I will go into it, Liberator, and in detail.
Nice dramatic article. "Christians are the enemy!", it says. "Oh, we poor persecuted followers of Jesus! The rest of the world is out to get us!" is the tone. Please. Christians aren't the enemy. They never were. Theocratic rulership is the enemy.
I notice that the article draws a dilineation between "freedom of religion" and "freedom from religion". This is a false dichotomy. Freedom of religion includes, intrinsically, freedom from religion.
Further, the article says, "The Leftist social liberals continue to harangue on the 'separation of church and state' as justification for eliminating religious issues from public view." This is incorrect. No one wants to eliminate religious views from public view. That would be tyrrany. However, they do want to keep religion out of government. You can have your views, but the GOVERNMENT may not endorse any religious views. This is explicitly stated in the Constitution's Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That means that A) you can't use government to shove your religious views down the nation's throat, and B) neither of us can stop the other from endorsing our religious views as individuals. Its very simple, really.
The article goes on to, almost verbatim, quote one of the logical fallacies, false dillema. "If you're not for us, you're against us", or in the case of the article, "If a biblical moral system is not being legislated, then an immoral system is being legislated". The falsehood lies in the idea that the Bible is the only source of morals, or moral systems. The only way you can argue that the Bible is the sole source of morality is by arguing from a position of faith. You cannot legislate faith, and thus you cannot use the Bible as a sole foundation for a legal system under the Constitution. The article needs to stay away from Jefferson. As a deist, his views are certainly not in line with the articles author. Jefferson believed that men had natural moral instincts and therefore all religions had something in common; only the traditions and dogmas were different.
The article goes on to complain of Supreme Court Justice Black's interpretation of the First Amendment. In this, the article fails to recognize the purpose, as laid out in the very same Constitution, of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Someone must interpret the Constitution, and it cannot be anyone who actually makes the laws. That would be a conflict of interest. To whit, Article 3, section 2: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority..." The SCOTUS exists to uphold and interpret the Constitution. Black's interpretation of the first Amendment whilst not agreeable to some, was well within both his authority and power. This decision does not restrict the rights of the people in any way.
You and I are unfettered: we can express our religious views any time we want, any way we want. However, a government office may endorse NO religous views. Whilst serving as President, you may be a Christian, but the Presidency remains a secular post and must always remain so.
The next section of the article discusses the Jefferson and his beliefs. Here, the article and its author are on very shaky ground. Jefferson has a lot to say on religion:
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
And:
"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians."-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789
And:
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789
And:
"They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800
Most particularly, the article speaks to a very specific quote, in which Jefferson "assured the Danbury Baptist Association that the First Amendment guaranteed that there would be no establishment of any one denomination over another." It goes on to interpret Jeffersons words as being one way: that government could never control religion, but religion could control government. This interpretation goes solidly against Jefferson's own words. The full quote from the Danbury letter is:
"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 legislative 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, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
Jefferson's statement saying "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God..." puts the "wall" firmly in the two-way role. Neither can the government establish religion, but neither can the Church use government to intervene in what "lies solely between man and his God". If any religion is allowed to manipulate government, then the government can manipulate religion. To protect your beliefs from mine and mine from yours, the government and state must be entirely seperate. THAT is the true nature of Jefferson's wall. Your article is, in fact and in spirit, entirely wrong on this point.
As this point is absolutely central to the entire article, the article is in fact, flawed in conception and execution.
-
