Freedom of Religion

When the Pilgrims set sail for the New World they left religious tyranny looking for religious freedom. Many of the other early settlers came to the American colonies for the same reason. Most of the colonial charters included statements about the Christian faith and the advancement of the Christian religion. Yet most of the colonies set up state religions of their own, and were often just as guilty of religious tyranny as was the King of England. It was the smallest colony, Rhode Island, settled by Baptists, that gave the world its first constitution guaranteeing religious freedom for all faiths.

It was these influences and the Baptist example in Rhode Island that led the Founding Fathers to include Freedom of Religion in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Keep in mind that the Rhode Island colonists only had in mind the various branches of the Christian faith. The Founders could never have anticipated the diversity of religions we have in America today, yet the example they gave us of religious tolerance has opened its arms to allow every form of religion known in the world in our time. And rightfully so. People are not free if they are not free to choose which religion to belong to, or to reject religion altogether.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is interesting to note that before they guaranteed the freedom of speech and assembly, and the right to address Congress, the Founders thought it necessary to first guarantee freedom of religion. They were as much concerned, if not more, with spiritual freedom as they were with physical freedom. Free speech means nothing if it does not include religious speech. This as much as anything gives testimony to the purpose of the first colonists. They were on a quest for religious liberty.

With the history of Anglican England, Catholic Southern Europe and Protestant Northern Europe behind them, it is easy to understand that many people in the early days of the Republic were uncertain just how far the freedom of religion may have extended. In 1801 the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, was concerned that certain of President Jefferson's policies might be leading to the establishment of a State religion. In his January 1, 1802 reply Jefferson quotes the Establishment Clause and adds, "thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." He closed his letter by writing, "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common father and creator of man. . . ."

It is obvious from the content that Jefferson was not advocating Christians staying out of government, nor removing Church influence from public life. This was well understood for 145 years until the Felix Frankfurter Supreme Court turned the phrase, "separation of church and state," on its head to mean exactly the opposite of what Jefferson had intended. For the last fifty years liberal controlled Congresses with the support of left-wing, progressive courts and anti-Christian organizations such as the ACLU, have put up regulation after regulation limiting the ability of churches to carry out their mission, and have harassed those trying to uphold biblical values in the government.

"Separation of Church and State" has become the liberal battle cry in a war to deny religious freedom to Christians. The Constitution does not allow Christians to bring their Christian values into government, they say. Nativity scenes must not be displayed on government property. The Ten Commandments must not be taught in public schools or even be put up in court rooms. Christian children cannot pray in schools. Christian college students are not allowed to hold Christian beliefs if they want to pursue certain degrees. Presidential candidates should not speak at Bible colleges such as Bob Jones University. A president or a congressman cannot exercise free speech if it has the appearance of endorsing any particular religion.

How ironic it is, that the freedom the Founding Fathers guaranteed to adherents of the Christian religion is now being denied to Christians, while the freedom to practice non-Christian religions, a guarantee given by Christians, is undisturbed. How hypocritical that those same people who have been using the separation of church and state argument to deny Christian involvement in government are now saying, "freedom of religion," to endorse a 13-story Muslim mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero in New York City. George Bush was excoriated for speaking at Bob Jones, even though he gave them no endorsement, but President Obama endorses a mosque and faces no criticism from the main stream media, Congress, or the ACLU. And it doesn't stop there. The founder of the mosque, Imam Rauf, who blames the United States for 9/11 and refuses to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization, is on an all expense paid junket through the Middle East to promote "good will." Expenses paid, by the way, by the US State Department.

Where is the outcry for Separation of Church and State now? What is good for a Christian president ought to be good for a Muslim president.

The fallacy of the liberal argument is that the Constitution says nothing about "Separation of Church and State." What it does say is "Freedom of Religion." It says that the government has no power to establish or restrict the practice of religion. Thanks to the Christian Founders who gave us this liberty, all religions benefit from it. It is time the government get off the back of Christians, stop trying to restrict Christian practice, and give the freedom of religion back to the religion that gave us this freedom in the first place.