Separation of Church and State – The One Way Street

wall

Yet another “separation of church and state” item popped-up in the news yesterday. The Appignani Humanist Legal Center sent a letter to the the School of Engineering and Arts in Golden Valley, MN, threatening to sue the school. The issue seems to be that the school takes its students on field trips to the Calvary Lutheran Church to make care packages for the needy (the horror!).

The letter complains that “The violation has been previously reported to you by the family, but the problem has not been corrected.” One family complained and everyone else didn’t bow. The nerve.

This type of complaint is old hat, so it really doesn’t merit much discussion. It’s like the girl who sued to have her school’s prayer removed, or the guy that used his kid to try to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Or when a courthouse in Alabama was forced to remove the Ten Commandments. I suppose the atheist/humanist would look at this as a list of their proud accomplishments. I’m trying to remember what they call someone who never creates but only destroys.

But whatever. There are a few things that I wonder about.

First, I believe their true motives are revealed when you consider what they choose not to get involved in. I’m thinking specifically about the case in Colorado where a gay couple asked a bakery to provide a cake for their wedding. He said he was opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons and thus refused service. The couple then did what any sensible couple would do: they sued him to force him to bake them a cake. The crazy part is that they actually won the lawsuit!

I know what you’re thinking. The American Humanist Association jumped in the middle of the lawsuit and argued on behalf of the bakery. They said, “the Establishment Clause ‘erected a wall between church and state’ which ‘must be kept high and impregnable.'” Actually, they didn’t say that. They didn’t say anything. Apparently, they are totally cool with the government imposing itself on religion, just not the other way around.

So, the next obvious question is this: Where will they stand if the government decides to force churches to perform gay marriages? Reason says they will stand with the churches in order to defend the wall of separation; however, they are not reasonable. We can expect them to be silent, just as they were in Colorado.

Of course, you could argue that this is a civil rights issue. The religious radicals are denying others their civil rights! You could also make a similar argument against the American Humanist Association. We have created a human rights issue by denying the school the opportunity to make care packages for the needy. Both arguments are silly and can be dismissed. What’s left is a group of hypocrites with an agenda.

What makes me sad is that the humanists and atheist spend so much time and money attacking others. Imagine if they took that money and used it to help others rather than tear religion down. They yell from the rooftops that you don’t need religion in order to do good. As a matter of fact, the slogan for the AHA is “Good Without a God”. Yet when you look at their website, there are no instances of anyone doing good. It is devoted completely to destroying religion. This is sad.

Ultimately, there is one thing that they won’t admit but it’s the one truth they cannot deny. It is this: Lack of religion is a religion. Religion is nothing more that a set of beliefs. In this sense, believing in God and not believing in God are opposite but equal beliefs. Atheism and humanism are both religions based on lack of belief rather than belief. Which means that they are using government to force their religion on others.

When it comes to religion there can be no vacuum.

1 Comment

  1. Drepa Rugl   •  

    The dea presently held that there should be a separaton of church and state wth no mnglng of the two s erroneous. The phrase pops up n Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptst Assocaton n 1801. Jefferson read t n the 1644 wrtngs of Roger Wllams (Baptst theologan) who founded what we know as Rhode Island as a sanctuary from the relgous persecuton of the other colones and ther relgous overlords. The text of the Frst Amendment (that does not have the phrase “separaton of church and state” n t) hasn’t ever meant that Jefferson wanted to keep relgon from exstng at the same tme and/or n the same place as government. It lterally meant that there was to be no establshng an “offcal” state relgon and there was to be the free practce of any and all relgons by those that chose to. Ths means that the Amercan Humanst Assocaton has no rght to smply destroy relgon as and where t sees ft.

    Also, the AHA s very much a downer organzaton. It’s hooray for destroyng ths, and hooray for doggng on that. There s no real producton of progress as they suppose. They are all about brngng others down to ther level of msery.

    Last, the lack of relgon HAS become a relgon.
    There may be a tme where many people feel that they don’t know what to thnk about God, what ths lfe s about, where we came from, and where we are gong; but somewhere along the way we feel somewhat satsfed wth what we know or don’t know. At ths pont we label ourselves n some way. These can nclude chrstan, muslm, scentologst, Jehovah’s wtness or any varaton of the nnumerable names people come up wth. Athests and secular humansts, though, are many tmes aganst what they see as relgon because they feel t s how so many refuse to use logc or scence as an explanaton of what s causng ssues n the world. The hatred for relgon (or at the very least the relance on only scence and logc) has become ts own relgon. Merram Webster defnes “relgon” as: “1) the belef n a god or n a group of gods, 2) an organzed system of belefs, ceremones, and rules used to worshp a god or a group of gods, 3) : an nterest, a belef, or an actvty that s very mportant to a person or group.”
    Ths vehemence towards tradtonal relgons can ft nto any of these defntons f we look at Merram Webster’s thrd defnton of “god” whch reads “a person or thng of supreme value.”
    Athesm/secular humansm s a relgon. Even f we replace “hatred for relgon” wth “the obsesson to use scence and/or logc to know any truth” they are stll consdered a relgon. Most that call themselves smply an athest are not organzed n ther hatred of relgon. Secular humansm, as you have shown, s very organzed.

    Ths organzed relgon s attemptng to take over our government as the offcal state relgon just as France’s secular humansts have. It’s somethng to be aware of and fght aganst.

    Thanks for your great post.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *