A different view on Separation of Church and State

The very beginning of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."

For decades this was interpreted as saying Government, public places, schools, etc. must be free of all religion.  No symbols, no books, no prayers, etc.  It was also interpreted by many as saying Government may not grant funds to religious institutions.  No funding of religious schools as part of school choice type programs, for example.  Some took it further to argue Government funds to help the poor can't go to religious organizations either.

Those opinions are wrong.

I recognize Congress cannot declare the United States is a Catholic country as Hungary had done in the distant past or recognize a national Church as the England did.  However, prohibiting religious artifacts or funding to religious institutions is not, in my opinion the correct interpretation of the First Amendment.

Two reasons for my point of view.  First, the concept of extending the "separation of Church and State" doctrine was born not from a principled Constitutional view but rather from anti-Catholic bigotry.  The second reason is denying faith is actually embracing a faith.  Let's unpack those.

The case of Espinoza vs. Montana Department of Revenue was decided by the Supreme Court on June 30, 2020.  An oversimplification of the issue of the case is the Montana legislature provided tax credits to people who donate to organizations that award scholarships for private school tuition.  The Montana  Constitution said government money cannot be used to aid religious institutions.  The Montana Department of Revenue ruled that these scholarships cannot be used at religious schools.  Three parents sued challenging the Constitutionality of the rule.  The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the parents and overturned the Montana Constitutional provision.

Now why is that relevant to the topic of this article?   In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito* discussed the origin of the Montana Constitutional limitation.  "Montana's provision was modeled on the failed Blaine Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  Named after House Speaker James Blane, the Congressman who introduced it in 1875, the amendment was prompted by virulent prejudice against immigrants, particularly Catholic immigrants.... As noted in a publication from the United States Commission on Civil Rights, a prominent supporter of this ban was the Ku Klux Klan."

Before laying out this history, Justice Alito cited the case of Ramos v. Louisiana (also decided in 2020) where the Court found Louisiana and Oregon laws allowing non-unanimous verdicts in criminal trials are not Constitutional because "...the States originally adopted those laws for racially discriminatory reasons."  The Supreme Court said the laws could not be legitimized by re-adopting them for non-discriminatory reasons.**

From Alito's recitation of the history on this subject, it is clear the concept of Separation of Church and State meaning taxpayer dollars can't go to religious organizations is anti-religious bigotry.  An idea hatched from the minds of the Ku Klux Klan and similar bigoted organizations and not from a principled view of the Constitution.

The other reason I dissent from the common view that Separation of Church and State is an idea I've had for a while and am laying out here for your consideration.  

I believe in God. I can't prove that God exists, but I believe in Him.***

There are people who do not believe in God.  They cannot prove to me God does not exist.  But they believe He does not.

My conclusion: Religious belief is a form of belief.  Atheism or whatever other name you give it is a form of belief.

By banning any religious belief from Government facilities, banning prayer, banning funding,  etc., the Government is in actually staking out a position in support of a different belief system, Atheism.  By promoting one belief system to the exclusion of others is exactly what the First Amendment prohibits.

Conclusion, if you support Separation of Church and State, you're either a bigoted Kloset-Klansmen**** or you're trying to impose your belief system on me in violation of the First Amendment.

*  Espinoza vs. Montana Department of Revenue if found at  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf  (yes I am a wonk and not only read the main opinion but the dissenting and concurring opinions too.  Justice Alito's Concurring Opinion starts on Page 35)

** Ironically, Justice Alito was the one who argued the laws could be rehabilitated by re-adopting them for non-bigoted reasons, but he lost.  So in Espinoza he argued Ramos is now precedent and should be followed in the Espinoza case - Alito was essentially telling the liberal minority you made this rule, you now have to follow it.

*** In the movie Conclave, the Cardinal played by Ralph Fiennes had a great speech (SPOILER ALERT) - saying in essence the greatest sin is certainty because certainty means there is no doubt and without doubt, there is no faith, which is the basis of belief.  It's a good movie, not spoiled by (SPOILER ALERT) a stupid woke twist at the end.

**** Sorry, couldn't resist the double "K's" there.  :-)