Plenty has been written about the United States Supreme Court ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, from defending religious freedom to free speech. Instead of repeating those angles, I’d like to look at the raw text of the June 30 decision. First, the Court was not considering the constitutionality of the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but, rather, whether the provision violated established law.
The Constitution makes clear that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This seems pretty straightforward. However, I’ve noticed a trend among commentators calling for a greater role for religion in regard to the state. Often, the precise role they feel religion should play is very vague; specific policies are usually not called for. Nonetheless, it is a troubling trend.
The revolutions of thought that led to our nation’s founding had their roots in the turmoil of religious wars in Europe. Several factors led to the conflicts that plagued the continent, obviously, but it’s no stretch to say that religion was one of them. Out of this tumult, modern thought was born, which in time inspired our founders to break away from the tyranny of the Crown. They structured the new nation largely on the principles of modern philosophy, especially on the thought of men like John Locke, among others.
A stream of testimonials continues to flow into the Independent Gazette from all over Pennsylvania and beyond regarding the abuse of judicial power rampant in family courts. In addition to verbal threats and intimidation, multiple sources claim the courts are issuing gag orders to guarantee silence in custody cases involving the physical and sexual abuse of children. Judges are forbidding both litigants and non-litigants alike from speaking not only to media, but even to their own family members.
A review of early congressional history yields several examples of such treaties and acts involving the promotion of Christianity in one way or another. Thus, the doctrine of separation of church and state—as commonly referred to by the courts and taught by many today—is a fabrication, is not borne out by historical fact, and is very much an inversion of historical fact.