Separating constitutional fact, fantasy

By MOLLY IVINS

PORTLAND, Ore. - Bizarre ideologies are loose in the land, popping up hither and yon, and perhaps the strangest thing about them is that their proponents all claim the Constitution of the United States as their mandate.

Easily, the most hideous of these claims comes from Tim McVeigh, now on trial in the Oklahoma City bombing. According to the prosecutors in that case, McVeigh wrote a bulletin, apparently intended for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, that said: "All you so-and-so's will swing in the wind one day for your treasonous actions against the Constitution of the United States. Die, you spineless, cowardly so-and-so's."

McVeigh's guilt has yet to be established, but it is not premature to conclude if he indeed wrote the above, his understanding of the Constitution is imperfect.

A letter to the editor in Friday's Oregonian newspaper contained the following happy thought: "The education system is the last bastion of socialism. So our liberal friends turn to hiding behind children and demand to keep the kicker as an investment in our children's future. It is not an investment, for any investment I make should return my money back with interest."

A letter from the head of the Council of Conservative Citizens to USA Today offers the following agenda: "The C of CC is a grass-roots, conservative organization with thousands of members mainly concerned with organizing citizens' opposition to liberal and socialist policies that we believe are in violation of the U.S. Constitution and threaten the American way of life." The group supports the Alabama judge who is demonstrating his own infirm grasp of the Constitution by displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. The writer was upset about having this group described as "notoriously anti-Semitic," an allegation that he vigorously denies.

And almost any day of the week, one can find an irate letter from someone who claims, "Nowhere in the Constitution do the words 'separation of church and state' appear" - as though that puts paid to the doctrine of separation of church and state.

The Constitution, frankly, is not terribly interesting reading, except for the Preamble and the Bill of Rights. It trails off into a sort of Roberts-Rules-of-Order prose. Every now and again, you find someone who is passionate about some obscure provision in it, but for most of us, the Preamble and the Bill of Rights are the heart of the matter.

The First Amendment, first both in order and in importance, is 45 words long: "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."

You notice the very first right addressed in the First Amendment is freedom of conscience. The two parts of what is known as the establishment clause - "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - are the basis for the doctrine of separation of church and state, the phrase used by James Madison, who wrote the Bill of Rights with a little help from his friends.

The seriousness and importance that Madison invested in the separation of church and state cannot be exaggerated. Its purpose, he wrote, "is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."

Our government is strictly enjoined from imposing religion upon us in any way and equally enjoined from interfering with the free exercise of religion. In the vernacular, the government is to butt out of anything to do with religion; the two are to be kept separate. Our brethren on the right are fond of pointing out that most of the founders were Christians (the deists and Unitarians among them being an arguable case). Yes. And? So what?

Madison, along with the other founders, was well aware that "the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries" was largely a matter of Christians killing one another over Christianity itself. That continues in Northern Ireland and in the former Yugoslavia to this good day. The religion of peace and love has a gory history.

The proper functions of government set out in the Preamble, however loosely, define our public interests. It is interesting to see how many Americans are now prepared to deny that the government has legitimate functions. Government-bashing ranges from every American's God-and-Constitution-given right to grumble about the fools in Washington to blowing up the Murrah Federal Building.

The mania for privatization knows no boundaries, and it is driven not only by ideological zeal on the right but by the indifference of the rich, who are effectively buying their way out of public concerns. Rich folks have always been able to buy a good education for their children, and they are concomitantly reluctant to contribute taxes to see that everyone else has access to a good education, as well.

The latest fad in this long-standing conflict is vouchers, a system fraught with uncertainty but one that will have one certain effect: It will destroy the public schools.

The net effect of privatization is to destroy the first of the Preamble's stated purposes: to form a more perfect Union. It is "the public thing" that is being destroyed - our commons, our civic enterprise. And all in the name of the Constitution.

Creators Syndicate, Inc.