Separation of State from Church, not vice versa

As I currently reside in the city of Modesto, where a Catholic priest recently is quoted as saying “those who voted for pro-abortion candidates” should confess their sins. It got me to thinking about the lazy guidebook leftists and secular humanists will trot out whenever they hear a religious point of view. There is a wall of separation between church and state!

Now, I know what that term has come to represent. It can be hideous in its bigotry and ignorance. It has come to mean that religion shall not interfere in the public sector where Government chooses to reside. Freedom “of” religion has become freedom “from”. Well, let me be the first to explain to you that freedom “from” ends at the tip of your nose.

First, a lesson in the First Amendment.

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.

Congress shall make no law… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Today, we have people who have twisted the meaning of this passage so inside out that they think it gives Government the right to enact laws based on the actions of churches. Writers on this blog have condoned violence and expressed bigotry of certain religions. Furthermore, they have advocated that because churches have taken certain public positions, they should be threatened with penalties and regulation. If that isn’t trying to prohibit free exercise, I don’t know what is. So, if the Government decided to take away public benefits to the teachers union because they gave money to Prop 8, that would be ok? After all, what is a teachers union, which should concern itself with EDUCATING its pupils better, doing giving money to ANY political cause? Especially since a majority of teachers feel just like the rest of us…

Note the other passages of the First Amendment. “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”. So, Congress “shall make no law” abridging the freedom of speech. I read that to say that Government shall not abridge freedom of speech. By the logic of those who shout “Separation of Church and State”, that would read speech shall not interfere with Government or you might get a law passed to regulate your speech. Or the press shall not interfere with the Government, or we can regulate whether or not you have a license to print.

That’s the European way, by the way.

To argue that churches do not have the right to participate in the public square is basically reprising an early 20th century bigotry. It comes from Supreme Court Justice, Ku Klux Klan member and anti-catholic Hugo Black whose 1947 ruling created the “high and impregnable wall between religion and government” metaphor secular humanists and leftists trot out today. Don’t let them argue any different. It’s akin to someone finding a freedom loving way of burning a cross on your lawn and having to tolerate it because that person doesn’t realize burning crosses is a really nasty way of doing things.

The vast majority of Americans are comfortable with their local religious institutions guiding the values and principles of their day to day lives that Government has no power to be involved in. I would refer you to the 10th Amendment for clarification.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So here is the line in the sand. Where Church chooses to participate, Government has nothing to say about it.

Now, those who think differently and honestly and sincerely disagree, I can be on your side.

Advocate for a Constitutional Convention. I’m with you! And you can get a majority of the population to rescind at least 7 of the first 10 Amendments, maybe more. They really are in the way of your Progressive ideas, after all. And only 33% can identify the Bill of Rights. You have the majority on your side! I’m with you!

I’m not talking about just another Amendment on the ballot. A Convention can change them all. Change the Amendments. Add a few. Take away some others. I have a list of ideas of my own, did I mention that? First would be, as long as we’ve already found the right to “death by convenience” in the Constitution, let’s just add it right in there, make sure everyone who has someone they need to get rid of because they “mess up their lives” has a right to apply to do so with a doctor, without regard to sex, race, creed, color or state of pregnancy. Now that’s Progressive.

Pop Quiz: Who said: “Politics do not belong in the Church.” and “The Church must be separate from the State.”

About Terry Crowley