Published - Idaho State Journal, 12/26/10

The most fraudulently and inaccurately used phrase by anti-Christians and the irreligious, secular left is “separation of church and state.” Not only is it not in the Constitution or any of the Amendments, its usage manifests immense ignorance about the statement from Thomas Jefferson from which the phrase derived.

Far from it’s current usage by the left to proscribe public religious expression, whether in the form of public prayers or nativity scenes, Jefferson’s statement advances the notion that religious freedom is so fundamental to our national heritage that it was listed first among our enumerated rights as citizens, along with the freedoms of speech, press, and peaceable assembly. Employing Jefferson’s statement as an argument against public religious express is disingenuous, dishonest, and an abject misrepresentation of his intent.

The phrase is taken from a letter written as a response in 1802 by newly elected President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury, Massachusetts Baptist association. The irony of the oft-used phrase by Christian antagonists is that through historical revisionism, the phrase is used in exactly the opposite manner in which Jefferson articulated it! To my knowledge, Jefferson never expressed concern about public religiosity, but he was concerned with government control of religion.

The Danbury Baptists’ letter, signed by three ministers, expressed concerns with the wording of the Constitution and the first Amendment as it related to religion, and sought Jefferson’s clarification of legislative intent behind the wording. The ministers said, “Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors…”

Their explicitly stated concern was regarding freedom of religion from the powers of government. In response, President Jefferson attempted to allay their fears by declaring, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and 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 and State.”

Jefferson’s response was to alleviate the ministers’ fears of government intrusion or attempted control of religion. As articulated, Jefferson’s response reflected his conviction of the limited control of government; that government should not meddle in the affairs of people and their culture, but people and culture can meddle in the affairs of government. Indeed this is the backbone of our republic, people shaping the direction of our government, not the reverse. And the notion that we must strip ourselves of our most ardently and tenaciously held beliefs in order to shape the affairs of state is not only ludicrous, but is unconstitutional and contrary to Jefferson’s and the other Founding Fathers’ intent!

We no longer have a nation that exercises freedom of religion. The power of the government, initially promised to not meddle in the free exercise thereof, is now enforcing a “religion” of the left, a secular humanism on the entire country. What was a bedrock freedom, supported and espoused by the Founding Fathers, is now trampled as the ACLU and other anti-religious entities suppress specifically Christian public displays, nondenominational prayers, and any semblance of religious freedom.

In direct contradistinction with what Jefferson intended, we now have government (primarily the judicial system) forcing itself on the religious community. They repress and coerce and intimidate Christian public displays of religiosity into the underground, exercising the very power over religion that Jefferson denounced and promised would not be exercised! Instead of Jefferson’s promised freedom of religious expression, we have enforced secularism and multiculturalism at the expense of Christian freedom of religion. In short, the government is doing precisely what Jefferson avowed it would not, and the argument in support of such intervention is the dishonest, twisted, and convoluted representation of Jefferson’s own words. What was intended as a limitation on government, is now implemented against individuals and groups of individuals.

So the next time someone tries to use “separation of church and state” as the basis for forcing religious expressions or displays out of the public square, you can correct their perversion of Jefferson’s words. His words, as now used against any public religiosity, are twisted 180 degrees by a small minority intent on repressing freedom of religion.

Published - Idaho State Journal, 12/19/10

An ISU student claiming membership in a group he founded, “Atheists and Agnostics for Religious Tolerance,” is attempting to prevent the city council from starting their meetings with a nondenominational prayer. It’s obvious that he is oblivious to the rich irony of his actions in direct conflict with that “tolerance” he professes with his group.

As a product of Idaho State University’s superb educational system, I can attest to the fact that his ignorance is not because of, but rather in spite of his ISU association. The fact that he’s nearly 40 and hasn’t learned that to “tolerate” means to “allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference or to accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance” cannot be faulted to the university. If it says anything about ISU, it is that they are tolerant to grant admission to intolerant, arrogant, egoists who know nothing of history, our Constitution, tolerance, and have no respect for tradition.

There is a segment of our population that has this convoluted notion that our First Amendment rights can only be interpreted through the narrow prism of their gestalt, or world view. For such individuals, freedom of religion can only be exercised by those who conform with their concept of religion, or lack thereof. Freedom of speech can only be exercised if it conforms with their ideology, and all other voices are to be excluded. Such a perspective is not only antithetical to our history as a republic, but antithetical to the Founding Fathers’ conviction that these are inalienable rights for all Americans to enjoy. Adherents to this perverted logic reject the fundamental right of all Americans to worship or speak freely, even publicly, and rather advance a fascistic concept of tyranny of the minority by imposing their views on all others to the exclusion of all others’ individual liberties!

John Adams once declared, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” It seems logical that extirpation of all religious elements in our culture is a threat to the very fabric of our existence as a nation.

Perhaps this student could elucidate for us how his rights are abrogated by such a public prayer. Perhaps he could show us, or explicate for our enlightenment, how he is hurt, harmed, maligned, or deprived of his rights by such an act. If he is deprived of his rights, something needs remedying. But there is no such evidence here, especially since he doesn’t even attend the city council meetings! He has merely been studying recordings of them! How superficial, contrived, and misguided is that?

