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.”