The Wall of the Separation of Church and State

Jay Sekulow the chief attorney for the American Center of Law and Justice argues the case that the Wall of the Separation of Church and State is not constitutional as it is often administered today. His argument basically is that the Wall of the Separation of Church and State was an idea used to explain constitutional freedom such that the civilized nature of the churches would be protected by a wall to separate the savage territory of the state from harming them, but the problem as Jay Sekulow sees it is that today many applications of the Wall of the Separation of Church and State withdraw anything holy from public expression and thus restrict the freedom of religious expression to the environment of the church so to speak. Jay Sekulow goes so far as to quote the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to support the case that administering the Wall of the Separation of Church and State in a way that removes public expression of religion is unconstitutional because, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]"

The problem with any notion of freedom, as I see it, is that no one is ever free if they are oppressed. The state of a person being in oppression assumes that the oppressor and the oppressed have a different set of values and that one party is dominantly expressing their values over the other party in a unwelcome way. The problem is that atheist people define reality one way and Christian people define reality another way, and based upon the conception of reality that each party has both their values and their understanding of what is true and real emerge. Atheist and Christian people come into conflict when one party enforces values, expresses truth, or defines the nature of reality in a way that the other party has to restrain themselves from being 'free', and most of the time such would happen unintentionally as a Christian or a atheist is just interacting with the world with what they know or believe to be real, true, or valuable. If for example a congressman was writing new bills or voting on law, then to truly make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof (respecting both atheists and Christians) he would have to suspend his own values and even his own understanding of truth and reality in order to promote constitutional religious freedom.

My point is that 'reality' can become increasingly withdrawn from government production of law and administration of law. On the other hand most atheist people subscribe to the doctrine of anti-realism, and most anti-realist philosophy would argue the case that institutions manufacture reality and that reality does not exist independent of people producing it. My point is that for many people reality is thus produced in accord with what type of things the people that manufacture reality hold in highest value, and then when that reality is produced the masses are expected to subscribe to it even if it is in conflict with the personal values that people hold.

Many atheist people thus for example would push for laws in favor of abortion and homosexual freedom just because they value other things over life or because they value pleasure and the free expression of pleasure over baring children, and thus the atheists if they are anti-realists would manufacture a version of reality among themselves in order to justify new laws in their minds. A judge who understands the influence of anti-realism in law and who is opposed to it will say, "this is not a court of justice, it is a court of law." The distinction that the judge would be making is that justice is like real administration of judgment between people whereas the judge would instead just be doing his job administering law that does not accurately embody reality.

The more that people experience vile things and make those vile things part of their everyday life the more that people are often desensitized by those vile things, and often things that are vile become meaningless or no longer vile overtime as a result of people redefining reality to include those things in some relation to their vales. For example a young woman that I was acquainted with about fifteen years ago valued chastity until marriage as she saw promiscuity as a very vile thing, but as time progressed like many youth she entered into a extreme life of boastful promiscuity that ended in contracting a serious STD. Overall, the danger thus of the Wall of the Separation of Church and State is that its original intent was to protect the chastity of the churches from the state, but as time progressed things that had been considered vile became increasingly part of everyday life and thus resulted in desensitizing people in such a way that either the chastity of the church would be completely compromised and violated or the church would be forced into withdrawing itself from the public.

May supposed Christians thus will often say in public, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and, "judge not lest you be judged", and such people would say such things in the midst of incredible evil as if trying to indicate that they are Christians while the Christian faith is completely being violated in the most extraordinary ways by the propagation of secularism and a atheist world view being adopted by these so called Christians. Separating the Christians that are 'promiscuous with the ways of the world' from the Christians that are 'virgin daughters' can often be difficult at best, and many atheists identify the 'promiscuous' Christians as being the only true Christians while the 'virgin daughters' are often considered radical fundamentalist or even anti-American. Overall, a contention thus could and does exist to remove the 'virgin daughters' from the public because they do not uphold the reality that is being manufactured by those in power, and thus the genuine Christian can become increasingly despised, hated, and removed as they become expressive of Christian values, a Christian conception of reality, and the work within that reality that the Christian is expected to do.

If for example instead of Christians saying, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" at public events instead Christians publicly explained their sovereign nation that will emerge called the New Jerusalem, the non Christians being thrown into the pool of fire for all eternity, and the fact that ancient Hebrew law commands the public administration of justice to sentence active homosexuals to death, then the majority of people would all rise against these 'virgin daughters' that would promote conservative Christian doctrine. When the Wall of the Separation of Church and State was first being established, Christians could be 'virgin daughters' without public condemnation because the majority of people believed that reality was not something that was manufactured. In fact the majority of people may have been thankful that such Christian truths had been brought to the attention of the public.

I thus find that religious freedom and the Wall of the Separation of Church and State are in no way biblical in bases especially since the early Roman Christians that would have been directly involved in the New Testament would have rather died on crosses than to compromise Christian doctrine for the sake of freedom of religion. In fact Roman civilization would have been delighted to add Christ among all the other national gods that Romans had been expected to reverence, but the fact that Christians upheld the exclusiveness of Christ until death resulted in their deaths through public execution. Overall, despite calling the Christian decay of values 'free will', 'free agency', 'religious freedom', or even 'free for all' the fact still remains that the Roman Christianity that is celebrated that resulted in the death of the martyrs is only experienced or realized by the 'virgin daughters.'

Today the Wall of the Separation of Church and State has compromised the values of many and has resulted in something like a festering societal STD. Despite the best efforts by atheists to explain why our nation is better the way it is compared to what the 'virgin daughters' would like to make it, the track record of the national debt, homosexual marriage, and legalization of abortion speaks for itself. Overall, in the history of the United States to proclaim wars such as the war against poverty, the war against drugs, the war against terrorism, and the war against evil, we have entered an aria that I would like to call the war against reality, and I say this because the only way for atheists to be truly free is by reality not existing independently and by them manufacturing it.