seem to dwindle with every passing year. Besides, reading a good book or taking a hike on a nature trail is preferable to even the highest quality television program.
Depending on which study you read, the average American spends between three and four hours a day watching television. That's more than 1,200 hours a year. Do they really see anything they needed to see, learn anything worth learning, or see anything remotely meaningful or even relevant to their lives? If they could wave a magic wand and get all those hours back, would it be make sense for them to spend that time in front of the television again?
The average American sees something like 30,000 commercials every year. Television is by far the most important medium for corporate propaganda to weasel its way into the minds of American citizens and American children. The latest psychological research is employed to persuade Americans to buy what they do not need using money they do not have. It spreads the insidious message that consumerism is the end-all-be-all of life, and that virtue and decency are quant relics of a bygone age.
The time we spend watching television breaks down the Jeffersonian pillars of our society. Every hour spent in front of the "idiot box" is one less hour for reading a book or newspaper, for gardening, for enjoying dinner parties with friends, for attending school board meetings, or for voluntering with local community groups. In effect, television simply plugs itself into our souls and gradually sucks out our Jeffersonian energies.
Turn it off. And, if you're wise, keep it off.
Television could have proven to be the most Jeffersonian invention since the printing press. Had the powers-that-be in the network world upheld civic virtue rather than succumb to a mere profit motive, the programming on television could have been focused on quality drama and comedy, well-made intellectual documentaries, and news programs that fully explore complex issues. They could, in short, have made television into a great source of enlightenment, education, and uplifiting of the spirit.
Instead, we have the infamous "vast wasteland." Television was so described by Newton Minow, then chairman of the FCC, in a famous speech in 1961. Back then, there were only three networks in the country, and if the quality of the programming was not particularly good, at least there wasn't that much of it. Today, by contrast, we have a much vaster wasteland to deal with, literally hundreds of channels all peddling the same lowest-common-denominator drivel that is dissolving our national spirit like a steady dripping of acid.
What do we see when we look at the vast wasteland today? We see reality shows that follow the moronic antics of immoral people trying to achieve some useless or degraded objective. We see formulatic comedies, the vast majority of which focus almost exclusively on crude and sexual humor that no decent person would find amusing. We see game shows the message of which seems to be that Americans should be as stupid as possible. After fifteen minutes of watching standard American television, one feels the need to take a shower.
There remain a few programs of worthwile and intelligent content. Public television, funding directly by citizens and therefore not dependent on corporate advertising for its revenue, regularly features excellent documentaries and the last remaining news programs of any value in America. A few of the cable networks produce some excellent drama and comedy programs as well. But these diamonds in the dunghill are few and far between, and their numbers seem to dwindle with every passing year. Besides, reading a good book or taking a hike on a nature trail is preferable to even the highest quality television program.
Depending on which study you read, the average American spends between three and four hours a day watching television. That's more than 1,200 hours a year. Do they really see anything they needed to see, learn anything worth learning, or see anything remotely meaningful or even relevant to their lives? If they could wave a magic wand and get all those hours back, would it be make sense for them to spend that time in front of the television again?
The average American sees something like 30,000 commercials every year. Television is by far the most important medium for corporate propaganda to weasel its way into the minds of American citizens and American children. The latest psychological research is employed to persuade Americans to buy what they do not need using money they do not have. It spreads the insidious message that consumerism is the end-all-be-all of life, and that virtue and decency are quant relics of a bygone age.
The time we spend watching television breaks down the Jeffersonian pillars of our society. Every hour spent in front of the "idiot box" is one less hour for reading a book or newspaper, for gardening, for enjoying dinner parties with friends, for attending school board meetings, or for voluntering with local community groups. In effect, television simply plugs itself into our souls and gradually sucks out our Jeffersonian energies.
Turn it off. And, if you're wise, keep it off.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Separation of Church and State Must Be Protected
Thomas Jefferson would have seen the Religious Right as perhaps the greatest threat to the continued freedom of the American people. Some pundits have asserted that the political power of the Religious Right has been on the decline in recent years, but 21st Century Jeffersonians shouldn't be fooled. They are not disappearing from the political scene anytime soon.
