Leftists mangling separation of church and state

Separation of Church and State

For years the progressives have told us about this thing call “separation of church and state,” twisting Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists in which the state could not dictate their faith at all to saying that separation of church and state is required according to the 1st Amendment. However, it seems that when faith conflicts with the progressive agenda of the state then that church and state separation is thrown out the window for what the progressives think and claim is the greater good.

Those who call themselves free thinkers, humanists, or skeptics tend to hold to not only a secular world view but a leftist, liberal, progressive one as well.   There are exceptions like magician Penn Jillette who does support free market capitalism but he is outnumbered by many humanists like Norman Lear (who developed several TV sitcoms in the 1970’s including “All In The Family,” “Maude”, and “The Jeffersons”), Bill Maher (host of “Real Time” in HBO), Seth MacFarlane (best known for creating the animated sitcom “Family Guy”), Noam Chomsky and Barack Obama’s birth mother Ann Dunham who not outspoken on the their disbelief but have declared war on faith while at the same time the very same people are trying to force their worldview on people of faith.

In recent years people of faith have come under fire by these so called enlightened people who feel it’s their mission to cleanse the world of this superstition of God and His law.  When bakers and photographers refused service to homosexual couples the progressive cabal went into action and sued these people to the point their services are stifled (as Jack Phillips’ in Denver was) or shuttered altogether (Sweet Cakes by Melissa).

Freedom from Religion Foundation based in Madison, Wisconsin was co-founded by a pro-abortion/pro population control advocate Anne Nicol Gaylor who felt that “religion” was a stumbling block to women’s rights especially the “right to control their body.”  Before FFRF was founded Gaylor wrote a book called “Abortion Is A Blessing” and the entire book can be viewed at the FFRF website.  Gaylor chewed out anybody who would disagree with her regarding this blessing.

Why do progressives’ social engineer our culture so much?  Look to the late William Edelen’s piece “Free of The Biblical God” for the answer:

“Blessed are they who know that the only hell that exists is right here on earth created by man.  And that it in man’s hands alone to create heaven here on earth through intelligence, empathy and love.”

Sounds great but as I stated earlier people of faith are dealing with a lot of hell on earth truly indeed created by man, and by the people who claim of making our world better through intelligence, empathy and love, but are frustrated that these people of faith just don’t understand what they are trying to do.

If God is a myth then let it die like one.  But the trouble is these progressive humanists can’t.  Faith, especially the Judeo Christian faith, runs opposite to what these progressives want to implement.  So they have to go to war with the faith, beginning with indoctrination of our children against the faith of their elders, discrediting people of faith in the macro culture,  and to top it off, those who will not conform to the progressive worldview must be made to conform or they will not be able to have a good life.  There was a reason why Jesus Christ himself told us not to be conformed to this world and this is what these leftists are trying to do to us.

Liberty and freedom as seen by our founders must rely on freedom of faith.  Certain founders might have not been Christian themselves but they understood the need for the Law of God to be part of our framework.  Without that, it will only empower a power hungry state to do what it takes (including murder) to get what it wants and to try to gain leverage over God (just in case God does indeed exist) to be allowed to get into Heaven without their sin being judged.

Conservative News


1 Comment
  1. This article alludes to separation of church and state and then discusses a quite different subject, i.e., public dialogue on religion, the existence of god(s), what is moral, and the like.

    Separation of church and state is a fundamental American value and a bedrock constitutional principle. It basically calls for government to refrain from promoting (or opposing) religion, and to thereby leave individuals free to decide such matters for themselves without government interference by favoring or disfavoring one or another religion.

    When some Americans criticize one or another aspect of religion or voice opinions on morality, they merely exercise their individual freedom to express themselves. That is not really an application of separation of church and state; different subject.

    The constitutional separation of church and state does not prevent citizens from making decisions based on principles derived from their religions. Moreover, the religious beliefs of government officials naturally may inform their decisions on policies. The principle, in this context, merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion; in other words, the predominant purpose and primary effect must be nonreligious or secular in nature. A decision coinciding with religious views is not invalid for that reason as long as it has a secular purpose and effect.

    Confusion understandably arises because the constitutional principle is sometimes equated with a widely supported political doctrine that goes by the same name and generally calls for political dialogue to be conducted on grounds other than religion. The underlying reasons for that political doctrine are many, but three primary ones are that (1) it facilitates discussion amongst people of all beliefs by predicating discussion on grounds accessible to all and (2) it avoids, in some measure at least, putting our respective religious beliefs directly “in play” in the political arena, so we’re not put in the position of directly disputing or criticizing each other’s religious beliefs in order to address a political issue and (3) since the government cannot under the Constitution make laws or decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion, it makes little sense to urge the government to do just that. This political doctrine, of course, is not “law” (unlike the constitutional separation of church and state, which is), but rather is a societal norm concerning how we can best conduct political dialogue in a religiously diverse society. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the doctrine is a good idea or not and whether or how it should influence us in particular circumstances.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

© 2017 The New Americana