When I heard that the American Athieists are suing Utah over crosses marking the spots where HP have died in the line of duty, I was floored. We are not talking about an athiest sueing because a family member was memorializd with a cross....no, they are concerned that a non-christian may be offended to see the cross and blah blah blah.... I'm astounded. I'M OFFENDED! Maybe I should sue them....
Anyway, here is a bit of background on this case and the overused phrase...."separation of church and state" We hear it all the time and there are very good explainations out there, but this one is nice and consice.
The American Atheists are suing the state of Utah over the cross markers the Utah Highway Patrol Association uses to memorialize where officers have died in the line of duty. A total of 14 such crosses can be found in Utah, and the American Atheists want them removed. Their claim: that a Jew, Muslim, or Atheist might drive by the marker and feel offended that a Christian religious symbol is being used to pay honor to someone who gave their life in that spot.
The American Atheists also want the UHP symbols taken off of the crosses, saying, "The presence of the UHP logo on a poignant religious symbol is an unconstitutional violation of the United States Constitution. It is government endorsement of religion" (source: Salt Lake Tribune).
Sgt. Todd Royce of the UHP Association—a non-profit, private organization—counters this by arguing, "The crosses are used as an international sign of memorial similar to those in Arlington National Cemetery" (source: Salt Lake Tribune).
So once again, two parties look to be headed to court to protect the right of separation of church and state. In fact, the cause of "separation of church and state" has been repeated so many times in past years that many believe those words to be written into the Constitution by our founding fathers.
Well, search all you'd like, but you won't find any such right guaranteed in the Constitution or any of the Amendments following it. The phrase "separation of church and state" loosely refers to the First Amendment, which reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first word in the Amendment is Congress and the rest of the Amendment is placing restrictions on them. Congress may not:
(1) establish a national religion,
(2) prohibit religious expression,
(3) abridge free speech,
(4) censor the press,
(5) prohibit people from peaceably assembling, or
(6) prohibit the people from petitioning a redress of grievances.
To restate, these are restrictions being placed on Congress—or national government— alone, not on individuals, companies, religions, non-profit organizations, or anyone else.
Thus, if the Ten Commandments are on display in a courthouse, have any of the rights guaranteed to Americans in the First Amendment been violated? Is Congress establishing a national religion, prohibiting religious expression, abridging free speech, censoring the press, prohibiting people from peaceably assembling, or prohibiting a redress of grievances?
Furthermore, in the above-stated case with a non-profit organization creating memorials for their members, has Congress violated the rights of the American Atheists?
If not, then there is no prima facia case to be made and the courts should find accordingly.
To take this to an extreme, there aren't even rights in the Constitution guaranteeing the people that the state they live in cannot declare a "state religion." If New York wanted to declare itself a Catholic state and had the consent of the people, it would be within its Constitutional rights to do so.
So with "separation of church and state" cases being so prevalent as of late, one must ask where is the separation of church and state guaranteed to Americans, and by whom? Who is the all-powerful, mythical "they" who have guaranteed the American people this right?
In this case, the father of this well-known phrase is Thomas Jefferson, taken from a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The portion of the letter addressing the phrase "separation of church and state" is included below:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
Such was the beginning of the use of the phrase "separation of church and state," which has survived more than 200 years, although the context seems to have changed somewhat.
It cannot be denied that the American Atheists, as stated in the First Amendment, have the liberty to sue the UHP Association. It is the right of Americans to sue any other American or American entity that they would like. The question one must ask is: do they really have the Constitution on their side?