Perversion of the First Amendment

Amazingly, I just hijacked these curious state laws from an atheist Facebook page:

• Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1: No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

• Maryland, Article 37: That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

• Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265: No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

• North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8: The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. 

• South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4: No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

• Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2: No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

• Texas, Article 1, Section 4: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

In view of the above, we should ask, "How is it that we now can't mention God in the schools but yet our laws forbid His non-belief in regards to public office?" And what does this say about the US Supreme Court’s present radical misinterpretation of the First Amendment?

This Amendment states that government should neither set up a religion nor interfere with the free exercise of religion. It was later termed the “separation clause,” separating church and state.

Still no problem! However, what does the “separation of church and state” mean? For one thing it never forbade prayer in the Congress nor even support for the Bible. Nor did it forbid the States from establishing their own qualifications for office-holders. Had the First Amendment forbade this, these State laws could not have seen the light-of-day!

I’m not saying that States should now establish religious tests for holding office. However, these laws speak forcefully about the First Amendment and the way our religious freedoms are being limited today by a perverted understanding of this Amendment.

Modern Secularism and its Disdain for Conscience

At a secular humanist meeting, one irate atheist barked:

• As far as I’m concerned, Christians can believe anything they want. But once they try to influence legislation and impose their religion on everyone else, that’s when I draw the line!

I responded:

• Well, aren’t you atheists also trying to impose your beliefs and religion on others?

This, of course, raises many important questions:

1. What does it mean to “impose their religion on others?” Is it just a matter of a theist having a seat at the political table to discuss various social issues – or even merely to vote - or is it a matter of establishing a state religion which everyone must support and attend?

2. How does our legal system – the Constitution and the “Separation of Church and State” – answer these questions? And what does it mean to live in a secular state?

For one thing, the well-known “separation clause” is found nowhere in the Constitution. Instead, the First Amendment to the Constitution forbids the establishment of a national religion and any government coercion of religion. According to Wikipedia, “separation” language was introduced later by the Deist Thomas Jefferson:

·        In the United States, the term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state", as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 [language from the First Amendment],' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.

Of what did this “wall” consist? It certainly could not have barred Theists or Deists from politics, since all of the Founding Fathers, as far as we know, believed in some form of creator God. Nor could it have barred the expression of values, even Biblically inspired values, since all had values. Otherwise they would have absolutely no basis to legislate anything. However, as Jefferson stated, this did bar the establishment of a national religion and the interference of government into religion. This probably also meant that religious dogma that couldn’t be supported by reason or by common law could not be enshrined within the Constitution. For instance, the Constitution could rule against government interference into the church because of reason and common law, but not because the Bible prohibited it.

Consequently, Article 6, Section 3 of the Constitution states “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” This meant that a political candidate couldn’t be disqualified by his religion or lack of religion. Instead of secularism narrowing down the field, it opened it up. Instead of disqualifying any who didn’t believe in the prevailing secularism, it opened the field to all. However, today’s secularism seeks to disqualify businesses or candidates that don’t share their opinions in favor of abortion or gay marriage.

The First Amendment was never intended to separate religious people from public discussion. James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights illuminated the reasoning behind the “establishment clause.” A 1789 debate in the House of Representatives regarding the draft of the First Amendment records:

·        “Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a [national] religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law...Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen [who had reservations]...He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.

According to its author, the “establishment clause” was never intended to place religion at a disadvantage, as it has in New York City, which wanted to expel the churches from the city schools where they had been renting space on Sundays. The City had erroneously supported their action by the “separation clause.” Nor was it ever dreamed that this clause could be invoked to prevent Christians from doing business because they didn’t partake in the national ideology.

According to Wikipedia, Madison later claimed:

·        "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt.” This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Jefferson and championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.

The “wall of separation” also meant that people shouldn’t be compelled to support religion. However, today’s secularism has come a long way. Now, many secularists argue in favor of removing that “wall” in order to tax churches to support the secular government. However, according to one secular source, Madison argued that:

·        "It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points.  The tendency to usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others."

