Lamar Smith's speech on Judicial Activism

Congressman Lamar Smith : 21st District of Texas: Did Lamar Smith fail U.S. History and Government in school?

Certainly he would have been taught that one of the primary reasons people immigrated to these lands was to escape the established government religions of the day! And certainly he would have studied Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that gives our courts the authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws. And certainly at least one of his teachers would have pointed out that the Bill of Rights protects the rights of individuals -- especially those in the minority -- from the power of the majority who control the government. Maybe Mr. Smith was on a trip with Tom DeLay when his classes covered these topics.

The school administrators who instituted these anti-religious policies inevitably cite the “separation of church and state” as if it were a Constitutional phrase. It is not. The phrase appeared in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, assuring them that Congress would not establish a Federal religion.

It the phrase "Holy Trinity" in the Bible? No, but certainly Mr. Smith would acknowledge that the concept is there. The phrase is used as a commonly understood abbreviation, as "the separation of church and state" is used to abbreviate the First Amendment and supporting rulings made by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Smith apparently doesn't understand what Baptists have understood since before Thomas Jefferson's letter to Connecticut -- it is wrong for the power of the government, in any form, at any level, to be used to force a religious view on the people. One only has to apply the "walk a mile in another's shoes" test to see the problem: What if all of the teachers in a San Antonio public school were Muslim and had the authority to require students to pray to Allah five times a day? What if Hindus became the majority in Congress and changed the Pledge of Allegiance to be "under Vishnu"?

Mr Smith says, "The purpose of the First Amendment was to rule out the establishment of a particular religion and to prohibit the government from discriminating against one religion by favoring another. It was never intended to mandate that government ban religious expressions."

I say that in addition it requires that no government authority can be used to force any religion of any kind on the people and that no power to tax can be used to support religion.

Rulings by our courts have been intended only to ban religious expressions by government agents or with government backing. A teacher in a public school is a tax-supported government agent with authority and power over students. Any expression of religion by a public school teacher while "on duty" is a violation to the rights of the students present to be free of coercion in this way.

Fortunately, our courts have "activist" judges who will protect the minority from the majority.