In the wake of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s 3-vote margin senate win to legalize gay marriage in his home state, many homosexual activists have been cheering. Flanked by a strong coalition of self-described “progressive socialists,” the once irrelevant Castro District Country Club is now promising to fight more openly and force every member state in the union to accept their definition of the family and sexual relations. In line with most debates in America, the progressives have chosen to hone in on a particular phrase which they find so imbued with intelligence that one can scarcely pass a moment in political discussion before it slips ever so quickly from their lips. The several letters, strung together in perfected Marxist glory with a hint of historical decency seem to them like the only rightful method of achieving their delusions of moral and rhetorical authority over the traditionalists that haunt their dreams of a secular, more exclusively leftist America.
(Credit for this photo goes to John H Armstrong Blog)
Yet the question remains, where did “Separation of Church and State” first issue forth from? In the mind of the progressive or homosexual, it is ingrained within the Constitution’s First Amendment. In the mind of the historical thinker, it is misunderstood and often ineptly adapted to fight for the dismantling of past societal pillars in order to pave way for a sinister modern agenda. Thus there is no better time than now to clearly explain just where the phrase originated from and why it is wrongly applied to our current scenarios of national struggle.
Back in the early 1940s, New Jersey resident Arch Everson filed suit against the local school board to overturn a policy that ordered funding for school transportation be picked up by the local educational committees, most of which were delivering it to Catholic high schools (at the time compromising 96% of educational institutions in the state). Despite being rejected by district courts and even New Jersey’s Court of Errors and Appeals (at the time its highest court), Everson toiled on and appealed to the United States Supreme Court, setting up a dramatic showdown that came to a climax with the verdict in 1947.
Led by Associate Justice Hugo Black, a well-known Democrat and member of the Klu Klux Klan, the court ruled in a decisive 5-4 conclusion that an invisible wall exists to separate Church from the State, thus making New Jersey’s assistance to Catholic schools a violation of its constitution. That might have been the end of the saga, yet it is prudent to pause in consideration of Black’s own personal motivations. For years, the first and second Klans had always maintained a virulent anti-Catholic streak, believing the Roman Catholic Church to be incompatible with American governments or the permeation of democracy throughout the land. Even the modern Third Klan that has operated since 1944 maintains an exclusively Protestant lean, espousing hate towards Catholics and the Jews.
So was Black’s stance truly motivated by a desire to advocate for secularist views, or only to safeguard the Klan’s interests in America’s Protestant-founded government? No one answer seems complete, yet it is worth including that none of the Founding Fathers advocated within the Constitution or in surrounding papers that they desired “Alienation of Church and State.” In truth, the Constitution’s only words regarding religion are “Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion.” Simply put, we are not to become a theocracy in which a given religious authority has domain and power over every function of government from economic policy to national security. This does not mean the Founders were in effect arguing that on matters of the family and society churches should have no input whatsoever; it just prevents Congress from creating a religious federal authority.
The Progressive-Homosexual Coalition will still argue that advocating protection of heterosexual marriage or even a constitutional amendment goes against the Jeffersonian state’s rights approach espoused by many traditionalists, yet they miss reality at two key points. First, marriage at the time of the Constitution’s adoption was a strictly religious ceremony that formed the backbone of society in America. Now that marriage holds legal standing in America, homosexuals have inadvertently revealed their conclusive goal by rejecting the compromise of civil unions and demanding official marriage recognition. In other words, they want forced acceptance of their lifestyles and definitions of the family, creating a fine line between their views and attacks on the country’s founding principles.
Additionally, the whole purpose of a national government was to keep the union intact despite state disagreements. This formed the backbone of America’s emergence from the Civil War, as Lincoln’s firm opposition to a splintered country prevented a “United States of the Union” and a United States of the Confederacy” from materializing. Otherwise we would likely still live under the Articles of Confederation, a system giving states the individual power that Jefferson’s wilder dreams desired. On issues concerning fundamental generational principles such as the family, Hamiltonian ideology for the federal government is needed to produce a single system of unity for the future. Should this be ignored, we risk once more dividing as district judges and narrow-voting legislatures choose to make decisions by ignoring the concerns of the people.
Individuals might still ask though, “Why is an issue like marriage so important?” The answer heralds back to the 1960s, when America first dipped its toes into the waters of cultural Marxism following a similar movement across Europe. After realizing that America clung too closely to religion and mass defense to be overcome using force, Marxist thinkers devised a new plan of action: cultural infiltration. By penetrating the schools and the courts, far-left academics and civil servants have continued to press for an extreme secularist society, developing a pattern in their actions. At each turn and polarizing issue, they always stand against religion. Whether it is opposing the words “Under God,” or supporting gay marriage and abortion, the Marxists continue to scurry forth the minions of their revolution by suppressing and marginalizing religious influence wherever it may remain in society, knowing that once the State can define morality, it will become a stooge to their totalitarian ambitions.
Words can often confuse, and this is precisely what the movement for separation of Church and State has done. All Americans who understand what makes a nation’s society strong must stand firm and seek to end the perplexing aura that surrounds this core issue in our country.
Jordan Wells
National Alliance Vice President for Policy
Jordan Wells
National Alliance Vice President for Policy
