Donate search
close
Conference Update Senator Tom Cotton is speaking at The Resurgent Gathering. REGISTER NOW. arrow_right_alt close

Share

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • send Email
  • print Print

The Original Wall of Separation

Justice Thomas has some thoughts on the subject.

While speaking at Pepperdine, Justice Thomas was asked about the current climate as it relates to the religious persuasion of judicial nominees.

Certain Senate Democrats have gotten into the habit of berating judges and other nominees with religious views. It got so bad that democrat Tulsi Gabbard spoke out against it.

Justice Thomas leaves his most pertinent commentary at a brief remark about religious tests. The Washington Examiner has more on this.

He says, “I thought we got away from religious tests.”

The Examiner adds, “He was referring to Article VI of the Constitution, which states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Here is the video.

While there is much to discuss regarding the government’s evolving view of religious liberty, Thomas instead focuses on what implications these accusations have for those with sincere faith.

When democrats berate nominees with religious views, it implies that the nominee is somehow incapable of honoring his oath to the constitution.

Justice Thomas says that it actually makes more sense for the religious person to honor his oath. Oaths of office conclude with “so help me God.” A person concerned with evolutionary utility and moral relativity has no basis to take an oath seriously, for what consequence is there for not upholding it? But the religious man, has an obligation to his Creator.

And so we find this perverse view of religious expression in America. Even the deists saw the benefits of a religious and moral society. Yet today, religious expression is to be suppressed in the public sphere. Senate democrats tout the wall of separation.

They forget it’s true meaning. Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists was meant to reassure them that their beliefs were between them and God. No government could interfere.

It is unfortunate that some still see the need to interfere, seeking to block the religious from holding public office.

We saw this in the early 2000s with John Ashcroft.

And as the secular left falls further into anti-religious madness, they reveal how clueless and hysterical they really are.

Jefferson was writing to a group of baptists obviously. This was at a time when states had established churches, be it Anglican, Congregational, or some other denomination.

Most of the uproar now has been over Catholic nominees. Catholics are not a monolithic voting block. They can be pretty liberal. Yet they still scare the secularists.

What would happen to someone like John Ashcroft now? He was Pentecostal? And they all hate Mike Pence.

The Supreme Court is currently Catholic and Jewish, with a hint of Episcopalian. What happens when an evangelical Christian is nominated?

*Gasp*

The entire purpose of our system is to permit the participation of the religious in public life. Our constitution explicitly accommodates those with odd religious views. That is why oaths may be replaced with affirmations.

Sincerity in belief was never meant to be a disqualifier from public office. It is a pernicious lie to suggest that the religious cannot uphold their oaths.

Share

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • send Email
  • print Print

Advertisement

More Top Stories

Leftists Think Socialism Is A Substitute For Loving Their Neighbor

Presidential hopefuls are releasing tax records and, as should have been expected, those who villify capitalism haven’t been charitable toward the poor. In 2017, Senator and Democratic President …

Another Average Exceptional Sunday

The question was simple enough. “Is your church doing anything special for Easter?” My answer made me feel a bit guilty. I told my friend no. I couldn’t help but wonder if this made …

The Most Telling Bit of the Mueller Report is the Media Reaction to It

There was no collusion. The media is now claiming only the President used that word despite two years of the press claiming there was collusion. The President’s team benefited from Wikileaks rel …