Well-organized and well-funded, activists of the Religious Right have been doggedly pursuing their vision of a Christian America for the past several years. It is a vision that most of the Founding Fathers, and Thomas Jefferson in particular, would have found horrifying and abhorrent. For they envisioned a completely secular government that had no power over the religious lives of its citizens. In the words of Jefferson himself:
In addition, the Religious Right seems to be generally in favor of high federal defense spending and a militaristic foreign policy, which is quite a contrast to the admonitions of Jesus to turn the other cheek and love our enemies. Oddly enough, these people claim to oppose "Big Government", but they seem more than happy to support a big government if it were to follow their orders and they clearly want a government big enough to interfere with the personal lives of its citizens.
Thomas Jefferson stood opposed. And so must 21st Century Jeffersonians.
Jefferson, more than any other figure in American history, is responsible for the establishment of the separation of church and state in our country. Indeed, he coined the phrase himself in his famous 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, in which he says:
Jefferson had been working on behalf of religious freedom and the separation of church and state for some time before he wrote that letter. In 1779, he had authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which separated church and state in Virginia. Jefferson thought his authorship of this bill so important that he included it as one of only three achievements he desired to be listed on his gravestone.
Separation of church and state is especially critical in the United States because we are one of the most religiously diverse nation in the world. If any one religious opinion in our country were allowed to gain traction as an officially favored faith, it would trigger the same kind of religious violence that has torn many countries apart throughout history (and which, in recent months, has been seen in Malaysia and Nigeria).
Jefferson knew from history that mixing religion and government was always an insidious proposition. 21st Century Jeffersonians must always maintain eternal vigilance on this subject, and keep a wary eye on the Religious Right.
Well-organized and well-funded, activists of the Religious Right have been doggedly pursuing their vision of a Christian America for the past several years. It is a vision that most of the Founding Fathers, and Thomas Jefferson in particular, would have found horrifying and abhorrent. For they envisioned a completely secular government that had no power over the religious lives of its citizens. In the words of Jefferson himself:
[O]ur rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. But the rights of conscience we have never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.What the Religious Right wants is for the government to have the power to dictate to American citizens on matters of religious belief. They constantly attempt to use the power of the courthouse, the state legislatures, and Congress itself to advance their agenda. They seek to impose their views on sexual morality onto the rest of society, to block the teaching of perfectly sound scientific theories because they feel they violate their particular interpretation of Scripture, to subject judicial nominees to de facto religious tests (in violation of the principle of Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution), and to divert taxpayer money to religious organizations.
In addition, the Religious Right seems to be generally in favor of high federal defense spending and a militaristic foreign policy, which is quite a contrast to the admonitions of Jesus to turn the other cheek and love our enemies. Oddly enough, these people claim to oppose "Big Government", but they seem more than happy to support a big government if it were to follow their orders and they clearly want a government big enough to interfere with the personal lives of its citizens.
Thomas Jefferson stood opposed. And so must 21st Century Jeffersonians.
Jefferson, more than any other figure in American history, is responsible for the establishment of the separation of church and state in our country. Indeed, he coined the phrase himself in his famous 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, in which he says:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and state.Jefferson was referring, of course, to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which clearly states that the government has no authority to act either on behalf of or in opposition to any religious opinion.
Jefferson had been working on behalf of religious freedom and the separation of church and state for some time before he wrote that letter. In 1779, he had authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which separated church and state in Virginia. Jefferson thought his authorship of this bill so important that he included it as one of only three achievements he desired to be listed on his gravestone.
Separation of church and state is especially critical in the United States because we are one of the most religiously diverse nation in the world. If any one religious opinion in our country were allowed to gain traction as an officially favored faith, it would trigger the same kind of religious violence that has torn many countries apart throughout history (and which, in recent months, has been seen in Malaysia and Nigeria).
Jefferson knew from history that mixing religion and government was always an insidious proposition. 21st Century Jeffersonians must always maintain eternal vigilance on this subject, and keep a wary eye on the Religious Right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)