Most Americans, religious or not, have been taught their entire lives about the “separation of Church and State.”  However, “separation of church and state” is not really what the First Amendment protects.  The First Amendment states simply that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Although we often refer to the “anti-establishment” clause as guaranteeing the “separation of church and state,” our use of the term “separation of church and state” and the misunderstanding implicit in that term, has been instrumental in the establishment of a state religion.  We have spent so long arguing about commandments and courthouses, praying pupils and the mention of diety on dollars in the name of “separation of church and state” that we, ironically, have allowed the state to establish itself as the God of the official state religion.  The tenets of the state religion are often referred to as “Secularism.”    I know, I know, secularism is not usually thought of as a religion.  However, if we can look past the details of traditional religions we think of, it becomes very clear that Secularism is just as much a religion as any of the traditionally-recognized religions.

Stripped down to its essence, religion is “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”  Dictionary.com defines it as “something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience.”    Secularism has become enshrined as the supreme set of principles governing our society.  Indeed, according to our laws, passed by Congress, enforced by the White House and upheld by the Courts, secular principles take precedence over any and all other belief systems, including other religious beliefs.  Although we have allowed ourselves to be led down this path for decades, the current administration has clearly put the final nails in the coffin we have built for religious freedom.

One is allowed (for now) to believe and declare one’s belief that contraception, abortion, or homosexuality are wrong, but the state religion requires that we act contrary to that religious belief.  If you are employer, you must provide health care coverage for services your religious belief says are wrong.  While the state religion allows citizens to proclaim belief in non-secular principles, it requires those beliefs to bend to accommodate the tenets of secularism.  As is often the case when one religions achieves a dominant position, those who do not accept the tenets of the dominant religion are labeled, and even persecuted, as heretics.  Those who do not believe in secular evolution theory, in climate change, in forced vaccinations, and ever-increasing government regulation of business and private lives are labeled as uninformed, fanatics, and evil.

The ascendance of the secular religion is nowhere more evident than in the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that gay marriage must be recognized and allowed throughout the United States.  It would have been easy for the Court to rule that government may not discriminate based on sexual orientation and that it must afford all protections, benefits and rights – I’ll have more to say about “rights” later – to gay couples that are afforded to heterosexual couples.  It could have done so while still respecting and accommodating the belief of many other religions that marriage is between a man and a woman.  Applying the label “marriage” to homosexual unions is not essential to secure the protections and benefits from the government that homosexual citizens want.  However, by re-defining the term marriage, the state religion has made it extremely difficult for citizens to express their belief through their actions and has laid the foundation for the eventual forced acceptance of the government’s homosexuality doctrine.  The path is now set for the inevitable demand that all religions accept the State religion’s tenets on homosexuality.  It is only a matter of time (and it will be a very short time) before even the pretended tolerance for alternative beliefs is cast away.  Within a very short time frame, traditional churches will have to agree to marry whomever the state says can get married in order to retain their tax-exemption.  Some might view such a development as a positive one because they agree with the current tenets of the State religion.  What they fail to realize, however, is that once the State religion is allowed to coerce non-believing citizens to accept its tenets, their own beliefs are left completely unprotected against future doctrinal changes with which they might disagree.  It is sadly ironic that in midst of the great crusade for tolerance and endorsement of alternative lifestyles, tolerance for alternative belief systems has disappeared.

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that homosexual couples should not receive the same treatment and protections by and from the government, but the re-definition of marriage was not necessary to achieve such an aim.  Rather, the re-definition of marriage establishes the mechanism for forcing the non-believers to accept and embrace the tenets of the State religion.  Those who object to homosexuality and attempt to conform their actions to their individual beliefs are fined, belittled, threatened, shamed, ostracized and labelled heretics by the Secularists, usually with the force of the State behind them.  Although they have not been burned at the stake literally, I’m sure that the Oregon bakers who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding feel that the state-sanctioned economic flogging they received was no less consuming, destructive and intimidating.

The degree to which we have allowed Secularism to permeate and dominate every corner of our society is reflected in the way we commonly discuss the issue of rights.  The Declaration of Independence, which gave birth to this country, a country wherein the State was not to favor one religion, or no religion, over another states that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . .”  In other words, God gave men rights, and principles of the Constitution were designed to prevent government from infringing on those rights.  Now, however, liberal and conservative alike routinely (and almost exclusively) speak of rights being granted by the government – the right to health care, housing, food, cell phones, etc.  If our Founding Fathers believed that rights are granted to men by God, and we now accept that government grants us our rights, what does that say about how we view government?

In Secularism, government is the source of all rights, government judgement and knowledge is supreme and unassailable.  The government tells us what is right and wrong, how to raise our children, what medicines we must give them, what to eat and drink (no Big Gulps allowed under Secularism), which health care services we need and don’t need, how many hours we can work, and even how to be good dads.  There is an “official website of the U.S. Government” called “fatherhood.gov,” the purpose of which are to “provide, facilitate, and disseminate current research, proven and innovative strategies that will encourage and strengthen fathers and families.”  While encouraging and strengthening fathers and families is a worthy endeavor, the fact that government views teaching men how to be dads as its role only proves that Secularism, imposed by the government, truly has become the established religion of the United States of America.