The BIG Lie: "Separation of Church and State" (Part 14)

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: May 03, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

In the last thirteen 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. ((For the latest documentation on this purging, see Kelly Shackelford, Justin Butterfield, and Bryan Clegg, eds., Undeniable: The Survey of Hostility to Religion in America, 2013 ed. (Plano, TX: Liberty Institute, 2013).)) 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 four 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), ((Paul Kurtz, ed. Humanist Manifestos I and II (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1973).)) and Humanist Manifesto 2000. ((Paul Kurtz, ed. Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call for a New Planetary Humanism (Ameherst, NY: Prometheus, 2000).)) We noted that Humanism is a religion because it involves faith propositions and furnishes answers to life's most basic and fundamental questions. Moreover, Humanism calls itself a religion. The American Humanist Society also possesses of 501(c)3 tax-exempt status and is classified 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.)) The United States Supreme Court has even called Humanism a religion on occasion. ((Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, n. 11 (1961).)) Like New Agers, Humanists are also transparent in their conviction that the public school classroom represents an appropriate pulpit for indoctrinating the next generation into the Humanist faith. Humanist Charles Francis Potter divulged:

"Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday-schools, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?" ((Charles Francis Potter, Humanism: A New Religion (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1930), 128.))

Because of religious Humanism’s dominance in public education, some have even referred to government schools as seminaries, which are busy training the next generation of Humanist priests. This potency of public schools to disseminate Humanism is especially true given the fact that "During twelve years of schooling a child spends more than 11,000 hours in the classroom." ((Orley Herron, Who Controls Your Child: Preparing Your Children to Win the Battle for Their Minds (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1980), 60.)) Despite Humanism’s religious influence in public education, the Supreme Court has done little, if anything, to disestablish this religious system from the taxpayer-funded classroom. Thus, it is incorrect to believe that the court threw religion out of the schools in the 1960’s. In actuality, what the high court did in Engle and Schempp was to exchange religions. Christianity was banished and the religion of Humanism took its place. Sadly, most people are unable to recognize this reality since Humanism masquerades as religiously neutral. In actuality, today’s public schools are just as religious as ever. The only difference is that the Christian religion no longer reigns supreme.

Rather, religious Humanism has become the state sponsored religion of the United States of America. Thus, the preceding discussion involving the New Age, Islam, Christian leftism, and Humanism in the public schools clearly communicates that “Separation Between Church and State” has nothing to do with removing religion from government schools. Rather, this phrase is employed in order to injure Christianity and simultaneously elevate non-Christian religions in public schools. A similar philosophy is at work behind other issues such as feminism. For example, feminists sat by silently while former President Bill Clinton harassed, groped, and even raped multiple women. In order to remain intellectually honest, the objective observer to these events was forced to conclude that modern feminism is not really concerned about protecting women. Rather feminism is used selectively to further liberalism by injuring conservative office holders, such as Clarence Thomas, all while simultaneously promoting liberal office holders and sexual harassers such as the late Ted Kennedy and former President Bill Clinton. The issue of racism is also used in a highly selective manner in order to promote one side of the political spectrum. For example, the charge of racism is employed by the left in order to marginalize, and in some instances derail, conservatives such as jurist Charles W. Pickering and the late Senator Jesse Helms. Yet, these same accusers simultaneously turn a blind eye to racism coming from the left. The anti-Semitic, and generally racist, statements and philosophies of leftists such as Robert Byrd, ((Michelle Malkin, Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild (Washington, DC: Regenery, 2005), 124.)) Louis Farrakhan, ((Larry Elder, The Ten Things You Can't Say in America (New York: St. Martin's, 2000), 21, 128.)) Jesse Jackson, ((Ibid., 19, 31, 127.)) Jeremiah Wright, ((Charles C. Johnson, “The Gospel According to Wright,” online: http://spectator.org/articles/36529/, 11 December 2011-January 2012 issue, accessed 02 May 2014.)) and Al Sharpton ((Jesse Lee Peterson, Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits America (Nashville, TN: Word Net Daily, 2003), 126-27.)) are well documented.

Once again, the intellectually honest observer is forced to conclude that the left is really unconcerned about the issue of racism. Rather, their real ambition is to use the race issue selectively in order to advance their leftist ideology all while marginalizing the competing conservative ideology. In other words, the feigned concern over feminism or racism really masquerades as an agenda to advance liberalism. The same can be said regarding the Separation Between Church and State. This phrase does not refer to the removal of religion from public life. Rather, the phrase is used today in order to mitigate the Christian religion while simultaneously promoting non-Christian or non-biblical religions in its place. In our next post, we will wrap up our thoughts by summarizing the main points made in this series as well as observe how the strong criticism against the Separation Between Church and State expressed in this series is not mine alone but also emanates from one of America's most respected legal voices. We'll also briefly note the anti-Democratic manner in which the Separation of Church and State became a reality in the United States of America.

(To Be Continued...)