For years, a public high school football coach made a practice of saying short prayers after football games. He prayed whether he won or lost. Some of his players typically joined in, and some didn’t.
For that, he was fired.
This has been a long drive for the left. It started on their own 2-yard line about two centuries ago with Karl Marx scorning the masses he pretended to champion by mocking their “opiate” of religion. Marx and his fellow travelers preferred the opiate of opiate.
Marx’s antipathy toward religion gained traction in the Soviet Union. Revealing one’s faith was a detriment to advancement in the Communist Party, and the Party controlled everything. The faithful had their property confiscated and they endured open ridicule and ostracism by institutions such as schools, employers and the media. (Does this sound eerily familiar?)
The Soviet Union wound up in the trash bin of history. But not before it corrupted Russian culture, perhaps irrevocably so. Communism slayed 100 million people, plus God to the extent he was Russian.
The ultimate fall of the Soviet Union is one of those game-changing historical events about which the left forgot nothing and from which they learned nothing. Armed with assertedly good intentions, the American left is determined to march down that same well-paved road straight to hell.
Like the Soviets, the American left has good reasons to hate religion. Religion threatens their authority. People of faith tend to be faithful to a miraculous God and the powers they derive from him, rather than faithful to an omnipotent but incompetent and corrupt government of hypocrits and authoritarians. People of faith believe in a nation under God, not the other way around.
(I often ask atheists a question which annoys them: If there’s no creator, then who or what created creation? Their typical answer is that it just happened for no reason – it was an effect without a cause. So… which of us is being unscientific?)
The second reason the left hates religion is that they see religion as a habit of conservatives or moderates, and they have no tolerance for either. That’s about as far as they go with that analysis. If the opposing tribe likes something, then the left reflexively thinks it must be bad. Same goes for motherhood, apple pie, Ronald Reagan, red meat, American flags, Mount Rushmore, country music, and pickup trucks (OK, they have a point about pickup trucks).
As the left dismantled American culture – and, indeed, Western Civilization – public observances of religion were increasingly frowned upon. On the rationale that church and state must be kept separate under our Constitution, our secularized culture has allowed the state to eradicate the church.
This is a misread of the Constitution. The “establishment clause” of the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Those are the words quoted by secularists objecting to religious displays in government places and, by extension, in any other public place.
But the “establishment clause” is not the end of the sentence containing that clause. The sentence goes on to state, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” These words are sometimes called the “free exercise” clause.
Those two clauses – two parts of a single sentence – are not at war with one another. The Founders were better writers and thinkers than that. To the contrary, those two clauses reinforce one another. The Founders wanted to avoid establishing a state religion like the Church of England. A mechanism to avoid that was to guarantee the free exercise of all religions.
The Founders would be aghast that their anti-establishment clause has been contorted into an anti-religion clause. Putting religion – any religion – into the closet was exactly the opposite of their intent.
The anti-religion left knows this, of course. Their misreading of the Constitution is not accidental.
They deliberately misread the Constitution because they want to abolish religion. If they can’t abolish it, they want to make it shameful. I’d say they want to equate religion with masturbation – it’s something that should be done in private and never discussed – but actually they seem OK with the latter in public.
The football coach sued. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court.
This week, they decided in his favor in a beautiful opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch (who comes from a storied Colorado family). The coach won. He can now pray in public. He can now enjoy his personal light without a bushel over it and without fear that it will cost him his job.
Personally, I specialize in snark, not light. And I never proselytize, as I don’t feel competent to do so. But readers who have met me know that I always wear a small, simple cross necklace barely visible under my shirt. That cross and I have been through a lot together.
I admit that sometimes I’m self-conscious about my cross. I admit that sometimes my cross is something I bear. In Aspen, after all, it doesn’t exactly make me one of the Cool Kids. But this Supreme Court case reminds me that it’s legally and morally right to wear a cross if you believe in what it stands for. I feel the same about a Star of David, a Crescent and Star, and other religious symbols.
