February 21, 2013|5:24 am

It's interesting that much of the focus today on the First Amendment has to do with the so-called "separation of church and state." Yet, following the first two clauses concerning the freedom of religion there are additional sections about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to peaceably assemble and petition for a redress of grievances. Many today, who would quickly proclaim there is an absolute, two-way, impregnable wall between church and state, somehow also assert that for some reason it stops there, and this same impregnable, two-way wall is considered anathema when it comes to other freedoms mentioned in the same amendment. In other words, there is no "separation of speech and state," no "separation of press and state," and no "separation of public protests and state".

Can you imagine someone seriously arguing the government cannot interfere with free speech, while simultaneously contending neither should citizens be allowed to speak whatever they choose with regard to issues of state? What if the government were to say, speak whatever you will, but when it comes to politics you should remain silent? You have no right to bring your opinions to bear on the political process.

Can you imagine someone seriously arguing the government cannot interfere with a free press, while at the same time advocating that neither can the press use its influence to affect matters of state? That would be a violation of the "separation of press and state."

Can you imagine someone seriously arguing the government cannot interfere with public protests, while also saying public protests are allowed except for those against the government? But then again, if that were the case, there wouldn't be much reason to ever protest.

The point here is such assertions with regard to free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to peaceably assemble and redress grievances, would be ridiculous and gut the very purpose of the First Amendment. Nevertheless, with respect to America's first freedom, the freedom of religion, this notion of a two-way impregnable wall of separation between religion and its moral influences on the state is erroneously accepted. And God help the supposed religious fools that hope to correct it.

Follow us

Nothing in the First Amendment was ever meant to suggest our nation's Founders were trying to protect the state from the church, the government from the press, etc. The purpose of the first ten amendments to the Constitution was to create a one-way wall to protect the citizenry from the government, not the other way around. They were setting up a barrier to safeguard the public from abuses of power, not to save the state from the church or any other function of the people.

The concept of the "separation of church and state," as it's largely understood today, was first introduced by Chief Justice Hugo Black in Everson v. Board of Educationin 1947. Black drew the alien view from a brief written by ACLU lawyer, Leo Pfeffer. The ruling turned Thomas Jefferson's phrase "separation of church and state" in a letter to Danbury Baptists of Connecticut in 1802 on its head. Afterward, the ACLU would use it via the courts to force Christianity out of the public arena for decades.

What's even sadder is many Christians have been poisoned by it and either forgotten or were unaware that the moral ethic of civil liberty and the Christian reality of spiritual liberty are interlocked. Actually, the great principles advocated for a free Republic were originally made by those who knew the internal liberty that comes through Christ alone and is proclaimed on the sacred pages of the Bible.

Go here to see the original:

Freedom From Religion Leads to No Freedom