The Myth of Separation of Church and State (and My Public Apology)

I've been lucky enough to have met - and gotten to know - a lot of famous and influential people. Some are simply famous and not influential. Others are influential and not so famous. (I'll bore you in the future with other stories of my sordid past.) One of the people I've gotten to know was Annie Laurie Gaylor. She's semi-famous, or, depending upon your point of view, semi-infamous. That's Mz. Gaylor in the nun's habit in the photo here. Mz. Gaylor is not a nun. She is an atheist and co-president of Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation. I first met Mz. Gaylor in February, 1976 when I was busy putting together the coalition of students that eventually swept the student government's Senate elections and, in a separate election, the Presidency and Vice Presidency. In February, however, we were about to overturn a small matter of theft on the part of the self-described Trotskyites who were running the circus known as the WSA (Wisconsin Students Association), or the student government at the U. W. in Madison. Yes, folks, I was a student activist. Mind you, a conservative student activist. But an activist nonetheless. While I was busy stopping the Trotskyite theft of student funds, Mz. Gaylor approached me and asked for help. She wanted her little atheist group to be recognized as a legitimate student organization. This required at least one more signature, other than her own, on a form in the Dean of Students' office. In a hurry, and having been friendly acquaintances for some time with mutual friends on campus, I agreed. I had to go yell at the Dean of Students anyway, so the two of us marched up Bascom Hill and I co-signed her form. Ten minutes later, Mz. Gaylor was in business, thanks at that moment to me. I know that if I hadn't signed the form she probably would have found another person to do it. But for nearly 30 years I've had this creepy feeling nevertheless that I helped get her bizarre and self-obsessed organization off the ground, even if only by an hour or two sooner than if she had not run into me that day. Why do I regret it? "Regret" is too strong a word. As I said, I just feel funny about it. And this is where I apologize. Sorry about that folks. Sorry about helping this little nutbag become legit. You may still be confused. You see, I believe in religious freedom. Mz. Gaylor believes in "freedom from religion," and these are not the same thing. I - and millions of other Americans - believe that a person should be free to worship or not worship as he or she pleases. Mz. Gaylor believes that the Government should force people to not worship. Period. This all relates to the commonly held myth of the "separation of church and state," a phrase that does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. The Chicago Tribune wrote this on February 28, 2007: "Since his earliest days in office, President Bush's faith-based initiative has been close to his heart, and he has spoken passionately of the importance of empowering religious-oriented groups to do good in their communities. "The administration has provided millions of dollars to religious social service organizations since 2001, establishing faith-based centers in the White House and Cabinet agencies. But the program, established by executive order, has always been a magnet for criticism--and legal challenges -- from those concerned that these offices erode the constitutional separation of church and state." There's that myth being perpetuated again, the" constitutional separation of church and state." No such thing, and Rogers Park Bench will pay one thousand euros to anybody who can show me the phrase "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. The Tribune continued: "The case, Hein vs. Freedom From Religion Foundation, hinges on whether a group of taxpayers wishing to sue the executive branch for using tax dollars to fund faith-based initiatives has the standing, or legal right, to have its day in court. Depending upon the way the Supreme Court rules, this case could affect the ability of taxpayers to challenge programs they feel impermissibly breach the separation of church and state." Again, the myth. Again, the fake, made-up phrase, "separation of church and state." No such thing. Continuing: "The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, an organization of non-religious 'freethinkers,' first brought its challenge against Jim Towey, then-director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, in federal court in 2004." Non-religious? Atheism is itself a religion, just as anti-matter is actually a type of matter. More from the Tribune: "Foundation co-presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor, along with founder Anne Nicol Gaylor, brought the suit as taxpayers. They complained that the White House was using tax dollars to host conferences that gave religious groups preferential treatment, training and funding, violating the 1st Amendment, which reads in part, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.'"

Sneaky, sneaky. The ENTIRE First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Trib wrote that "the 1st Amendment, which reads in part, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.'" This gives the impression that that is not all that the Constitution says about religion, when in fact it is. There is NOTHING there that says anything about separation of church and state, nothing at all. In fact, what this phrase means is that Congress may not interfere with a religious establishment in either a negative or a positive way. Period.

More of the Trib's bad reporting:

"The group's leaders acknowledge they are challenging use of taxpayer dollars because more direct assaults on the faith-based program failed. It has been difficult to find litigants with standing to bring lawsuits." "There's no way to challenge the faith-based initiatives, so you have to challenge the funding streams," Annie Laurie Gaylor said.

Mz. Gaylor, however, has no reservations whatsoever about wasting taxpayer dollars to fight this battle. You don't think so? She is suing the government. You and I are the government and it's our tax dollars, our money, that she is pissing away in a vanity fight that has so far lasted a lifetime. Her mother started it and by God (pardon me) Annie Laurie is going to finish it. If it's the last thing she ever does, and it probably will be. Annie Laurie Gaylor is all about intolerance, which is the full foundation of her obsessive fear and hatred of religion. Mother Gaylor indoctrinated her well. I wish now, 31 years after that walk up Bascom Hill with the young Annie Laurie, that I had said this to her then:

Annie, get a life. Be more tolerant. Relax. Move on. Now go away.

You can find the full Chicago Tribune article here: "Test for faith-based programs" (requires free subscription online)