As religious people, let’s not get in people’s faces – that’s no way to show them the light – but let’s do get out of the closet. Let’s lead not by lecture but by example. Let’s show who we are. Let’s show our faith.
A high school football coach shows how. He. Could. Go. All. The. Way.
Glenn Beaton never played football and is notoriously bad at all team sports. But he practiced law at the Supreme Court and writes a bit. Join his 800,000 readers with a free subscription HERE or just send an email to theAspenbeat@gmail.com
the Aspen beat 
I look forward to your commentaries. Thank you for imparting your wisdom and perspective.
Glenn, your quip that “Marx and his fellow travelers preferred the opiate of opiate” made me think of something: All the German High Command — as well as the Japanese — were abusing methamphetamine (it was discovered in Japan), which made them psychotic: megalomaniac and paranoid..
In the present day, the legally prescribed equivalent is SSRIs, which many of the school shooters have been prescribed (viz,, Klebold & Harris). I wonder: How many of the lunatic left are taking SSRIs? They’re clearly not playing with a full deck, but it’s hard to fathom such complete lunacy on such a massive scale without something amplifying it.
“Pervitin” was widely available and used in Germany, both before and during WW II. Use of “bennies” by Allied soldiers and airmen was routine, albeit not as widespread or intensive as by their Axis counterparts. Of course, there was the excuse that those who were taking the meth were under the most stressful, demanding and debilitating physical and mental conditions known to man. Not sure those who consume drugs today have the same conditions to deal with.
Nice article and thanks again to Aspen’s Man of the Year.
Neo-Marxists like AOC, her low information squad, Bernie Sanders, Fauxahontas Liz Warren, et al, seem to always insist that real socialism, i.e., Communism, has never been allowed to succeed due to “imperialist” America, the revolutionary leaders were not “true socialists,” global warming and/or climate change, or any of dozens of lame excuses that they typically throw out. They seem to have as many excuses for the failure of socialism as Joe Biden has excuses for America’s inflation and high gas prices.
If only truly enlightened leaders like AOC and Bernie could take control of the reigns of government, then they could create a paradise on earth, their social utopia. Hence, any notions of God get in their way because they think that humanity can be perfected, much like those other social utopians … Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.
The rest of us know that humanity has been and always will be imperfect, and susceptible to temptation and corruption, due to the fall of Man and Original Sin. This is precisely why the Founding Fathers designed our system of governance with separation of powers, and federalism. They knew that to conquer the authoritarian impulse that the government should be divided. A classic example of divide and conquer strategy in practice, but put to a good use.
On another note: the anti-creationists seem to be captured by the Big-Bang Theory regarding the creation of the Universe. I am against this theory, and I do think it has some merits. But if the evolutionists who deny God believe that the source of the Universe is the Big-Bang, then I would ask … who pulled the trigger?
Anyways … between the recent Dobbs decision and this week’s Kennedy decision by SCOTUS, America has at least earned back a little piece of its soul.
Lastly, apologies for the crude language in the attached ‘toon, but this illustration so visibly reflects the folly of the AOCs and other wannabe enlightened socialists who keep driving us towards another ash heap …
Neo-Marxists like AOC, her low information squad, Bernie Sanders, Fauxahontas Liz Warren, et al, seem to always insist that real socialism, i.e., Communism, has never been allowed to succeed due to “imperialist” America, the revolutionary leaders were not “true socialists,” global warming and/or climate change, or any of dozens of lame excuses that they typically throw out.
If only truly enlightened leaders like AOC and Bernie could take control of the reigns of government, then they could create a paradise on earth, their social utopia. Hence, any notions of God get in their way because they think that humanity can be perfected, much like those other social utopians like Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. The rest of us know that humanity has been and always will be imperfect, and susceptible to temptation and corruption, due to the fall of Man and Original Sin.
On another note: the anti-creationists seem to be captured by the Big-Bang Theory regarding the creation of the Universe. I am against this theory, and I do think it has some merits. But if the evolutionists who deny God believe that the source of the Universe is the Big-Bang, then I would ask … who pulled the trigger?
