Separation of State and Church
Most of those adults in America would be surprised to find out that no where in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist papers written in the support of the Divine Document that guides our land, is there the phrase, “Separation of Church and State”.
Among their surprise, and doubt of this fact, they will think that it is a “neo-con” trying to reframe the argument long made that religion should not be in government. That anything that is preached in the halls of worship, are predicated in the halls of our Legislature and in the offices of our Executive. And by no means can the laws and decisions by our judges from the small claims all the way to the Supreme cannot use religious principles as guides to what they decree from the bench.
Would it also surprise you to find out that this phrase about Church and State had not become widely known until the late 1950’s? Could you even think that the first inklings of such a concept was only gestated by the Academic Bourgiousie of the early 1900’s? For 100 plus years that had never been in the public consciousness or even as a mantra so widely held now by the pundits today!
Modern Progressives point to the First Amendment of the Constitution as proof. It states, “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.” It is the direct opposite of what they surmise.
Along with the freedom of the press, speech, and petition for grievances as well as the legislation of religion have their roots in centuries of oppression and persecution.Remember those who jumped on ships to come over here to escape the force being placed upon them and their religious beliefs, (the Mayflower comes to mind) So when the Founding Fathers looked at establishing a government for the people and of the people, it naturally dictated that no one religion would be held as the State Sanctioned, one that all MUST follow. Within their recent history of the time, wars were fought, thousands had died, and political turmoil was wrought on the question of a Pope or a King being the head of the State’s Church (Henry the VIII, Cromwell etc.)
They saw religion for what it was. It deals with the spirit of mankind, that would permeate society and move actors of the stage to action to what is inherently just, the truth and moral. They saw this Judeo-Christian thought would dictate from within to the greater whole. They had faith that the greater society would keep the social mores as they were, or close to what they were at the time, because of the purity of which these precepts had sprung (the Bible).
They however, did not think that the reverse would be adopted wholesale by the public. But they didn’t want the Government to establish one religion over another the only accepted church in the country. Thus the inclusion in the First Amendment.
The Liberals, the Progressives, the Socialists have been working diligently from our universities of the learned, to our judicial branch, and now have the best chance it has ever had to capture the executive and the legislative of our nation.
Since the 1910’s the thought was floated of the Consititution being a “living document” that it’s precepts were meant to be fluid and relative to the era. Not the rock and stable force it has been since its ratification. Since the 1950’s in the first contacts of learning in our elementary schools of taking morality, and God out of the public learning processes. Not the foundation of our value systems that reasoning and public policy had been drawn upon.
In the 1970’s we got the likes of ERA, GLAAD, NOW, ACLU, and the government bureacracies that usurped what had previously been only in the realm of religion. Not the expectancy of each responsible person to uphold and insist on the social mores. In the 1990’s we received government policies that now have degraded our communities in rationalizations of private lives of our elected officials aren’t relevant, and that oppressive policies on trumped up data and philosophies of men are to be followed.
That tennet that the Progressives have held up as a mantra of “Separation of Church and State” has sought to get rid of the anything that referenced God, in word, precept, law, and thought over the last 90 years are on the cusp of installing their brand of Church of Government and imposing that on everyone. Have we gone as a greater whole of society that far that we need to have this oppression thrust upon us spoken of by Ben Franklin?
If it is, then all of us who love liberty have reason to be weary of our Federal Government and anything that comes from Washington DC.