The Myth Of the Secular State

"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"

There you have it people, in black and white. The first amendment to the constitution. Read it as many times as you like, you will find not a single word about the "separation of church and state." As a matter of fact, except for the words "of" and "and," that phrase does not appear at all.

What? You mean that the Constitution of the United States of America doesn't establish the separation of church and state?

That's right, nowhere in the constitution will you find that mythical principle.

No! That's impossible! I mean, we've heard it so many times. The press recites the mantra of separation with such a dazzling regularity, that it must be in there somewhere.

Nope. I've looked. Read the whole thing front to back. Can't find it, it ain't there.

Astounding isn't it? Here we are, the most advanced country in the world, the richest, most powerful, the most admired (don't let 'em fool you, the rest of the world would kill to get in here) country in the world, and we can't even get God out of our country.

You know, to listen to Bill Maher, and his cadre of guests, you would think that "separation" was etched in stone. That, of course, is what prompted this entire editorial. While surfing the cable, I ran across Bill Maher with his guests, Cornell West (well known for his enlightened objectivity), Alec ("I hope Henry Hyde is killed") Baldwin, and Whoopie (talk about gross) Goldberg. I always find it amazing, the left never tolerates a level playing field. Have you noticed that? I have. They always conduct their interview shows with a majority of liberals. Conservatives are always out numbered. Alternatively, on Fox News Channel, panels are always balanced, with one exception, the Brit Hume show. Even on Brit's show, there is always at least one liberal. Hannity and Colmes usually interview a guest together, either conservative or liberal. It's always two to one, but the majority side is always shifting.

Stark contrast to brave Bill Maher. Like most liberals, he requires the security of numbers to re-enforce his liberal ballyhoo. Usually his panels are stacked fairly at three liberals to one conservative. Even at that he must be careful not to venture too far out of his league. I saw Tucker Carlson make a meal out of Maher and his chorus once.

Back to the subject at hand, Maher stated that the "Religious Right (that's me, for one) was conducting an all out assault on America, and "us, the Secular Constitutionalists," seem to be afraid to stand up to them. "Secular Constitutionalists?" What the hell is that? I've heard of secular socialists, and secular communists, but how the heck can one be a secular constitutionalist? The constitution was written by Christian men for a Christian population and based upon Christian principles. The people who came to the colonies were puritans seeking to escape the oppression of an over-bearing state church (Church of England).

People, our freedom is based upon the principle that we derive our freedom directly from God, not as an afterthought from the state.

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...[my emphasis]"

It's right there in black and white (I know, I know, the Left don't like for things to be black and white) direct from the Declaration of Independence. Christianity is so intertwined with our nation's creation that it is virtually impossible to conceive of America coming into existence in its absence. Alexis de Tocqueville noted this linkage in his much touted but rarely read book Democracy in America.

"Most of English America was peopled by men who, having shaken off the pope's
authority, acknowledged no other religious supremacy; they therefore brought to
the New World a Christianity which I can only describe as democratic and
republican; this fact singularly favored the establishment of a temporal
republic and democracy. From the start politics and religion agreed, and they
have not since ceased to do so."

These observations are from a Frenchman visiting the United States about fifty years after it was established. He was curious to see what this experiment in democracy had yielded. He goes on to say:

"Therefore one can say that there is not a single religious doctrine in the
United States hostile to democratic and republican institutions. All the clergy
there speak the same language; opinions are in harmony with the laws, and there
is, so to say, only one mental current."

And again;

"For the Americans the ideas of Christianity and liberty are so completely
mingled that it is almost impossible to get them to conceive of the one without
the other; it is not a question with them of sterile beliefs bequeathed by the
past and vegetating rather than living in the depths of the soul."

and finally;

"When such as these [men who view a republic as a permanent and tranquil
state toward which to strive] attack religious beliefs, they obey the dictates
of their passions, not their interests. Despotism may be able to do without
faith, but freedom cannot."

These are pretty stark words. De Tocqueville's book is virtually a requirement for those seeking to understand our nation and its history and development. Liberals love to throw the name around as if they have actually read it. You will rarely find them quoting the above. Like most historic visions of America, they will only quote those portions that support their views, or that they can distort to support their views.

The only place that one will find "the separation of church and state" is in the all too fertile minds of activist judges placed on the bench by liberal governor's seeking to supplant the rule of the people with the rule of a minority who "truly understand how to govern" thereby making law by judicial fiat rather than in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

What? "Consistent with the Constitution?"

Yep, the constitution empowers only the legislative branch (isn't that clever, the way they named it "legislative" to give you a clue as to what their powers are) to make laws. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a "right" to legislate from the bench. Nowhere in the Constitution have I found the statement "Judges shall have the right to make such laws as they deem necessary and concerning such issues as they believe the congress has been remiss to address." Sorry, it's not there, I looked.

Not only that, but except for the Supremes, all other judges and inferior courts exist at the behest of the congress, "as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Well then, why do Liberals keep referring to the "separation of church and state?"

Simple, it serves their purpose, to undermine the moral fabric of our society thereby making way for their utopian socialist state. You see, one cannot construct a new society based on secular ideals, until the prior Christian state is deconstructed and anarchy forces the people to seek a source of order. The left envision themselves as this new source of order and the communist or at the very least socialist state as their vehicle to power. Remember, only liberals know what is best for you, in their eyes, you can't be trusted to run your own lives.

"Secular Constitutionalists?" Not on your life. The very words are hateful to America. They represent, in fact, the very antithesis of what our forefathers envisioned. The next time you hear someone (probably a liberal, or confused moderate) use the term "separation of church and state" as though it actually was legitimate, just laugh at them. Explain to them that there is no such animal and there never was. It is a myth.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below