Letter to the Editor: Using government to silence opposition a growing threat

Editor,

In his June 26 letter (Separation of church and state not a lie), Darrell Anderson defends a notion that is not found in our Constitution. The First Amendment specifically states: “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.”

Over time, this has been expanded to include any government entity, but both establishment and free exercise strictly limit government’s influence on the beliefs of residents and in no way limit their rights to speak and gather publicly, to hold public office, to publicly advocate for principles and issues based on faith and to vote accordingly.

In an increasingly heated political climate, we have seen that, as the founders wisely intended, other important freedoms are directly linked to First Amendment protections of faith. Every citizen has some particular set of firmly held beliefs — The legal definition of religious beliefs — from which they reason and act, including the act of voting.

David Anderson defends “separation of church and state” by referencing Thomas Jefferson’s private letter to the Danbury Baptists, reassuring them of their ability to influence their own government and citing a “wall” that keeps government out of religion, not citizens out of government.

The Soviet constitution, Article 52, declares, “The church shall be separate from the state, and the schools from the church.”

This is the “separation of church and state” that its defenders envision for American society: a hermetically sealed system that blocks people of faith from every point of entry and influence in local, state and federal government, including public schools and any other publicly funded
institution.

But that is not the language or the intent of the First Amendment.

A liberal person, even a humanist or atheist, has their own set of firmly held beliefs, included by the Supreme Court in the definition of religion.

When we hear fretting about church/state issues, we are really hearing from people who want their views expressed in policies and laws but who would like to keep opposing views separate and silenced from having any influence on law and policy.

Using government to silence the opposition, especially the political opposition, has been a growing threat to citizens’ freedoms.

Silencing, “separating” people of a particular faith may be useful to those who wish to gain and hold political power, but it directly violates the constitutional protection of citizens from government overreach.

“Separation of church and state” is a political tool, but it is strictly prohibited by our First Amendment.

Bob Larimer

Vancouver