“Separation of Church and State” ≠ “There is No God”

What DID our ‘Founding Fathers’ intend when they wrote the Constitution of the United States and the ‘Bill of Rights’? Specifically, what did they intend or mean by the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”?

There is little doubt that the ‘Founding Fathers’ were educated men. There is little doubt, from their historical writings that most were at least Deists, if not deeply committed men of various religions. Disregarding popular internet misquotes, evidence of their belief in the ‘Divine’ is found in the very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence, “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.”

Why was their very first Amendment an seeming ‘attack’ on religion?

The answer is found in two passages. One must examine the second sentence of the second paragraph of the ‘Declaration of Independence’. "--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. --" Second one must also look to the first sentence of the Constitution, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Abraham Lincoln in the ‘Gettysburg Address’ paraphrased the common combination of these sentences eloquently. When he said, “Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

The ‘Founding Fathers’ were embarking on a ‘great experiment’, a modern democracy without the ‘benefit’ of a King. England had formed a type of Democracy with the ‘Magna Carta’ in 1215. Later revisions to the English government in 1628, and 1689 expanded this definition, but a ‘true’ democratic government did not exist.

The ‘Founding Fathers’, as learned and educated men, identified two obstacles to the establishment of a democracy. The first was ‘tyrannical’ rule by a single person. The second was ‘outside’ influence to governance. The first obstacle they dealt with in the body of the Constitution itself, by establishing the balance of power between the three the branches of Government.

The second element of ‘outside’ influence was more difficult to address. These men understood their own history. They were perfectly aware that the Roman Catholic Church believed in the primacy and secular authority of the Pope over civil governments.
They knew of Cardinal Richelieu’s ‘governance’ of France. They had repeatedly seen the intervention of the Catholic Church in civil affairs. They knew that, with the exception of England, most of the ‘Crown Heads’ of Europe were affirmed and elevated by the Catholic Church. They knew that Henry VIII had to ‘break’ from the Catholic Church in 1534 in order to ‘keep’ his crown (and get a divorce). They knew the English wars and intrigues surrounding Mary, Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I were almost solely motivated by religion. They had ‘seen’ this ‘intrigue’ and open warfare between ‘Catholic’ and ‘non-Catholic’ monarchs rage across Europe for over 100 years.

Our ‘Founding Fathers’ lived in a time when the ‘Protestant Reformation’ was not ‘ancient history’. The ‘Spanish Inquisition’* was in its last days, but it was still a clear indictment that a religion could and did exercise civil authority. They did not live in ‘Modern Society’ where the only ‘real’ war between Protestants and Catholics was the ‘curious’ but troubling situation in Northern Ireland. In their day, heads of state and governments rose and fell because of their religious affiliation.

*“Pope Sixtus issued a Papal Bull giving authority for an Inquisition. However, the authorization was actually given to the Spanish crown. Thus, the Spanish Inquisition was founded to purify the nation from heretics.” [http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/64.htm]

*The Catholic sovereigns were determined to have a united country, and they did not believe this ambition could be achieved unless all their subjects accepted one religion. This they were determined to bring about through persuasion, if possible, and if not, by force. Spain under Isabella and Ferdinand was ripe for the Inquisition; that was why the cruel institution was embraced so heartily and continued to survive until the nineteenth century (J. Plaidy, The Spanish Inquisition, 1967, p.86).

These were the days of our ‘Founding Fathers’. They knew that a government - answering to a ‘Religion’ - could NEVER be ‘of the people, by the people, for the people.’ They knew that in order to preserve the Union and the Democracy, they had to keep ANY ‘Religion’ from exercising its own ‘agenda’ and ‘outside’ influence in disregard to the will of the ‘people’.

If our ‘Founding Fathers’ were alive today, there is little doubt they would be appalled at the current state of affairs in this country. There is little doubt they would consider ‘Humanism’ a religion. They would also consider the efforts of ‘Humanism’, represented by the ACLU, a direct attack on the Constitution and the First Amendment.

Humanism**: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially: a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason.

Religion**: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

**http://www.m-w.com/home.htm

Humanism and the ACLU qualify as a religion, “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”. It is obvious from their ongoing lawsuits that they have an ardor and an agenda. It is obvious that their agenda includes ‘outlawing’ any other religion in the United States. We should call their ‘Crusade’ the ‘American Inquisition’. Borrowing from J. Plaidy, the ‘Humanists, and ACLU, are “determined to have a united country, and they did not believe this ambition could be achieved unless all their subjects accepted one religion. This they were determined to bring about through persuasion, if possible, and if not, by force.” Their ‘religion’ is “There is NO God!”

The ACLU’s ongoing ‘persecution’ of ANY reference to the Supernatural or Divine in Government amounts to ‘religious intolerance’. How many teachers, government employees, even Federal Judges have lost their jobs due to this ‘Inquisition’. This is a deliberate attempt to influence the government. They are, by their very actions, proving the necessity for the First Amendment. Our ‘Founding Fathers’ would have little difficulty in identifying humanists and the ACLU for what it is: An organized religion attempting to exercise its will over the will of the people.

If this ‘Religion’ continues to win court battles, without its proper label, a ‘Religion’, then a ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ will cease to exist. In its place we will have a Government of the ‘Religious’ elite, Humanists with total religious intolerance. The First Amendment will become the ‘weapon’ of the ‘American Inquisition’.

Our ‘Founding Fathers’ intended and contended, justly, that a religious order should NEVER override the will of the people. They never intended for an ‘outside’ influence to supercede the rights of the individual, or the collective will of the people. The ACLU has firmly established their desire to ‘outlaw’ God. That is not the will of this individual, or the will of the people.