For the overwhelming majority of evangelicals and anyone on the religious right, what we want is what the First Amendment guarantees. We want to exercise our religious beliefs without government interference. But because freedom of religion has been reinterpreted to mean freedom from religion, that has become increasingly difficult to do.

I was a double major in college. My majors were political science and religion. Typically people looked at me like a grew two heads when I told them this. But I made a concerted effort to deal with the intersection of religion and politics in my studies. One thing that was taught in Constitutional Law class was that there is a fundamental tension between the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. I submit that this is simply not the case.

The tension has been introduced by activist courts who have placed greater weight on the establishment clause than the free exercise clause. Additionally, the courts have expanded the the notion of establishment well beyond the original meaning of an official state religion or church. That was, in fact, the original intent. Americans greatly feared a state church, many of them having fled precisely that in coming to America. The First Amendment, in part, guarantees there will be no state church in the United States.

Today the courts regularly claim that, for example, a teacher in a public school, by merely exercising his or her free speech and free exercise rights, is engaged in establishing a state religion. The very idea is preposterous but it is claimed none the less. So in this interpretation, the free exercise clause and the free speech clause of the First Amendment are trumped by the establishment clause, thus the tension that is claimed.

Rightly understood the First Amendment has no tension. Indeed it is quite simple. You and I are free to believe whatever we chose about God and religion or to believe nothing at all. At the same time the government is prohibited from establishing a state church, from regulating how we practice our religious beliefs and generally from interfering in religion in any way.

Amazing that clear meaning has been distorted beyond recognition today. The result is this tension where government violates the free exercise clause and the free speech clause in the name of the establishment clause. Interpreted that way there is, indeed, much tension but it is an imposed tension that did not exist originally.

The Constitution guarantees every government employee, whether a teacher or an office worker, and every elected official, the right to practice their faith in what ever way they see fit. And that includes proclaiming their faith in the normal course of their duties. While they may represent the state in some sense, they clearly do not have the authority to establish a religion or church in the name of the government.

The anti-Christianity disciples are clearly biased against Christianity. While claiming to want nothing more than to preserver what the founders intended, they go to great lengths to distort that intent. They twist it to their own ends so that it bears little, if any, resemblance to the original intent. And I believe they do so knowingly simply because they are hostile to Christianity. They see Christianity as a threat to their own belief system. And where Christians are generally willing to bring their beliefs to the table in the arena of ideas, the other side doesn’t think their beliefs can prevail unless they suppress Christianity. Certainly no idea has much chance to prevail if it cannot be heard in the public square and that is really what they are after.

For more on this subject and the efforts to combat Blogs Against Theocracy, visit Dakota Voice.

Many of these same accusers love to tout "separation of church and state" and its hallowed place in the Constitution. Of course, the Constitution  nowhere contains anything like separation of church and state but that is no deterrent to the disciples of the philosophy.

Jenn Sierra of Ft Hard Knox has written extensively about the subject of religion and the founding of America.  She rightly points out that, for example, most of our founding fathers were very religious people who often referred to the providence of God in establishing this country.

There is a group called Blogs Against Theocracy that last year began a blogswarm dedicated to the separation of church and state.  From their site:

The theme [of the blogswarm], like always, is the Separation of Church and State — we are for it. But the variations on the theme are many…This is not a bashing of religion – peeps can believe what they choose, however they choose — but it is a reminder that the Government should keep out of religion, and Religion should keep out of the government.

They claim to have no animus against religion but it instructive that they’ve again chosen Easter weekend for their blogswarm.  That seems to me to be a clear attack against Christianity in particular.  While I agree with their assertion that government should stay out of religion, their claim that religion should stay out of government is code for Christians staying out of government.  Indeed, the disciples of the separation of church and state never challenge any religious perspective save Christianity.  When schools want to promote Islam, for example, there is never a peep from these folks.  It is only Christianity that is anathema to them.

Lets deal a little with this so called separation of church and state.  They claim it’s in the Constitution.  What they refer to is, of course, the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The relevant clause says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  That’s it.  In that straightforward statement they find the separation of church and state.

The phrase "separation of church and state" comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association.  The Danbury Baptists feared the establishment of a state church, something many had originally fled Europe to escape.  They wrote to Mr. Jefferson expressing their concerns.  Jefferson responded with the following letter.

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

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. 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.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

This "wall of separation" Jefferson mentioned has been twisted beyond all recognition by today’s disciples of anti-Christianity.  Indeed, what formerly was freedom of religion has become freedom from religion.  And that means freedom from any exposure whatsoever.  It matters little to these disciples that there is not a shred of evidence suggesting the founders intended such.

Notice the closing statement in Jefferson’s letter.  He claims to be praying along with the Danbury Baptists "for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man."  When such a statement is issued today by anyone in government it is universally condemned by the anti-Christian disciples.  They seem content to reference Jefferson when they can twist him to their own ends but willfully neglect his full statement, likely because they condemn that portion of the statement.

Jefferson never argued in favor of the elimination of the influence of religion upon government.  Neither did any of the other founders.   Blogs Against Theocracy would have you believe otherwise.  Don’t be fooled.

Over the next several days, this blog and others will be working to set the record straight as Blogs Against Theocracy works diligently to convince Americans that falsehoods are true.  That is to be expected.  I hope they won’t mind too much our calling them on it.  What we are doing is not a blogburst.  Each blog working in this effort will have its own original content rather than the same content being duplicated across blogs.  So you will benefit from working your way through each blog and reading the posts.  In this way you can become better educated about the religious beliefs of our founding fathers and what they intended in the Constitution.

For more information visit Dakota Voice, the organizing blog behind this effort.