In no way did this “separation” exclude Christians from the public sector. Instead, Madison understood that the abstinence of the government from matters of religion was essential. However, with the proliferation of federal government into matters of social welfare, health care and even public education has made conflict inevitable.

Wikipedia argues that this “wall of separation” had been influenced by the thinking of English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704).

·        Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain protected from any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became particularly influential in the American colonies and the drafting of the United States Constitution.

Although many of the Founding Fathers weren’t orthodox Christians, they understood the necessity to not coerce “individual conscience.” Just until recently, even the decisions of the US Supreme Court upheld the importance of conscience, even at the cost of national security. The Court upheld the right of “conscientious objectors” to not have to bear arms and the right of Jehovah’s Witnesses to not have to pledge allegiance.

Today’s secularism is different. It has little tolerance for issues of conscience – others’ conscience. It wants to place the churches under federal hiring guidelines, thereby depriving churches the right to govern themselves. It has removed Christian groups from campus because they fail to conform to the secular beliefs of the university. Today’s secularism seeks to remove conscience objections in health care, requiring pharmacists to sell the morning-after drug, or nurses to participate in abortions or Christian businesses to provide insurance for procedures that violate their conscience. Secularism has imposed its own religion upon the public schools, disqualifying any mention of God in favor of atheistic explanations. Instead of teaching moral absolutes, secularism has imposed moral relativity in most areas, except where it directly impacts school governance. For instance, while we are no longer able to criticize any sexual lifestyle, cheating on exams is absolutely wrong!

We need to readdress this essential question: “Can we all live together under a system of increasing top-down coercion, or must we retain a respect for individual conscience?”

Ezekiel, the Temple, Secularism and the Decay of True Religion

I felt like the Prophet Ezekiel. God had taken him on an intimate and private tour of the inner workings of the Temple. The spiritual decay was far worse than Ezekiel had imagined. Israel’s spiritual leadership was happily engaged in idolatrous worship behind closed doors.

This Sunday, Anita and I went to the Episcopal Church. The honored guest preacher invited us all into the Episcopal inner sanctum, revealing its treasured secrets. According to him the Bible couldn’t be authoritative. That’s because even Jesus had been wrong on numerous occasions, and Paul showed us how irrational many of the Old Testament revelations had been by overturning them. Conclusion: This gives us the authorization to overturn anything in the Bible that’s irrational to us!

Anita and I looked at each other. I had long suspected that the guest preacher’s candid tour was an accurate representation of the real, unvarnished Episcopal Church. (Here’s what we usually hear it saying, “We too believe in the Bible. We just have a different interpretation.”) It reminded me of my tooth where the infection had penetrated to such a depth that I needed a root canal.

I whispered to Anita, “I think that we are seeing the real Episcopal Church.” Then the resident pastor got up to praise the “wonderful” sermon we had all just heard. That confirmed it, and so I took a long fretful walk to compose myself in prayer.

During the coffee hour, I confronted the pastor in the most loving manner I could conjure up. “If the Bible is no longer authoritative, what should be authoritative for us?” I shot at him.

“Well, I didn’t say that,” he corrected me. “Instead, we have to approach the Bible carefully, using our best critical tools.” I envisioned a doctor wearing his anti-septic mask and gloves, lest he be contaminated by the cadaver before him.

“Instead, of placing our faith in the Bible as God’s Word, are you insisting that we should now place our faith in the scholars and their Biblical-criticism tool box?” I asked. He responded surprisingly good-naturedly. However, I shouldn’t have been surprised. He had been a professor at Oxford for six years, among many other places, and knew all about dealing with characters like me. Nevertheless, he was one of the many architects of the new religion – the religion of the educated, secular experts, tamed, defanged, and socially acceptable

“I wish you had been in my Bible study!” I wasn’t going to be flattered. At least, I wasn’t going to allow this too soften me. However, someone else caught his ear, and I wandered away and found the seminarian – the interning General Theological Seminary student.

