“A wall of separation” or something else?

Warning: this commentary may not be seen as fully agreeing with Libertarian dogma. At least not minarchist dogma.

We constantly are told, by virtually all sides of the political diamond (see below) that the US Constitution prohibits a wide variety of things. This is usually summarized as a complete “separation of church and state.”

We beg to disagree. Given that we here at TPOL are no fans or advocates of mandatory human government, we believe that anything which ameliorates the evils of that government is a good thing. Therefore:

To deny even government employees their right to express and practice their religion would seem to us to violate the First Amendment. We suppose it could be argued that certain religious acts might be prohibited in the interests of public safety: the idea of government agents carrying out human sacrifices is even more disturbing than many things that they do. We suppose that their own human sacrifice (dousing themselves in gasoline and lighting themselves on fire, for example) might be tolerated. But seriously…

That idea of a wall comes not from the Constitution itself, nor any court decision or act of Congress, but a letter written by President Jefferson to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of
another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

(The italicized portion was in the original draft but omitted from his final copy.) Last time we checked, this has not been incorporated in the US Constitution. But…

That is taken more and more to mean that religion should have no influence, no say, no part of the public and political discourse and process. And that government itself may not allow any action that could be construed by any person (with enough legal representation, of course) as being in some vague way an “establishment of religion.” Not just at the federal level, as it was in Jefferson’s day, but by any and all levels of government. Right down to demanding that the committee running the local humane society (receiving government subsidies) not being allowed to pray at a meeting.

(The only modern acceptance of that seems to be tribal governments, which are somehow exempt from the 1st Amendment. And of course, are not addressed in the constitutional amendments which were rammed through after the War Between the States. That extended the Bill of Rights to all States.)

Today, also, we find any practice of religion (except the tribes and perhaps Islam) being forced from the public view, and restricted more and more.

An example is efforts to prohibit protests and even silent prayer near abortion clinics. Although a woman was reported to have been convicted of “harassing abortion seekers” in DC some time ago, so far there are no known actual laws in effect in the States. But in the UK (no Bill of Rights there), people are being prosecuted for protests “near” abortion clinics – and according to the Crown Prosecution Service “silent prayer” near a clinic is a “gray area” and not “necessarily” a crime. And in Canada, the Trudeau regime is seeking to declare that pregnancy counseling centers (which are anti-abortion) are no longer considered “charities.” Recent political statements – in the heat of the election campaign – seem to make it clear that many American politicians would emulate Britain and Canada. Indeed, according to the Tampa Free Press, in California very recently, a Catholic hospital is being forced to provide “emergency abortions” though it violates their religious teachings and conscience.

Abortion is not, of course, the only flash point in our modern religious wars.

On this All Saints’ Eve (better known as All Hallow’s Eve or Halloween), considering what Americans (and all people) should have the freedom to do is worth a few minutes of our time. If government can take the power to prohibit certain religious activities? Well, even Halloween trick-or-treat could be prohibited as the political pendulum swings.

---

The World’s smallest political quiz (the “Diamond”) can be found at www.theadvocates.org.

Read More…

Source: https://freedombunker.com/2024/10/31/a-wall-of-separation-or-something-else/