John Kerry should know better. As a lifelong politician and someone we can assume knows the history of the United States Constitution, he repeats the “separation of church and state” dogma so he can eat his cake and have it, too. From the Washington Post (registration req.):
“I can’t take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist,” he continued in the interview. “We have separation of church and state in the United States of America.”
Classic liberalism. To justify eliminating religious views from the public arena, liberals are quick to shout, “Separation of church and state!” I’m certain Kerry knows that no such doctrine exists nor was it ever intended to exist in the Constitution. According to the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
This is known as the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the formation of a national church. The mandate that “Congress shall make no law†is very significant. This single phrase gives individuals immense freedom. Rather than restricting us from freely exercising our religious faith, the Clause forbids the government from restricting our exercise of religious faith.
So where does the concept of “separation of church and state” come from? Back in 1802, President Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in response to their concerns about religious tyranny, 13 years after the First Amendment was signed. Jefferson wanted to assure them that our Constitution prohibited government from interfering with religion. The imagery he used was a wall surrounding a church.
The colonists fled England for many reasons. The most important reason was religious liberty. Oppressed under the national church, the Church of England, they did not have the freedom to follow religious principles incompatible with the state’s. 
This national church, still in existence today, was established by King Henry VIII, who sought to divorce his wife so he could marry another. He broke with the church in Rome because it refused to grant his divorce. Incidentally, Kerry sought to annul his 18-year marriage to Julia Thorne. Although the annulment was vehemently opposed by Thorne, mother of his two children, the church granted his request.
For years it was understood that the First Amendment permitted the free exercise of religion, but our courts began to view the Constitution as a “living document.” The Establishment Clause has been misinterpreted to mean that citizens shall have freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion.
In the same Post article, Kerry says that while he believes life begins at conception, he is still pro-child killing.
Our laws are grounded in moral absolutes, whether secularists think so or not. I don’t know if Kerry believes abortion is murder. My guess is he doesn’t, because if he did, how he could be pro-murder is beyond me. Murder is on the books not just because men think it should be; the prohibition against murder exists in the Bible, where it is described as the shedding of innocent blood and killing without justification.
This innocence exists not in God’s eyes, for the Bible says no one is innocent, but in the eyes of the law. While the Bible does not expressly forbid abortion or use the word, it does establish the humanity of an unborn child. If an unborn child is a human being, then killing that child, without justification, is murder. I don’t believe anything justifies murdering a baby, even to save the mother’s life, but that’s another blog topic.
It is not incompatible for a Christian politician (not that I believe Kerry is one) to be pro-life and rigorously advocate his beliefs. Politicians are not required to leave their morality at the door. What he must do, however, is go through the proper legislative process to support changing immoral law (Roe v. Wade) or drafting law he believes is moral.
The twisting of the words of the Constitution is frighteningly absurd to the point where some Americans really believe it is permissible for the government to prefer one race over the other. Go figure.
Check out this post at Blogs For Bush for further comment on the incompatible Kerry.
Update (1/11/07): As is the case with many posts from 2004, this one was filled with comments. When I moved from Blogger.com to WordPress in the summer of 2004, I wasn’t able to import comments.
{ 1 comment }
Thanks for pointing out yet again the difference between what the First Amendment says and what too many people construe it to mean. I’m afraid this will have to be stated over and over until it sinks in. You’re helping, though.
Comments on this entry are closed.