Jerry A. Kane over at Canada Free Press does a good job of disputing the existence of a wall separating Church & State: The ACLU et al., work tirelessly to erect a judicial wall separating Church & State. The argument between separation, and no separation, will never be settled as long as it remains a philosophical argument. Philosophical arguments end up advocating opposing political theories. Socialist can argue political theory until the end of time because it is pure misdirection. The true debate, the one Socialists avoid like the plague, should revolve around funding. There is no doubt the Founders intended an impenetrable wall separating Church from the public purse. In addition to the Founding Fathers everybody in Colonial America wanted freedom of religion, but nobody wanted public funds going to somebody else’s religion. The question then becomes: What was the wall separating Church & State made of in colonial times? The answer is obvious: A closed public purse. The conflict began when Socialists insisted there is a wall separating Church & State, but it is NOT the wall the founders erected. In effect, Socialists created a fictitious wall then attacked it. Religious monuments on public lands, school prayer, etc., is the stuff socialism’s fictitious wall is made of, while the idea of giving public funds to a religion’s priesthood and their flock was so alien to the Founders it never occurred to them that more than a precise prohibition was needed in their day, or at any time in the future: It can be argued that the first 16 words in the First Amendment are the most powerful political words ever strung together. Those words shout “Free Choice” the eternal enemy of totalitarian government. The all-encompassing concept behind those words frightens weak minds to this day. Conversely, the concept is so powerful Socialists see it as the one obstacle standing in the way of their theocracy. If the First Amendment means anything it means public funds could not be used to establish, or prohibit, a religion. Yet how many times have you heard a constitutional expert examine the concept from a funding perspective? Note that none of the Founding Fathers would be considered a constitutional expert in an academy where Hussein and countless liberals are the experts. Try to imagine Jefferson or Madison arguing a case before judges like Ruth Ginsburg who would abandon the Constitution altogether. Nevertheless, Jefferson’s reasoning on religion and the public purse is faultless: First Amendment was intended to protect religion from an intrusive government, and not the government from religion America’s Courts Have Been Violating the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause for Three Decades Jerry A. Kane Saturday, May 12, 2012 America’s Courts Have Been Violating the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause for Three Decades Injurious meant physical injury and taking your money by stealth or force. I’m pretty sure Jefferson did not consider speech injurious. His views are fairly obvious from this: Jefferson and the other Founders would have been appalled at the thought of government-imposed politically correct speech. Finally, the XVI Amendment breached the public purse separating Church & State. That gave Socialists everything they needed to erect their judicial wall. Since then Socialists have poured through the opening attacking the First Amendment from two directions; 1) tax dollars can be used to establish the Socialist religion; 2) tax dollars can be used to prohibit the free exercise of every religion except socialism. Most especially, Socialists use tax dollars to prohibit Christianity under the guise of separating Church & State. One method is to turn the other religions against Christians. You can see it in the way Islam is protected and praised as the religion of peace while Christianity is blamed for all of the evils in the world. Socialists do not stop there. They cite the First Amendment to protect Shariah law in the courts with nary a mention of a wall separating Church & State. Here’s the worst of it: Socialists get away with tax dollar tithing because there are not enough legislators willing to define legislative and judicially-imposed behavior as tenets of a religion. When Socialists dictate how everyone must behave, how they must speak, what their children must learn, and who they must associate with they are legislating love, or, to be more precise, imposing their religion’s morality on everyone and calling it love. Criminal laws dictate behavior by prohibiting then punishing certain acts. Socialist law is not the same as punishing bad behavior like murder, theft, rape, and so on. Filthy Socialist moralists are legislating the behavior of decent, law-abiding, citizens, without putting a dent in criminal behavior, and they use tax dollars to do it.