After exchanging some pleasantries, enough to convince her that I was one of them, I asked her, “What do you thin of the NYC ruling, ousting churches from the NYC schools where they had been renting space on Sundays. She was all in favor of the ruling and cited the “separation of church and state.”

“Well, isn’t this a violation of the principle of ‘equal access?’ If AA can rent space, why not also the churches?” I asked.

She then lifted the veil to the “holy place” of her true thinking. “Well, these churches tend to be fundamentalist. They won’t have women pastors.”

Sadly, it has been the more Biblically-oriented people who had been marginalized from the mainline churches and forced to seek asylum in store-fronts and schools, while the majestic church structures, which Bible-believing Christians had built, have been taken over by “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” Now, once again, these churches were going to be booted out.

I then asked her a series of pointed questions: “Doesn’t your position represent ‘viewpoint discrimination?’ In essence, aren’t you saying that religions that don’t share your views or the views of your religion shouldn’t receive equal protection and access under the law?” She graciously excused herself to find more congenial company.

This is the nature of the modern secularized religion – monopolistic, intolerant, and promoting “freedom of religion,” as long as it’s their own pluralistic religion.

This new monopolistic religion is taking many forms. Here’s a recent example:

• Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington State has signed into law a gay “marriage” bill that will force church-owned facilities to accommodate homosexual ceremonies.

• The bill text originally stated that religious organizations that provide “accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage” to the public must offer all those goods for use to homosexual couples seeking marriage or else face a penalty for discrimination. The version of the bill that passed dropped the qualification, allowing religious groups to retain marriage facilities for heterosexual unions.

Although this clause was finally dropped, it reflects the drift of today’s secularism: “If you don’t play ball with us, you don’t play ball at all. We will not respect your freedom of conscience or your freedom of speech or your freedom to worship if you violate our own religious views.”

While the secularists cry “separation of church and state” when a church rents space at a school, they have hypocritically instituted their own state-sponsored church with government funding in our public schools. And it’s a highly permissive religion! A recent video shows how Planned Parenthoodis sexualizing our children according to their beliefs about the “good” life. 

Meanwhile, the religious belief of naturalism has been exclusively enthroned in the science classroom. Consequently, natural mindless causation is the only form of causation that can be mentioned. Free from any God-talk, they now can joyfully shout, “Look how irrelevant God is! We can explain everything by naturalistic causation!”

However, there is not the slightest shred of evidence that causation is natural and mindless. Instead, it’s another chunk of evidence that cries out “God.” (It is much more reasonable to conclude that our laws emanate from the mind of God. After all, who created and maintains the laws!)

I’m almost sure that Ezekiel wasn’t thrilled with his Temple tour. It meant that he now had to do something. He had to cry out his outrage to a people who didn’t want to hear him and eventually killed him.

AN INTERESTING ADDENDUM:

Some unlikely people are waking up to the threat of secularism and its offspring - moral relativism:

• A Muslim Cabinet minister has become the latest member of Prime Minister David Cameron's government to urge the country to embrace its Christian heritage. Sayeeda Warsi also said that "militant" secularism poses a threat to Europe, a comment that has angered atheists and highlighted the divisive political potential of religion…In an article published Tuesday in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, Warsi urged Europe "to become more confident in its Christianity"…

• "You cannot and should not extract (the) Christian foundations from the evolution of our nations any more than you can or should erase the spires from our landscapes," she wrote. "My fear today is that a militant secularization is taking hold of our societies," she added, accusing some atheists of having the same intolerant instincts as authoritarian regimes.

• In a speech in Rome, Warsi said that "too often there is a suspicion of faith in our continent." She said in Britain religion has been "sidelined, marginalized and downgraded" and "faith is looked down on as the hobby of 'oddities, foreigners and minorities.'"