The BIG Lie: "Separation of Church and State" (Part 13)

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: April 25, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

In the last twelve posts, we have presented a series on the "separation between church and state" supposedly found in the First Amendment. It is because of this phrase, which was first introduced into the fabric of our culture through errant Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s, that Christianity has generally been purged from public life. We noted that we can trace the origin of the modern understanding and application of separation between church and state to the following two Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s: Engle v. Vitale and School District of Abington Township v. Schempp.  Yet, an honest appraisal of these decisions shows them to be out of harmony with the vision of the Constitution’s authors. The purpose of this series of posts is to demonstrate how out-of-step these decisions are with the express wishes of America’s founding fathers. This purpose has been accomplished through a consideration of nine historical and legal facts.   First, we observed that the words “separation between church and state” never appear in the actual wording of the First Amendment. The so-called "separation between church and state" terminology was not part of America's foundation and was never even used to limit Christian expression in government until after most of our nation's history had already transpired.

Second, we noted that although Thomas Jefferson later used the phrase in a private correspondence, he actually used the phrase “wall of separation of church and state” as a one-way wall preventing the government from interfering with Christianity rather than preventing Christianity from influencing government. Third, the legal test that is used today to completely separate God from government is inconsistent with the beliefs of the founding fathers whose legislative record demonstrates that they contemplated no such separation. Fourth, the Engle and Schempp courts applied the First Amendment’s prohibition of a government-established religion to religious activity taking place at the state level in spite of the fact that the express wording of the religion clauses of the First Amendment are only a limitation on federal power rather than state power.

Fifth, for the Engel and Schempp courts to make the First Amendment applicable to the states through the vehicle of the Fourteenth Amendment they not only ignored the Fourteenth Amendment’s historical context, but it also contradicted the intent of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment. Sixth, by banning voluntary prayer in public schools, the Engel court made the radical move of overturning a long-standing tradition in American educational history without citing a single precedent. Seventh, the Engle and Schempp courts reached the decisions that they reached regarding prayer and Bible reading in the schools because of their a priori belief that such activity is psychologically harmful. Eighth, the Engel and Schempp courts seemed to have followed more of a legislative philosophy rather than a judicial philosophy. In our last three posts, we began our ninth point, which is that the court has been highly selective in terms of which religions are to be removed from government based upon the "separation of church and state" principle. In this post we will continue our examination of this point.

Although Christianity has been banished from the public schools, we observed that New Age practices and Islam have not been given the same level of scrutiny. We also observed that one notices a far more aggressive enforcement of the Separation of Church and State principle whenever conservative Christianity is the target as opposed to liberal Christianity. The courts have refused to aggressively enforce the Separation of Church and State doctrine against Humanism. In prior posts, we have seen how Humanism is a belief system embraced by many societal leaders. The beliefs of humanists are expressed in the following three documents: Humanist Manifesto I (1933), Humanist Manifesto II (1973), and Humanist Manifesto 2000.  We noted that Humanism is a religion not only because it involves faith propositions, but also because it furnishes answers to life's most basic and fundamental questions. Moreover, humanism claims to represent the advancement of a religion. ((Kurtz, ed., Humanist Manifestos I and II, 8, 10.)) Humanists even describe themselves as “religious humanists” and their worldview as “religious humanism.” ((Ibid., 8-9.)) Evangelical apologist Dr. Norman Geisler was called as an expert witness in a case sometimes referred to as “Scopes II” since it dealt with the constitutionality of a state statute mandating that creation science be taught alongside evolution in Arkansas public schools. ((McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 (1982).)) While on the stand, Geisler was asked if he believed that Humanism is a religion. Here is how he answered according to the court transcript:

"First of all, this is the Humanist Manifestos I and II, which were published in 1933 and 1973 respectively, and this particular edition comes from Crometheist [Prometheus] Books, which publishes a lot of humanistic material. In the preface it says on the very first line of page 3, “Humanism is a philosophical religious and moral point of view as old as human civilization itself.” Then without reading more of this part I counted some 28 times in the first manifesto the use of the word religion, most of which was a positive use describing a humanist point of view. Then if you note on page 4 in the last paragraph there about four lines down, it says, “They are not intended as new dogmas,” referring to this manifesto, “for an age of confusion, but as the expression of a quest for values and goals that we can work for and that can help us to take a new direction. Humanists are committed to building a world that is significant, not only for the individual’s quest for meaning but for the whole human kind.” I think that’s a good description of what I discovered a religion to be. They describe it as a religion. It is a commitment to something that is of transcendent value for them. Then I noted on the first page, page 7 really, Humanist I on the bottom, it speaks several times on that page, line 2, religion, line 5 religion, down through the page about six times, and the last line refers to abiding values. Then on the next page, page 8, the first full paragraph, at the end of that paragraph the third line from the end of the paragraph reads, “To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is the responsibility which rests upon this generation. We, therefore, affirm the following.” And then they give their humanistic beliefs. So, the Humanistic Manifesto claims to be an expression of a religion called Humanism that has certain component parts that they describe." ((Norman Geisler, Creation & the Courts: Eighty Years of Conflict in the Classroom and the Courtroom (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2007), 155-56.))

In addition, Humanism’s status as a religion is also evidenced by the American Humanist Society’s possession of 501(c)3 tax-exempt status and its classification by the IRS as a church. ((David Noebel, J.F. Baldwin, and Kevin Bywater, Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism, 3d rev. ed. (Manitou Springs, CO: Summit, 2007), 159.)) Even the Supreme Court has referred to Humanism as a religion. In Torcaso v. Watkins the court noted, “Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others” (italics added). ((Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, n. 11 (1961).)) In sum, Humanism has all of the characteristics of a religion. ((For an in-depth demonstration of Humanism’s religious status, see Noebel, Baldwin, and Bywater, Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism.))

In our next post, we will continue to examine how Humanism became the established religion in America in lieu of Christianity through our judiciary's selective approach to the judge-made doctrine known as the "Separation Between Church and State."

(To Be Continued...)