Welcome to this El Duane Whatley Website.  May your visit be pleasant and profitable.

This is the site of the flipping W.

I think: therefore I write.

Educational Commentary

Religious Commentary

Political Commentary

Poetry from the heart

Humorous Essays

All persons of good will are invited to visit this site.

"A man shall be known by his kindness."

If your language translation is not clear, then let me know.  I will answer in other more concise statements.

RELIGIOUS   FREEDOM   IN   THE    UNITED   STATES   OF   AMERICA

One man's Opinion on this Constitutional Issue

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
nor prohibit the free exercise there of."

Definitions and uses of the terms in the Constitutional Amendment:

Note: the federal courts have extended the word "Congress" to mean any law-making body at any       at any political level or subdivision in the United States.  But that is another issue.

What I think this constitutional amendment means:  Congress cannot make any law that favors or disfavors a church in any way whatsoever, nor may Congress make any law that prohibits any church from doing whatever it wants to do to promote its religion.  The "founding mothers and fathers" did not want a NATIONAL CHURCH such as England had (The Church of England) or as Spain had (The Roman Catholic Church), or as some of the American Colonies had between 1607 and 1776 (Quakers, Baptists, Methodists, and such who, when they were a majority, made life tough for "unbelievers," that is, for people who were not "of our faith, which is the true faith."

What I think this constitutional amendment does not mean:  The amendment does not address the idea about whether Congress should or should not make any law respecting THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.  The term "the establishment of religion" would surely refer to Congress establishing religious concepts, or establishing religious ideas.   Obviously, Congress should not make any law that would establish or diminish the concept of religion, or of service to a supreme being, or God.  Religious concepts are held by individuals, and should be practiced, or refused, by individuals.  The courts of the last 50 years or so have been making "decisions" that oppose privately-held religious concepts, such as prayer, eulogies, religious singing, worshipping, and other personal action.  But the constitutional amendment addresses "an establishment of religion" (a church) and not "the establishment of religion" (establishing religious concepts).

Am I a constitutional lawyer?  Heck no!!  Would you pay much attention to me if I was?    But I am an American with education enough to know how to read plain English.   And the Constitution and its Amendments are written in rather plain English.  I did not recently fall off a turnip truck, either.  I am smart enough to know that a bunch of self-serving lawyers and judges are running off with my religious freedom.  They apparently want freedom FROM religion, rather than freedom OF religion.  My ole Pappy would have said, "Them's fightin' words, Mister!"  It takes a lot of education in a lawyer-making college to be able to misinterpret that amendment.  I have not been to one.

Is there a wall of separation between church and state?    I think not.  There is a wall between establishments of religion (churches) and the state (government), and in no case should they ever become partners in their official capacities.  I can read of no separation of state and religious practice.  Note these items which show there is no "wall" in this constitutional amendment.

• Elected officer-holders must take a religious oath of office, in many instances.

• The "founding mothers and fathers" appointed and established chaplains for the army and navy.  A chaplain's sole function on the battlefield is religious, and not secular.

• Our national coins say "In God we trust."  That is purely a religious statement.  It suggests we should not trust in the coins we hold in our hands, but in God.  This is purely religious practice.

• Our pledge of allegiance to this country has "one nation under God" in it.  This is a call by the government of the United States of America for its citizens to pay allegiance to the nation, which functions "under God."  This is a purely religious practice, function, and concept.

• "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are all endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  The founding papers of the United States of America proclaim that God gave us "certain unalienable rights."  God gave men the right to life.  God gave men liberty.  God gave men the right to pursue happiness.   (Important Note: God did not give men happiness, nor does the constitution claim to give men happiness, but only the pursuit of happiness.)  But the "founding mothers and fathers" recognized that personal rights and liberties come from God.

What about citizens who really do want freedom from religion, personally and organizationally?  They should have this freedom.  Though the freedom to abstain from religion is available to all, the abstainer should not use government power to make others abstain from their personal religious practices.  Government officials should not flood the public buildings with crosses and stars of David or other such symbols.  The hard question in this discussion is "when does my personal right to practice my personal faith begin to interfere with my fellow citizen's right not to be bothered with religion?"   We would do well to treat others as we would want to be treated if we had a Hindu president.  Or a Moslem president. 

Written by El Duane Whatley, K7ULT, B. A., MEd. on 11 August 1998.