The BIG Lie: "Separation of Church and State" (Part 12)

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: April 11, 2014
From the archive of
In the last eleven posts, we have presented a series on the "separation between church and state" supposedly found in the First Amendment. It is because of this phrase, which was first introduced into the fabric of our culture through errant Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s, that Christianity has generally been purged from public life. We noted that we can trace the origin of the modern understanding and application of separation between church and state to the following two Supreme Court decisions of the early 1960’s: Engle v. Vitale and School District of Abington Township v. Schempp. Yet, an honest appraisal of these decisions shows them to be out of harmony with the vision of the Constitution’s authors. The purpose of this series of posts is to demonstrate how out-of-step these decisions are with the express wishes of America’s founding fathers. This purpose has been accomplished through a consideration of nine historical and legal facts. First, we observed that the words “separation between church and state” never appear in the actual wording of the First Amendment. The so-called "separation between church and state" terminology was not part of America's foundation and was never even used to limit Christian expression in government until after most of our nation's history had already transpired. Second, we noted that although Thomas Jefferson later used the phrase in a private correspondence, he actually used the phrase “wall of separation of church and state” as a one-way wall preventing the government from interfering with Christianity rather than preventing Christianity from influencing government. Third, the legal test that is used today to completely separate God from government is inconsistent with the beliefs of the founding fathers whose legislative record demonstrates that they contemplated no such separation. Fourth, the Engle and Schempp courts applied the First Amendment’s prohibition of a government-established religion to religious activity taking place at the state level in spite of the fact that the express wording of the religion clauses of the First Amendment are only a limitation on federal power rather than state power. Fifth, for the Engel and Schempp courts to make the First Amendment applicable to the states through the vehicle of the Fourteenth Amendment they not only ignored the Fourteenth Amendment’s historical context, but it also contradicted the intent of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment. Sixth, by banning voluntary prayer in public schools, the Engel court made the radical move of overturning a long-standing tradition in American educational history without citing a single precedent. Seventh, the Engle and Schempp courts reached the decisions that they reached regarding prayer and Bible reading in the schools because of their a priori belief that such activity is psychologically harmful. Eighth, the Engel and Schempp courts seemed to have followed more of a legislative philosophy rather than a judicial philosophy. In our last two posts, we began our ninth point, which is that the court has been highly selective in terms of which religions are to be removed from government based upon the separation of church and state principle. In this post we will continue our examination of this point.


Neutrality is a myth. If Christianity will not reign supreme as the underlying worldview in public life and education, then another religious worldview will inevitably take its place. Those that seem the most intent to purge Christianity from the public schools have no intention of the schools remaining neutral regarding religion and worldview. Rather, they desire to use these same educational institutions to promulgate an alternative religion or worldview.   As we saw in our last two posts, despite the court’s willingness to violate the intent of the Constitution in removing Christianity from public school classrooms, the same court has shown reluctance toward applying the same standard to pagan religious practices. Although Christianity has been banished from the public schools, New Age practices and Islam have not been given the same level of scrutiny. We also observed that one notices a far more aggressive enforcement of the Separation of Church and State principle whenever conservative Christianity is the target as opposed to liberal Christianity.

Besides New Age, Islam, and Christian leftism, the courts have refused to aggressively enforce the Separation of Church and State doctrine against Humanism.

Such selective enforcement of the Separation of Church and State principle is not only true with New Age, Islam, and Christian leftism. In addition to New Age, Islam, and Christian leftism, the courts have refused to aggressively enforce the Separation of Church and State doctrine against Humanism. Humanism is a belief system embraced by many societal leaders, including educator John Dewey, scientist and author Isaac Asimov, and R. Lester Mondale, who is the brother of former Vice-President Walter Mondale during the Carter Administration. The beliefs of Humanists are expressed in the following three documents: Humanist Manifesto I (1933), Humanist Manifesto II (1973),1 and Humanist Manifesto 2000.2 Humanists embrace the following six core tenets: the non-existence or irrelevancy of God, man as the center of all things, the reality of evolution, man as an evolved animal rather than a special creature made in the image of His creator, the absence of any absolute morals or values, and confidence in the scientific method to solve the world’s problems.3 Many will recognize these beliefs since they are taught unabashedly in public schools today.   What is critical to understand is that Humanism is just as much a religion as is Christianity.4 For example, because Humanism’s tenets are unprovable, they must be accepted by faith. How can one prove the non-existence of values or of God? Because it is impossible for an atheist to investigate every part of the universe or to be in all places at the same time, perhaps God resides somewhere where the atheist has not visited. Thus, the notion of God’s non-existence must be accepted by faith. Evolution must also be accepted by faith. Since the evolutionary process allegedly transpires over millions or billions of years, evolution lies outside the powers of human observation. Because no one has actually observed evolution taking place, or one species turning or changing into another, it also must be accepted as a matter of faith.
Humanism, like Christianity, also attempts to answer life’s most important questions such as “who am I?” (answer: a biological accident), “where did I come from?” (answer: from the primordial soup), “why am I here?” (answer: to fulfill self), “where am I going?” (answer: toward a planetary new world order), and “how can I get there?” (answer: the scientific method). Of course, the Christian answers these questions differently: “who am I?” (answer: a special creation of God), “where did I come from?” (answer: from God’s design), “why am I here?” (answer: to know and glorify God), “where am I going?” (answer: to heaven), and “how can I get there?” (answer: only through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone). In other words, just as Scripture seeks to answer life’s fundamental questions, so does the religion of Humanism.   In sum, Humanism is a religion not only because it involves faith propositions, but also because it furnishes answers to life's most basic and fundamental questions. In our next post we will continue to explore the religious nature of Humanism. We will also explore how it became the established religion in America in lieu of Christianity through our judiciary's selective approach to the judge-made doctrine known as the "Separation Between Church and State."  

(To Be Continued...)

No Comments




no categories


no tags