Before I explain what I believe is the next proper step in rescuing our nation from those who hold it frail and captive, let me offer a quick disclaimer: I know there are many who believe the damage is too much and the country is too far gone. As a result, they might think that my articles outlining the steps required to take back the country would be more correct to simply state the steps as ready, aim, fire.

I get it. Maybe America is so far gone that the only way to free it from the liberal Godless abyss that it’s chained in is to lock and load. But I’m not entirely convinced just yet. Call me naïve, but I think that if the proper actions are taken, we can take it back without Civil War II. It’s under that naïve, optimistic hope that I’ve chosen to present this series of articles on what I think are the logical steps necessary to take back the country.

With that, let us begin. If you’ve read my last article and taken the invitation to stop using doublespeak and start fighting back with truthspeak, then you’re mentally prepared to use truthspeak as it relates to step two.

Step two was demanded of by President Reagan in 1987. To Mikhail Gorbachev, Reagan commanded, “Tear down this wall.” Now, a quarter of a century later, I believe that fierce order has resurrected.

The popular maxim, “separation of church and state” originates from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. He wrote that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment built a “wall of separation between Church & State.” Separationists like the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF)—a major force behind church and state lawsuits—claim Jefferson’s metaphor as their war-banner. In fact, FFRF’s webpage has plastered the slogan across the site’s header, it reads, “Protecting the constitutional principle of the separation of state and church.”

Constitutional principle? Doublespeak.

The actual constitutional text of the Establishment Clause says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” So where is this principle of separation of state and church they speak of? As I read it, the words prohibit Congress from making any law in regard to establishing a religion, or any law that would stop the people from freely practicing a respective religion. I am failing to see the words, “separation,” “church,” and “state.”

The “constitutional principle” of separation of church and state didn’t arise until 1947 when the Supreme Court took on Everson v. Board of Education. The court gave its view of the Establishment Clause by setting out some bright-line rules regarding the government and religion. Their little diatribe ended with, “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State.” Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947).

For the remaining 40 years that progressives carried control of the Court, precedent upon precedent stacked on top of Jefferson’s metaphor. By the time Chief Justice Rehnquist obtained a conservative leaning split, the weight of authority in favor of separating church from the State was virtually solidified. Thus, the “constitutional principle” of separating church from State was judicially (not constitutionally) made and secure.

But that is incorrect. Two and two don’t make five just because the left and the progressives say it feels better that way.

First of all, the Everson Court embodies everything that’s ridiculous about liberal reasoning. The logic behind making a legal rule out of Jefferson’s isolated one-liner is so weak it makes a 102 lb. high school freshman look like he could go Over the Top in an arm-wrestle with Sylvester Stallone. Thomas Jefferson’s views cannot embody the First Amendment’s words, spirit, or intent because he didn’t even participate in the debates on the subject; he was in France during the Constitutional Convention. And his letter to the Danbury Baptists wasn’t written until nearly 14 years after the Amendment was ratified. Additionally, not one of the 90 Framers ever used the words “separation of church and State” or an equivalent deviation in regard to the First Amendment during the convention. Some authority.

Strict interpretation of Jefferson’s “wall of separation” metaphor is further weakened by the man’s own actions as president. During his presidency, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church for Christian worship services . . . which Jefferson attended on Sundays. He approved of paid government musicians assisting the worship at those church services. He also approved of similar worship services in his own Executive Branch, both at the Treasury Building and at the War Office. It cannot pass any level of logical scrutiny to say that Thomas Jefferson was the absolute separationist that progressives model him to be.

Gasp. You mean that “separation of church and State” really has no constitutional basis?! RACIST!

After pulling the Persian rug out from under Jefferson, it’s then necessary to find the accuracy behind the Establishment Clause. The Founders were religious men. No matter how you roll the dice, it’s what it is: they were God-fearing, church-going, Bible-thumpin’, men. Scripture appeared in over a third of their political discourse and writings. John Adams reflected the views of the time when he said, “religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society.” Essentially, religion was held as the key to happiness both inside of government and out.

This was the reason that George Washington urged Virginians to appropriate public funds for the teaching of religion. He viewed religion as one of the best facilitators for the very kind of civic virtue on which democratic government should be based. As a general in the revolutionary army, Washington required church attendance by his soldiers, and in his Farewell Address at the end of his presidency he warned that, “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” George Washington believed religion could not be separated from good government, and that no “true patriot” would ever attempt to divest religion from political influence.

