Jefferson Shrugged

Stupidity seems to share many of the same qualities as herpes in that they are both painful, irritating and worst of all, contagious. Oh yeah, there isn't a pill you can take for either one as well.

We see that in full effect these days regarding the separation of church and state principles as discussed by such luminaries as Chris Coons and Harry Reid who have been making good sport on the campaign trail about Christine O'Donnell's assertion that there is no such provision in the U.S. Constitution. Of course she's right, anybody with a cursory knowledge of American history knows that phrase was used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to some Baptists in 1802 concerning the need for the government to leave them alone. Liberals seem to insist that it somehow is born in the First Amendment so I suppose we should analyze the possibility. Here is 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.

Supposedly this short passage creates an impenetrable wall that prevents any religion from entering public administration and vice versa. One way to examine this to examine all the rights in the amendment as a whole. They are:

Religion
Speech
Press
Assembly
Petition of Grievances

Now, no special language was used in the amendment signalling out religion as somehow being held to a different/higher standard than all the other rights. Therefore logic dictates that whatever wall of separation was created between State and Church must have also been created between State and the other rights.

This is of course, a ridiculous notion. The Government, fully supported by liberals, constantly interfere with free speech by restricting certain kinds of speech (campaign finance, fairness doctrine) while propping up others (NEA grants). Same goes for the press as government regularly tries to pressure media outlets to either kill stories or play up stories, depending on the desired outcome. If you think the government doesn't interfere with the freedom of assembly, try and stage a rally or protest and see the avalanche of red tape you have to maneuver just to be told no. Taking the government to court for a grievance results in the Justice Department unleashing its unlimited resources in an attempt to destroy your chances of a favorable outcome. If the State observes no wall of separation between themselves and Speech, Press, Assembly and Petition, then there isn't one between State and Religion either.

The reason liberals are so quick to mock Christine O'Donnell and others is found in two paths of reasoning. The first one is the nature of the Constitution. The First Amendment, like all the others, is not designed to limit the amount of interaction and influence the people can have on the government but is designed to limit the ability of the government to influence the people in certain areas deemed inalienable rights. Plainly put, Religions, the Press, the Courts, individuals Speaking Freely and Assembling can try and insert themselves into the affairs of the State as they wish, the State cannot do the same in return. Liberals despise being constrained in this manner. They would much rather have a founding document that forces them to do things to/for the people. Faced with these restrictions, they lash out as a child would denied access to its hearts desires. The second avenue of contention is that to liberals, government is a religion and the State is their God. Much like any other fundamentalists, liberals react angrily when any other religion/institution competes for supremacy in peoples hearts and minds. Liberals want the Ten Commandments removed from courthouses not because the Constitution commands it (it doesn't) but because they don't want any evidence that their might be an entity more supreme than themselves.

The ramifications of this mind set are appalling. The entire foundation of the United States is that humans are born with rights that are simply a birthright of existence and lie beyond the control of man or government. These are the Endowed By Our Creator rights. If liberals can succeed in removing this notion from public discourse, than the State becomes the Supreme right granting entity in existence, free to grant and remove them for whatever reasons they see fit. This the behavior that is seen in communist regimes and old feudal societies. Neither one of those entities recognizes any inherent rights of the individual. Because of that, you always see the monarch or politburo constantly changing what rights the people have based on personal relationships, monetary concerns or vendettas. No matter how these scenarios play out, they invariable lead to the terrible oppression of the people. By specifically enumerating rights that are beyond the control of government, the founding fathers attempted to prevent tyrannical government policies from being implemented. How could they imagine that the same government they created would reverse their reasoning for the First Amendment in an attempt to exclude a massive segment of society from the public arena.

If there is any doubt left, just imagine how absurd the argument would be in favor of an absolute Wall of Separation between the State and Press. If applied the same as the Church and State wall, the media would not be allowed to cover government functions, question government officials or provide any other watchdog service. The media and public in general would correctly be outraged, no doubt protesting about secrecy, police states and the nature of the representative republic. It is equally offensive the attempt to remove religion from the public sector. There is a wall of separation between Church and State but it's only one way. The government gets restricted, the religions (and the people that comprise them) get the freedom. Simple as that.