Americans, of all political persuasions, cite the United States Constitution in an attempt to justify their opinions. Failure to understand a single word can lead to a position contrary to constitutional principles. This article will consider one word.

::::::::

As an ancient tale tells it:

For want of a nail, a shoe was lost. For want of a shoe, a horse was lost. For want of a horse, a warrior was lost. For want of a warrior, a battle was lost. For want of a battle, the war was lost; and the kingdom fell.

Now for want of a word, a freedom could be lost.

That word is "establishment" as used in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and which is intended to keep government out of our religions and spiritual lives. But a battle to keep religion free must be constantly waged against those who would impose their views on all others through government force and is inadvertently subverted by a population that can't use "establishment" correctly.

It is common to hear the utterance that, "the Constitution prohibits Congress from establishing an official religion" or "a state church." That's not what the Constitution prohibits. The First Amendment prohibition is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Even late Supreme Court Judge Potter Stewart couldn't figure out the meaning of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. He dissented in the famous school-prayer decision, Engle v. Vitale by saying, "I cannot see how an 'official prayer' is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it."

Potter and almost all Americans, and that includes attorneys, judges, Ph.D. professors, newspaper editors and columnists, teachers and many others, have altered the noun "establishment" into the verb "establish" and that changes the entire scope of what is prohibited.

Prohibiting Congress from "establishing a religion" would restrict Congress to one specific action, naming a religion to be the official religion of the nation. Prohibiting Congress from laws concerning "an establishment of religion" opens up the entire area that amendment author James Madison intended.

The "establishment clause" may be the most-misunderstood clause in the Constitution and the word "establishment" may be the most-misunderstood word in the Constitution. That word is not the verb "establish," as Justice Potter used it ~ and as most Americans use it ~ it is a noun meaning "something established." Or perhaps the word "of" is misunderstood. In the phrase, "the city of Washington," it means "which is" and in the phrase, "that dog of mine," it denotes possession.

That means "an establishment of religion" is anything established by, or belonging to, religion; including religion itself.

Church was established by religion, so it is "an establishment of religion" just as is a synagogue or a mosque. Prayer, baptism, heaven were all established by religion, so they are "establishments of religion." The Bible, Koran and Talmud are all "establishments of religion" as are Christmas, Ramadan, Hanukkah and Easter.

The concept of a spiritual being ~ whether called God, Yahweh, Allah or Jehovah ~ was established by religion; it was not established by science, by literature, by entertainment, by journalism, by government or by any other institution, so it is "an establishment of religion" which the Constitution specifically and clearly says may not be subject to law, neither for nor against.

Let's see what could, and probably would, happen if the noun "establishment" were allowed to be the verb "establish" and always used accordingly:

A nation could make its currency testaments to a deity by placing a tribute to him or it on all minted money for no other reason that it is engaged in a Civil War and wanted to delude itself to claiming that "God is on our side." That would not be "establishing" ~ say Judaism ~ any official religion, so it must be okay.

That nation could then enact a law that required everyone pledging allegiance to that nation to utter a tribute to its chosen god. That wouldn't be "establishing" Christianity as an official religion, so it must be okay.

Teachers could then be directed to lead all children under their direction to acknowledge that god. That would not "establish" Buddhism as a state religion, so it must be okay.

Government could than compose a prayer and instruct those same teachers to lead their little charges in utterance of that prayer, even though it may not correspond with their chosen religion's requirements. That wouldn't "establish" Islam as an official religion, so it must be okay.

Using a chosen holy book as a teaching aid for school lessons or observations wouldn't "establish" Sikhism as an official religion, so it must be okay.

Our nation could then require by law that all businesses be closed on a certain day so that there be no commerce conducted. That could be a Sunday, which might correspond to a certain religion's concept of a Sabbath. But a day of rest for toilers wouldn't be "establishing" Hinduism as an official religion, so it must be okay.

If we're going to designate one day a week for rest, we can also designate certain holidays and impose them where ever government power can reach. Where government power can't reach, the force of peer pressure or community standards can get others to observe the chosen holiday. Even if that holiday were something created by religion, such as Christmas, that one holiday would not "establish" Christianity as an official religion, so it must be okay.

Preventing disfavored religions to preach in public places ~ as Connecticut did to Jehovah Witnesses ~ doesn't "establish" Shintoism as an official religion, so it must be okay.

Outlawing the selling of items that offend some religious sensibilities, such as contraceptives ~ Connecticut, again ~ doesn't establish Voodoo as the official religion, so it must be okay.

Demanding the outlawing of certain acts or procedures where government doesn't have power to legislate and the preferred holy book doesn't address ~ such as abortion ~ doesn't "establish" Unitarianism as an official state religion, so it must be okay

Spending public money for religious events and observances wouldn't "establish" Scientology as the official religion, so it must be okay.

Placing religious monuments ~ such as one containing the 10 commandments ~ in public buildings or other public property wouldn't "establish" Catholicism as the official religion, so it must be okay.

Outlawing a certain ritual practiced by one religion ~ an animal sacrifice while commercial entities slaughter millions of the same animals, such as chickens, daily for profit ~ wouldn't "establish" a counter-belief as the official religion, so that must be okay.

In the end government didn't put an official state-approved religion into place with one act of Congress nor did state legislatures "establish a religion" as Henry VIII did by decree to bring into existence the Church of England.

And not one of those minor laws ~ all of which have existed in the United States ~ or actions along the way "established" a state religion, but the net result is the creation by government of a religion. It is not Judaism, or Islam. It is not Buddhism, Hinduism or Shintoism. It may appear to be a form of Christianity, but not one of the several sects that comprise Christianity. It isn't Catholicism or Episcopalian. It isn't Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist. It isn't Mormonism or Jehovah Witness and it isn't Scientology.

But it is a government-created religion that could be imposed on the population, mainly children, and continuous exposure to this hybrid religion could lead Americans away from their spiritual heritage just as surely as the Soviet Union used the state to suppress religions that weren't state approved.

This easily could have been the United States had not a succession of progressive judges struck down many of these incremental steps to "establish" a religion for America when they could have easily said none of these steps constituted an "establishing" of religion. That might have "established" a state-approved religion that evolved over a prolonged period of time, one step at a time, just what it seems Madison was trying to prevent.

So one word of the Constitution, totally misused and misunderstood by all, is that nail so wanted in a doomed kingdom.

***********************************

Authors Bio:
*****************************************************



Thomas Bonsell is a former newspaper editor (in Oregon, New York and Colorado) United States Air Force cryptanalyst and National Security Agency intelligence agent. He became one of American journalism's leading constitutional experts through years of study at Georgetown University Graduate School of Government in Washington, D.C., and tries (without much success) to be patient with people who argue endlessly on subjects they have never studied. He is the author of "The Un-Americans: Trashing of the United States Constitution in the American Press", a critique of the mainstream media for ignorance of, or disdain for, our constitutional principles of self-government. He left newspaper work years ago, disgusted at the direction the Fourth Estate ~ under the mismanagement of ineffectual, out-of-touch, can't-do executives ~ was taking away from honest responsible journalism and the observation that there was no place in the mainstream media for a progressive, or liberal, constitutional "expert". Bonsell is an honors graduate of Woodbury College (Los Angeles, California) with a bachelor of business administration degree. He is profiled in Marquis Who's Who in America. (Self-portrait, above, was handled to make author/artist appear prettier than he actually is.)

Personal motto: Have brain; will use.