With the Framers as religiously oriented as they were, and with Scripture composing as much of their political discourse as it did, it is a stretch to believe that the men who attended church services in the nation’s capitol building wanted, not a fence, but a wall to separate government from religion.

The truth is the Framers’ didn’t want the government to become anti-religious. Rather, they believed that government had a duty to support religion. In fact, whenever conflicts occurred between laws and religious beliefs, the latter were accommodated—and it was deemed legally permissible for the law to give way to those religious beliefs. This shows that the purpose in drafting the Establishment Clause was not to protect the state from religion (the FFRF view), but to protect religion from the state. The Framers believed that the law was an expression of morality, and morality derived from religion. As a result they held it as both impossible and undesirable to completely separate state from religion.

But here we are. Separated. Faced with the tragic fact that progressives have hijacked Jefferson’s metaphor to not only obstruct religious groups and individuals’ free speech, free exercise, and free association rights, but to quarantine religion outright and isolate it in a place far away from government.

And I’m not just talking about groups like FFRF. I’m talking about all liberals who don’t want to see military soldiers sharing and speaking their faith with one another; a football player kneeling in prayer on the sideline; a picture of the Christ hanging above children’s heads in school hallways; the option for children to begin their school days with prayer to their creator; coaches praying with their players for safety before kickoff; public buildings displaying the foundation for our laws—the Ten Commandments; crosses marking the graves of those in uniform who’ve sacrificed for us just as Christ did.

And of course, because Christians are expected to be “Christ-like” the Left continues to kick us. Tolerance is what we’re supposed to have.

Step Two: be Christ-like . . . throw them out of the temple.

There is a difference between tolerance and tolerate. The former is a noun, prescribing the ability or willingness to tolerate. The latter is the verb that if we perform too much of, we become spineless. As Christians we should have tolerance, but we should also be like Him in understanding when we are not to tolerate.

Christ responded differently in different situations. When He was confronted by King Herod, He remained silent. Standing before Pilate, He spoke simple words of his divinity. When He saw the moneychangers turning the temple into a market place, He fulfilled his responsibility to preserve and protect that which was sacred. When He was being crucified, He asked his Father to forgive the crucifiers.

So, where did this blanket idea come from that as conservative Christians we should simply turn the other cheek in all situations? From what I read of Christ, we should be exercising authority to preserve and protect that which is sacred.

To me, America is sacred.

Whether you are Christian or not, the history and facts are indisputable. America, and her Constitution, were created by religious men who sought a government built upon a religious bedrock. In 1947, that bedrock was cracked, and it has since been eroding at a rapid pace. Now look at the mess that’s resulted. A soldier holding his dying buddy can no longer share words of faith in their last moments together.

If we, as conservatives, regardless of faith, believe in the Original Intent of the Constitution—if we excoriate the liberal idea of a “living Constitution”—then we must fight to regain the original bedrock that document was built upon. I call on conservatives from all four corners of our injured country to now take the fight to them. They have launched lawsuits to kick God out of schools, curriculum, public buildings, currency, the Pledge of Allegiance, the military, and countless others. I believe it’s imperative and critical to now do the same in return.

We must fight back with the same tactics. No more spinelessness under a passive cloak of Christianity—Christ never exemplified cowardice. If an offense arises against Christianity, we must make the same amount of noise they did. We must find the attorneys gifted enough to repair the broken bedrock. We must organize masses to overshadow and overpower their anti-God events and gatherings. We must write grievance letters, blogs, lodge formal complaints. We must have the courage to display our faith. We must be the Washingtons of the 21st century and preserve the original intent of our Constitution. We must defend and protect the One who has defended our souls.

After the nearly irreparable damage President Obama and his comrades have done to our currency, our industries, and our people, it will only be upon our initiative in reinstating God into our society, our government, and our country that America will rise again. If it won’t happen from the top down, then we do it from the bottom up, and from the inside out. My fellow Americans, the wall of separation between church and state stands between us and a good government. We must do whatever it takes . . . we must tear down this wall.

* For sources see:

Patrick M. Garry, The Myth of Separation: America’s Historical Experience with Church and State, 33 Hofstra L. Rev. 475-99 (2004).

J. Nelson Happy & Samuel Pyeatt Menefee, “Genesis!: Scriptural Citation and the Lawyer’s Bible Project,” 9 Regent U. L. Rev. 89, 120-21 (1997).

Donald S. Lutz, “The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought,” 78 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 189 (1984).