While it’s true that the phrase "separation of church and state" doesn’t exist in the Constitution (it was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a church group), the principle does indeed exist in the First Amendment. But before my fellow Christians and conservatives roast me for being blasphemous, let me explain: First, here is what the First Amendment says concerning religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first part of that sentence is called "the establishment clause," and the second part is called "the free exercise clause." To put them into laymen’s terms, the first part means that government can’t have an official religion and force people to follow it, and the second part means that the government can’t prevent a person from following whatever religion he chooses. This is the true meaning of "separation of church and state," and Christians shouldn’t be scared by that idea; in fact, they should embrace it, because Jesus didn’t force anyone to follow Him, or forcibly prohibit anyone from following other beliefs, and we Christians aren’t to force anyone either, so why should we want or expect the government to? However – and this is where I stand wholeheartedly with my Christian brothers and sisters – the courts and many others in society have mistakenly interpreted "separation of church and state" to mean that government and religion can’t have any dealings with each other. At all. Period. This idea is wrong, and the reason why can be explained by another principle: "force vs. endorse."

The true meaning of the establishment clause is that government can’t force anyone to believe a certain way  but nowhere does the Constitution say that government can’t endorse a certain religion (here I use "endorse" to mean "lend support to"). Consider the following example: The courts have ruled that if a governmental entity – a town government, let’s say – wants to display a Nativity scene, which of course represents Christianity, the scene must also include elements representing other beliefs – a Santa Claus representing secular humanism, for example. Such a decision by the courts is based on the erroneous interpretation of the Constitution – that endorsing a particular belief is the same as forcing. But let’s consider this case in light of the correct interpretation of the Constitution: If a town government chooses to set up an unadulterated Nativity scene, is it violating the establishment clause by forcing people to follow Christianity? No. Is it violating the free exercise clause by prohibiting anyone from following any other belief system? No. Then the town government has done nothing unconstitutional. That is, it hasn’t forced anybody to do anything, it has merely endorsed what it thinks is right, and other people can agree or disagree as they will. That is democracy, after all. (Please see "Free-Market Religion" here on The Jason Drexler Journal.)

Of course, such religious endorsement is committed every single day by every single government official. Yes, it’s true. Don’t believe me? I’m not surprised; the reason you don’t believe me, if in fact you don’t, is due to the second part of The Great Lie: the wrong idea about what constitutes "religion" and "being religious."

The same people who walk around carrying the club of "false separation of church and state" are also wearing the cloak of "nonreligion." Leaning upon their false notion of separation for legitimacy in their argument, they publicly cringe and sometimes even vehemently protest when “religious” people make a concerted effort to influence policy based on their "religious" beliefs. But what many people don’t realize is that everyone is religious. Yes; everyone. You see, what the "false separation" people want you to think is that only those belonging to an organized religion are "religious," and therefore, if you don’t belong to an organized religion, you certainly can’t be guilty of mixing religion and politics. But here’s the rub: Even if you don’t subscribe to an organized religion, you still have beliefs of some kind, so those beliefs are your religion. Even if you merely believe in some vague supreme power in the universe, and that the most important thing in life is being a "good person" and doing "good things" (please see secular humanism), then that is your religion. Or if you believe that animals are divine beings or that trees can talk, then that’s your religion. The point is, everybody has beliefs, therefore everybody is religious, and whatever a person’s beliefs are will lead them, on a daily basis, to endorse actions that are based on those beliefs.

Do you see now the great deception? Those who aren’t "religious" (that is, those who don’t belong to an organized religion) are able to promote and enact policies based on their beliefs because these people and their beliefs don’t appear "religious" (even though they really are). But as soon as someone "religious" (that is, someone who follows an organized religion) speaks out, they are beaten mercilessly with the club of "false separation of church and state" carried by those seemingly "unreligious" people (though they prefer to call themselves "unbiased," "objective" or “nonreligious"). The result is that "people of faith" – especially Christians – get flogged every time they try to get involved, while the seemingly religiously-benign people have their way with the world. And do you now see why I describe them as wearing a cloak and carrying a club? Because even though they truly are religious, they hide behind a screen of "nonreligiosity" and then, when the "religious" person pipes up, they whip out the club of "false separation" and beat him over the head with it.