• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

To the uninitiated, the belief in this country that there “is a total
separation of church and state,” as uttered by a
Boston jobs program
official
last week,
is a constitutional fact. They believe that because, for nearly 40
years, government, the courts, and the public education system have
taught them that it is a constitutional fact.

It is not. It has never been. And hopefully, with a little help
from concerned Americans and God Almighty, it never will be.

In a country whose institutions now swear by this adage, we have
plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise:

  • “In God We Trust” is emblazoned on our money.

  • Congress opens each session with a prayer.

  • The Supreme Court has the Ten Commandments posted prominently in its
    chambers.

  • The “Pledge of Allegiance” has, by law, the word “God” in it.

  • Members of Congress are free to display any religious symbols they
    want in their taxpayer-funded offices on Capitol Hill.

  • There is not one law on the books — not one — that
    establishes an “official religion” in this country, so there has never
    been a genuine violation of the Constitution on this issue.

  • There is, however, one law that prohibits Congress, the
    Courts, and the public schools from forbidding anyone from
    displaying religious symbols, reciting prayers to themselves, or
    engaging in their own form of religion anywhere, anytime — the First
    Amendment.

To wit, the opening passage of the First Amendment to the
Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
…”

So why is there an agency in Boston forbidding a local church from
using counselors funded with federal dollars? How is it that
money — or the government’s use of it — can automatically be
interpreted as “establishing a singular, state-mandated religion?”

Furthermore, if you find that argument weak, ask yourself why the
City of Boston is now forbidding the pastor of this church from
permitting prayer in his church summer camp and displaying (duh!)
religious symbols — after they’ve taken away the federally-funded camp
counselors? “… Shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise
thereof
. …”?

What is written in the Constitution — above all else — is
the law of the land. States cannot circumvent the Constitution,
county governments cannot, and most assuredly city governments cannot.
So the problem is with these Boston jobs program officials, not the law
of the land. That much is clear.

Quite simply, they just don’t understand the language of the
Constitution. And sadly, if this outrage makes it to court, there is a
good chance it will be ruled upon by a judge who also doesn’t understand
the context and language of the Constitution’s First Amendment and the
preacher, the preacher’s church, and the preacher’s congregation will
lose.

Not that what they’re doing is good for the community and has
been praised by the very organization now seeking to destroy
their First Amendment rights. Oh, no.

No, it’s infinitely better to let this church be victimized by PC
robots and have them turn their mostly poor, pre-teen and teenaged
charges back out into the gun-controlled streets where they could end up
dead, in jail, or in a gang.

Meanwhile, it remains legal to kill unborn babies in this country,
right up to the ninth month.

For added hypocrisy — while it’s supposedly so obscene for
taxpayers to have to pay for counselors at a church-run summer camp that
isn’t advocating the creation of a single “state” religion — some of
these same governmental charlatans and hypocrites don’t mind one bit
asking taxpayers who don’t support abortion to fund all kinds of
abortion-related activity
.

I realize not everyone agrees on the abortion issue, but can you see
the hypocrisy here? On the one hand we constantly have government, the
courts and the federal education system prohibiting out of hand
any public funding, references or displays of religion — an original
mandate of the Constitution. But on the other, we force people to accept
and pay for another action that is also (supposedly) constitutionally
protected
?

One protection, which is even deemed to prolong life, is routinely discarded — its
intent misinterpreted and abused — by those sworn to uphold its
mandate, while the other is upheld in virtually all cases, no
matter how sound the logic opposing it.

One breeds respect for life; the other contempt. And yet, “official”
America supports the latter — and then scratches its symbolic head
trying to figure out why “the country just ain’t nice no more.”

Go figure.

If we are unable to remove the charlatans, frauds, fakes, phonies and
liars from the public forum, the impetus behind these two issues will
never change. It’s just as simple as that. While we address the
issue of cleaning up the filth that “leads” this country, we ought to
make sure we remain vocal and vigilant whenever we see these inequities
highlighted in the public sector. If it’s a lie, don’t let the liar off
the hook.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.