Our Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Too many in our society focus strictly on the establishment clause ostensibly forgetting altogether the free exercise clause. Or perhaps they’re aware of it, but they think that it only applies to minority religious groups. Certainly, from their perspective, Christians are not to be allowed free exercise. Someone might be offended if we show our Christianity as a nation.

Tolerance, for some reason, seems to be expected from Christians, but not others. We must be willing to tolerate secularism hijacking our holy days, aberrant sexual parades in our streets, and extend the freedom of religious expression that Christians are disallowed by the secular minority. Tolerance, in other words, is not a universal quality to be expected from all since the small minority has absolutely none for Christians. The result is extreme intolerance towards Christians from people who talk so much about tolerating all views and religions.

Ignorance of the Constitution, overly zealous courts, and the ACLU have somehow been able to intimidate the majority of us into submission as we continue to see the erosion of public vestiges of our Christian heritage gradually, yet forcibly removed from our culture. Those who “choke at a gnat,” the open celebration of the Christian faith, are typically the same who “swallow a camel,” demanding tolerance of everyone but themselves. From their perspective, their version of “tolerance” is constitutionally protected, but all others’ is not. Transvestite parades are constitutionally protected, but nativity scenes are not.

When approached logically, rather than with a chip on one’s shoulder, a public prayer or a public Nativity Scene do nothing to “establish” a state religion, but are simply free religious expressions. And tolerance is something to be exercised by all, even the minority in a mostly Christian culture, not just the majority. With that, I voice my freedom of expression and religion by proclaiming “Merry Christmas” to all, and “God bless us everyone,” which is no more an infringement of the establishment clause of the First Amendment than the city council’s prayer is.

Published-Idaho State Journal, 12/12/10

While discussing the recently passed health-care reform legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked where in the Constitution the Congress derives or is granted the power to do what they were attempting. Her response speaks volumes about the current breed of public leaders we have in Washington. She infamously and incredulously responded, "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

The United States is a country of laws, and the primary codex upon which those laws are founded are embodied in the Constitution. That document clearly explicates and delineates the minimal authority of a central or federal government, and whatever rights of government not identified in the Constitution were reserved unto the states or the citizens collectively. That’s very clear, one would think. Yet over the past 230 years our central government has unilaterally enacted much more power over us than the Constitution ever granted them.

The case could be strongly made that our government at all levels is operating outside the parameters of the Constitution. This flagrant abuse of power is at the base of nearly all of our nations’ current problems, including taxation, deficits, massive federal debt, moribund economic growth, high unemployment, etc. ad nauseam.

Where does Congress get the money it so freely dispenses and appropriates around the world? Speaker Pelosi might think, as the political cartoon showed the other day, that such money, along with jobs, comes from the “stork who brings them on a government funded jet.” But that would be inaccurate. Rather, for Congress to give one dollar to any individual, it has to forcibly through the tax code, take that dollar from another. As Dr. Walter E. Williams, economics professor at George Mason University clarifies, “Forcibly using one person to serve another is one way to describe slavery. As such, it violates self-ownership and is immoral,” as well as unconstitutional.

We all know that it’s a good idea to grant assistance to people out of work, or to provide financial help to the underprivileged, or to rebuild nations that we declare war on. But where does the Constitution grant authority to enact good ideas?

I’m sure there are some who are crying out while reading this that it is the government’s job to do these things. I would ask, as the CNS News reporter asked Pelosi, “Where in the Constitution is that authority granted?” After all, what is the oath taken by our elected leaders when they’re sworn into office? As Dr. Williams asks, “Is that oath to uphold and defend good ideas or the U.S. Constitution?”

Colonel Davy Crockett, while serving as a member of Congress, once spoke in opposition to a bill to grant financial support to the widow of a military hero. Said he at the time, “Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.” What Congressman Crockett recognized as a constitutional, legal as well as moral limitation of government, and the fiduciary responsibility of government for the interest of the people, is no longer found in the Beltway.

In 1794 when Congress appropriated $15,000 to help some refugees, James Madison declared on the floor of the House, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” Obviously Mr. Madison understood the moral and fiduciary role congress is supposed to fulfill.

He went on, seemingly in answer to those who would say the section in the Constitution that says to “promote the general welfare” of the country is where that authority comes from. In response to the unspoken question, he continued, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.”

And clearly we have an indefinite one now. Congress has for years ignored the precise limitations of power enumerated in our Constitution, and vote for “good ideas” rather than what is legal and constitutional. What we need now is a whole new mindset in Washington, Boise, and even city hall, where elected leaders acknowledge the fiduciary responsibility they hold for us collectively, and spend not for “every good idea” that comes around, but for those that are legal at their respective levels of governance. As the Deficit Reduction Commission illustrated, it’s painful to turn back the clock on spending, yet that is precisely what we must do.

By Richard Larsen

Published - Idaho State Journal, 12/5/10