Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!Starshine Roshell’s column about the “I Believe” license plates discusses many reasons that the plates should be disallowed [“Church and State Collide on Highway,” 6/17/08, independent.com/churchstatehighway]. Unfortunately, Roshell makes a common mistake: She fails to distinguish between what is permissible under the Constitution and what may or may not be advisable as a policy matter.
Legitimate arguments can be made for and against the license plates, as a matter of policy. But the Constitution does not prohibit a state from providing its citizens with the option of declaring their religious faiths on their rear bumpers — or in any other venue, for that matter. George Washington, the Father of the Country, understood this distinction between permissibility and advisability, and acted accordingly during his years in public service. Unfortunately, it is a distinction that has been lost ever since the Supreme Court decided to insert a requirement of “separation between church and state” into the Constitution — a requirement that did not exist at the founding.
Tara Ross & Joseph C. Smith Jr. are authors of Under God: George Washington and the Question of Church and State
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
"the Supreme Court decided to insert a requirement of “separation between church and state” into the Constitution — a requirement that did not exist at the founding."
This statement is false and the authors know that it is false. The historical record is clear on the precedents and the meaning of the First Amendment, which is consistent with that phrase, and in 1802, Thomas Jefferson, acting in his official capacity as President of the United States, wrote a carefully vetted letter to the Danbury Baptists, who were concerned about their state government encroaching on their religious freedom, assuring them that there was a "wall of separation" that protected them. President Thomas Jefferson, not the Supreme Court. Details can be found at www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
Ross and Smith should be ashamed of their sin of prevarication.
jqb (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2008 at 1:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
P.S. Although they don't mention it in their letter, Ross and Smith promote, in their book and elsewhere, the distinctly minority and ahistorical notion that Jefferson's views on church and state were "idiosyncratic", but nothing could be further from the truth. See http://www.religioustolerance.org/amend_... which notes that "The roots of the First Amendment can be traced to a bill written by Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) in 1777 and proposed to the Virginia Legislature in 1779. It guaranteed freedom of (and from) religion. After an impassioned speech by James Madison, and after some amendments, it became law on 1786-JAN-16."
Ross and Smith aren't qualified or reliable sources, being neither historical scholars nor lacking in ideology. See, e.g., http://www.taraross.com/bio.asp
jqb (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2008 at 2:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment