Clearly, there is a difference between the ‘letter of the law’ and a law’s ‘spirit’. You can identify the adherents of the former by the way they push their glasses up and say, “ackshually" (I am calling out my schoolboy self, there; self-reflection is good, no?). Those who split straws over ideas are those who also miss the point – or are disingenuous and are seeking wiggle room to get out of a promise. Thus, I bring to you, Dear Reader, Lieutenant Governor of Texas, Dan Patrick. 

Dan Patrick was made Chairman of this administration's Religious Liberty group, and while standing next to Dr. Phil, the TV personality, behind President Trump, he said, 

"The Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution.” 

I suppose in the way one might try to take a single human hair and pull it apart where it splits, yeah, I guess he is right. You know, if there were particularly heavy quotation marks around "Separation of Church and State,” verbatim, it is not in the Constitution. The “rule” is drawn from the First Amendment, (which, off the top of my head, also covers the right to assembly and free speech) 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” A sore loser who lies heavily on the letter of the law might say that the amendments are not “inside” the Constitution. Well, physically not inside the original document as it was written, no. I suppose to satisfy a letter-of-the-law guy like Dan Patrick, you would have to cut the Constitution in half and insert the amendment between two sentences. There is a second moment in the "amended” Constitution which further pushes religion apart from our government, just before the Bill of Rights in Article VI, Clause 3:

“...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Dan Patrick: “Every time we hear separation of church and state, we need to say there is no separation of church and state. That's a lie. And every time I think we have some interviews after this, I'm going to make it very clear because we know that's what the Constitution says." And then, “What do we have to do to get the media to understand that separation of church and state is a lie, and this commission makes it clear to America that it's a lie?"

Sometimes when someone repeats something enough (like attention-grabbing media), people start to believe it, like what Dan is doing.

Alright Dan, I gotta bring out the big guns: My homie, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson. In an eloquent letter which he sent to the Danbury Baptist Association, he wrote,

“…my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

–Thomas Jefferson, January 1st, 1802.

It was actually (ackshually, heh) the first homie of the United States who said the words, “a wall of separation between Church and State," and at the start of the very same sentence he declared his belief that "religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God.” That religion is not part of the state should be rejoiced: any gander towards Iran or Saudi Arabia, with how religion is implemented in their government and legal system, should be observed and serve as a stark warning. Jefferson came from an era in which the Church of England overlapped directly with the government, and only Anglicans could hold certain positions and offices, as well as Anglican bishops making laws. 

What tyranny it would seem to a Protestant, to have only a Muslim be able to hold office above them, or, for only those of the Hindu faith to make, establish, and enforce laws while Catholics or otherwise would be unable to participate in the legal system of their own country. Shuffle any faith into the scenario above, and it will be quite clear just how wise the founding fathers of this nation were. 

Is the Texan politician Dan Patrick right? 

No, absolutely not. 

Though with how many of them I have met and fought with during my life, any letter-of-the-law adherents might have just barked angrily at my assertion that Dan is wrong. 

True, word for word, it does not. Ideologically? He is arguing against the words of Thomas Jefferson, who himself quoted the Constitution in the same sentence.

Austin Petak is an aspiring novelist and freelance journalist who loves seeking stories and the quiet passions of the soul. If you are interested in reaching out to him to cover a story, you may find him at austinpetak@gmail.com.

Opinions expressed by columnists in The Daily Record are not necessarily those of its management or staff, and do not constitute an endorsement or recommendation. Any errors or omissions should be called to our attention so that they may be corrected. Contact us at news@omahadailyrecord.com.