Respecting an Establishment of Religion

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

All my life, I've been told two things about the first amendment that, frankly, are pure crap.

The first thing I've been told is that the first amendment is the thing that separates the church from the state.  That's exactly backwards.  The first amendment doesn't separate the church from the state, it separates the state from the church.  In other words, it doesn't prevent the church from interfering with the state, it prevents the state from interfering with the church.  Nothing in the first amendment prohibits the church from becoming involved in politics and other "state" matters.

That hasn't stopped the state from doing it.  But that's a different issue.  It's an issue that needs to be dealt with - sooner rather than later - and with as much force as required to get the proverbial beastie back in the cage, operating within the confines of the constitution rather than trampling upon it.

The second thing I've been told is that the establishment clause of the first amendment prohibits the state from establishing a national religion.  While that's true, that's not the extent of what's behind the establishment clause.  If the folks who wrote the bill of rights were only worried about a national religion, the verbiage would be different.  It would say something like, "congress shall make no law establishing a religion."

To say that they would have been satisfied with state interference in religion, just as long as the state didn't create its own religion simply doesn't fit with history.  They didn't want the state involved in anything religious - in anything that is within the purview of religion to establish - in any of the many "establishments" that belong to religion.  They were worried about the state interfering in inherently religious things.  Getting away from that kind of thing is what drove a lot of them to come here.  They weren't looking for an absence of a state-condoned religion.  They were looking for a place where the state did not have any influence or control over anything religious.  To say that the first amendment merely precludes the state from creating a national religion simply doesn't fit with history.

Moreover, it doesn't fit with the rules of the English language.  Let's look at that part of the sentence again:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Diagraming that out, we have:

	subject	verb	object
(1)	Congress	shall make	law
(2)			|- no (what kind of law)
(3)			|- respecting an	establishment (what kind of law)
(4)				|- of religion (what kind of establishments)

1) Congress shall make law.  No problem there.  That's what congress is supposed to do.
2) What kind of law shall congress make?  None.  Obviously that's not the end of it, so...
3) What kind of law shall congress make none of?  The kind that deal with establishments (NOUN).  Obviously not all establishments (NOUN), so...
4) What kind of establishments (NOUN) shall congress make no laws about?  Religious establishments (NOUN).

The first amendment acknowledges that there are "establishment[s] of religion."  In other words, it acknowledges that there are things that are appropriate for religion to establish.  Which begs the question, "What are those 'establishments of religion?'  What are those things that it is appropriate for religion to establish?"

I haven't pondered it long enough to come up with an exhaustive list, but I have a start.  Here are some of the things that are appropriate for religion to establish.

Catechism
Catechism is essentially "what we believe, and why."  Catechism is an establishment of religion and not the state.  As such, the state cannot make a law that deals with catechism.

Clergy
Clergy and clerical hierarchy are part of the organizational structures of the church.  Some religions have more structure, some less.  But no mater what the clerical hierarchy is, it is an establishment of religion and not the state.  As such, the state cannot make a law that deals with the clergy.

Baptism / Circumcision / Membership and Affiliation
How one becomes a member of a particular religion is something that religion establishes itself.  The rules for and privileges of membership in a particular religion are inherently religious establishments.  As such, the state cannot make a law that deals with membership in religious organizations.

Marriage
Christians, Hindus, Jews and Muslims may not agree on much, but they'll all agree that marriage is a religious establishment.  Not that we need them to, mind you; but the fact that they do serves to reinforce that mankind - whatever his religion - shares a common framework for what is ecclesiastical and what is secular.  There are "natural" establishments of religion.  And which came first, marriage, or congress?  Marriage, obviously.  Hence, marriage cannot be an invention of the state.  Marriage never was - and constitutionally cannot be - something that the state can become involved in.  Marriage is an establishment of religion.  As such, the state cannot make a law that deals with marriage.

As I said before, that hasn't stopped the state from doing it.  (See above for the rest of that thought.)

I realize there are several folks who were sedate until that marriage paragraph, at which point they experienced multiple simultaneous conniption fits.  These folks want to get government out of marriage by inserting government directly into the middle of marriage to define marriage.  For whatever reason, they fail to recognize the magnificent beauty and tremendous liberty the constitution already affords them.

You don't need the government to get involved to address "marriage equality."  In fact, it is unconstitutional for the government to address marriage equality, because marriage is an establishment of religion, not an establishment of the state.  The beauty of the constitution is that you can fix "marriage equality" yourself, today, right now.  And here's how.

If, to you, "marriage equality" means "pick two or more of the following"

• man
• woman
• animal
• plant
• inanimate object

then all you need to do is find a religion that defines marriage that way.  And if you can't find one, or don't want to bother looking for one, then go create a religion that defines marriage as such.  The constitution guarantees you the requisite liberty to define marriage - and all other establishments of religion - however you want, barring an impingement upon the life and liberty of others.

You already have everything you need to fix the problem of marriage equality.  Quit talking about it and go do it!