Okay, so the headline is a bit premature, but it’s the logical precursor to the legal philosophy of liberal extremists, isn’t it?

Ever since the Supreme Court erroneously elevated Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor to a constitutional doctrine in the 1947 landmark decision Everson v. Board of Education, a growing sort of legal fog has been setting in on our constitutional religious freedoms, ending in what can only be described as a requirement of government hostility towards religion.  This is, of course, not only a far cry from what our founding fathers intended, including Thomas Jefferson — a staunch religious liberty advocate — but it is a far cry from what “We the people” intended when the Constitution was ratified. 

The many perils of reading into the Constitution a “wall of separation between church and state” where none exists came as no surprise to many of us.  Nothing good ever comes from deviating from the clear text and context of the Constitution.  Many well-intentioned, smart people have argued for a “living, breathing” Constitution, changing with the times and looking for small immediate “advances,” but this interpretation has only one result in the long run: tyranny. 

In no other area of law has this proven truer than when it comes to our religious liberty.  In the last sixty years, we have seen a constant attack on prayer in schools, the Ten Commandments, the sanctity of life, Christmas, Christian symbols and even religious doctrines.  In many instances, our religious rights have been so inhibited that the result is exactly what the founding fathers where trying to prevent: the government dictating what the people can or can’t do when it comes to religion.

Because of their hostility toward religion and their unveiled hatred toward anything related to God, these extreme liberal scholars are forced to ignore history, precedent and facts and are forced to decide cases from what they feel is best for the country.  It is astonishing how they can go back in history and erect a temple for a distorted “wall of separation between church and state” phrase, while ignoring the text of the Constitution and the volumes of documents showing the people’s real concern when enacting the First Amendment.  If they want to go outside of the Constitution, you would think that they would look at the whole, and not one simple phrase, but that would be assuming that they are looking for what really happened and not for something to support what they believe is the “right thing.”

Their twisted logic puts them on very unstable footing because there is no foundation.  They are making law with the times, with what feels right at the moment, and then trying to go back to make history fit their latest and greatest idea.

This is why they seem to virtually ignore the Declaration of Independence.  It’s too simple, too direct and too straightforward.  If they were to be honest, they would have to say unequivocally that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional.  After all, here is what this horrible, oppressive document says:

When, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.[1]

“Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” “Endowed, by their Creator”?  Let’s pass a bill including this language today and see what happens.  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would bring suit before the vote was even cast; Michael Newdow’s daughter would somehow be deeply affected by it, prompting him to bring yet another suit; and Barry Lynn would be invited to every major news show to “educate” us as to why this kind of rhetoric is okay as long as you keep it to yourself, but once you actually express it, well, then we have a problem. Continued...