Separation of Myth and State

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

Solving the Crisis in Catholicism

(Editor's note: Although Tom Garrow is a good friend of the National Alliance Foundation's leadership team, his views are not necessarily those of the entire organization).


Morality and sensibility are both elements which the world seems to be ever so frequently robbed of, and thus religious institutions must often serve as a counselors and guides to restore much of the world unto a righteous track that seeks to espouse these two virtuous parts in the formation of generational stability. Generally speaking, the Roman Catholic Church has done a fine job of this responsibility over the past centuries, yet I am forced to take up the dreaded mantle of the justice observer a point out the area in which the religious tent has failed--both utterly and needlessly: lifetime celibacy for its priests.

It must be made evident that I am a Catholic, proud and of strong faith, yet I refuse to continue to endorse a binding rule which has proven to have devastating effects not only on the basic welfare of Catholic spiritual leaders, but also on the psychological development of countless children. Perhaps not all offending religious figureheads are from my church, nor are all crimes involving the molestation of children exclusive to the parishes, but the vast majority are, and for an almost entirely explainable reason: like ever other human, Catholic priests are fallen creatures; saved by a loving God yet never capable of attaining perfection--unless they are in Heaven itself.


Not only is celibacy strictly against the teachings of the Bible; its tenets suggest a scenario which realistically none of us can hope to achieve: perfected spiritual leaders. For precisely this reason, Jesus Christ, the only flawless man to walk the earth, was sent to atone for the world's sins, so that all those born into the world a presently living at the time of his sacrifice would be saved from an eternity in oblivion. In plainer terms, priests are not free of sin because of their occupation, yet at the same time, they were never intended to be! Just like leaders in any other faith, priests are meant to serve as guiding clerics, not holier than thou personages.

From the most liberal to the most zealously conservative Catholics, their is a long running commitment to the family, and as such families adhering to the faith look to prime examples of strong and faithful relationships in life. Keeping with this line of belief, why should our priests not be permitted to have mature sexual relationships, become married, and beyond this, have children, if all of these might serve as a beacon and image of success for a congregation of families? It might be added that the Bible makes no discrimination with the following verses. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."--Genesis 2:24. "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral."--Hebrews 13:4. Even more explicitly, Proverbs 5:18-19 notes that "May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.  A loving doe, a graceful deer—may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love." Passages like "honored by all," and "your fountain," hardly can be proven to refer to only those beneath the Church's leadership, neither in their independent form or in the full chapter context. 


The attempts within the media to demonize priests may draw some appreciation, but the core of its argument remains ignorant of a valid fact of debate: the very cause of the inhuman crimes targeting children. Some of the most open-minded people would look at a 5-10 year period of celibacy for priests in the seminary or recently graduated as reasonable, though the expectation that these men live their entire lives without the natural satisfaction of intimate relationships is wholly unrealistic. Priests are not compensated marvelously in worldly manner, so they must rely on God's work alone as the greatest payment--an evident difficulty while living life in "single" status.


That's not to condone any of the horrific and unjustifiable actions by priests against altar boys around the world, yet the initial beginning of the heinous sin should be acknowledged, both by the lowest of spiritual leaders and the most elite, including the Pope. Living a life of both little material reward and physical separation is enough to drive an average person mad, and most priests are not immune to such crippling realities. I regret the bluntness of this, but if many of the clerical heads in the Church were permitted to "get it on" with members of the opposite sex as everyone else is, my belief is that the rates of abuse would drop noticeably over shorter, and longer periods of time. 


Not one of us, from the lowly beggar to the Pope himself, can claim perfection or even a state that fulfills a small minority of its requirements; in other terms, we are a fallen and weak race. But it is for this reason, that God, in all his shining perfection, chose to send a miraculous Savior, steering us away from an inevitable and painful death through His indescribably wonderful mercy. As part of that decision, He allowed us all to live normal and balanced lives--essences of life which would bring glory to His kingdom and to the earth. In the creation of future priests, the purpose was to raise up messengers of God on the earth. However just like those priests are equal to all those whom they guide, they are entitled to the same permissible pursuits and actions of average spiritually faithful individuals. 




Tom Garrow


Adjunct Writer--Of Faith and Life Blog