The assault on America’s religious beliefs is based on a distorted interpretation of the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment. Those clauses are “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Everyone should understand the plain meaning of those words — that is everyone who is not burdened by a post-graduate education from an Ivy League college. It means that the government is prohibited from setting up a state religion and that no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion.
Despite its plain meaning, the First Amendment has been used to forcibly remove religion from not just our classrooms, but all government institutions, and to dilute the religious content of much of American life. Neither the establishment clause nor the free-exercise clause was intended to preclude all interactivity between church and state. This is despite the fact that the courts have ruled to the contrary. However, theophobes — like the ACLU — believe in the infallibility of the judiciary when determining First Amendment cases. How they reconcile judicial infallibility with the Dred Scott case, Plessy v. Ferguson, and other similar rulings is another matter.
Yet, the judiciary is the preferred weapon of choice for the secularists. They understand that imposing their beliefs via the ballot is futile. They know that a sympathetic judge can replace millions of votes. They also know that they would not get those votes anyway.
Ironically, the same people who decry the Supreme Court??¢â???¬â???¢s ruling Bush v. Gore are the very same people who hijacked the judiciary to become a superlegislator. Some judges, who are all too happy to do so, have become dictators. They levy taxes, they conduct military policy, and they tell people where and when they can practice their religion.
Most people, especially those benighted Red Staters, do not understand how it can be argued legitimately that college football players voluntarily praying after a touchdown is tantamount to Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion. They do not understand how a Christmas tree in the quadrangle of a state university campus will contribute to the establishment of an ecclesiocracy.
One can ask why someone has not made the argument that to deny children the time to voluntarily pray comes closer to violating their free exercise of religion than the allowance of that time violates the establishment clause. Prohibiting free exercise of religion is a direct violation of the First Amendment.
Theophobes believe they can use the First Amendment to eliminate religious expression. They have propagated the myth that religious expression in certain public institutions is unconstitutional. They have persuaded the elites in government that their opinion is law. The theophobes and their allies in the media and the judiciary have in effect made God unconstitutional. They want to demonize religion.
However, help is on the way — to borrow a phrase. Organizations like the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) act as the antidote to secularism. The ACLJ litigates cases where the ACLU and other groups are suing to eradicate religion from the public square. They are very successful at counteracting the ACLU. The Let Freedom Ring Foundation is another organization responding to attempts to make religion a sin (pun intended).
How successful these groups will be depends on the public. The mainstream media will not be helping to communicate the fanaticism of the theophobes (Indeed they do everything they can to make religious people seem like fools) . It is necessary for the public to let the government — all branches, federal, state, and local — know how they feel.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Until now, religious people have not squeaked much. When they did it was usually something that made religious leaders look silly.
The cacophony of complaints by theophobes is now seismic. The pious need to start organizing and respond. They need to respond and to persuade the judiciary of the error of its ways. Religious people cannot expect others to do this.
Religious people are not very activist, they do need to understand that if they depend solely on elections to change things change will not occur. They are delegating their responsibility for maintaining the law solely to their elected officials and only during elections do they speak. They need to do more. They need to express their discontent other than the first Tuesday in November.
Remember — God helps those who help themselves.