Anyways … between the recent Dobbs decision and this week’s Kennedy decision by SCOTUS, America has at least earned back a little piece of its soul.
Lastly, apologies for the crude language in the attached ‘toon, but this illustration so visibly reflects the folly of the AOCs and other wannabe enlightened socialists who keep driving us towards another ash heap …
Wow, a lot to unpack here. I couldn’t make it thru the entire text of the case document and decision because the Founders were explicitly clear in the First Amendment and I need to conserve my energies for more fruitful endeavors than consuming the logical steps required to refute the misguided position of the school district and court system. The case outcome highlights the leftist bent of both the School District and Court system that together railed against a basic freedom established by the founding documents of this REPUBLIC [NOT Democracy]. The School District and Court System both need a philosophical enema.
Glenn – you are almost always on target, but you missed the mark in this case. The founders of our country understood that religion can become a source of friction in public life. Accordingly, they sought to keep it private. That, in a nutshell, is why we have “separation of church and state.”
It seems harmless for a football coach to pray with his team members on the 50 yard line. But I ask, respectfully, what prayer and to what God? In America, we have been lulled into centuries of the Judeo-Christian tradition. However, atheists and Muslims and Hindus have rights too! It’s myopic to think that “our religion” and OUR prayers will be the ones recited on the 50 yard line!
Therefore, I ask a rhetorical question? Suppose, just for the sake of supposin’, that our kid lived in Dearborn, Michigan, or another town with a preponderance of Muslims or any other religion. Would you be cool if the coach got out a dozen prayer rugs and started reciting prayers to Allah or Mohammed?
That’s the point, Who’s prayer would we say? To what God? Isn’t it better to keep displays of religion private where our founders wanted them? The problem in this case is not the exercise of religion. It’s the exercise of our beliefs in public where we can annoy and offend and antagonize others with different beliefs. I know that you are sophisticated enough to understand that most of the wars in the world have been started and pursued because of religion. Let’s keep our beliefs and prayers private.
Implicit in Glenn’s commentary (actually explicit in the third-to-last paragraph) is the understanding that the distance between any two of the three great monotheistic religions is minuscule compared to the distance between Marxist atheism and all three of them. I dare say it’s not young Muslim women from Dearborn who are parading in front of The Supreme Court building and various Justices’ homes with fake blood smeared between their legs.
Also, I think you’re mistaken about the Founders wanting prayer to be private, lest it antagonize people of other religious persuasions. As for offending atheists, I don’t think there were any in the 18th century, so at odds would atheism have been with Natural Law.
Thanks for the comment, Jerry.
You state that the Founders intended to keep religion private. I’m not sure of your basis for that. Religion has been part of American public culture from the outset. Mentions of God appear in everything from the Declaration of Independence to the nation’s coinage and currency. If the Founders intended for religion to be practiced only in private, then it seems they would not have included the Free Exercise clause in the Constitution.
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln also declared public days of Thanksgiving … to God. One a Founding Father, the other the Great Emancipator.
Your unsupported belief that “most of the wars in the world have been started and pursued because of religion” undercuts every other opinion in your misguided comment. In the 20th Century alone, two world wars were started and pursued without any “religious” basis. The communist revolutions in Russia, China, Cambodia, Viet Nam, and a dozen other countries snuffed out the lives of millions in the name of an atheist philosophy. The Korean War and Viet Nam War had non- “religious” bases. Please do some actual research before you spout talking points. Furthemore, your statement that we have “separation of church and state” has no constitutional support; those words nowhere appear in the document. The Founders saw no need to protect the neither the citizens nor the government from the church; the First Amendment’s purpose was to protect the people and the church FROM the state. As can be seen from the recent history of First Amendment jurisprudence up until Kennedy, the power of government has been used to whittle away the influence of the church and religion by pushing religion further and further out of the public sphere, contrary to the intention of the Founders. Kennedy is actually a return to original constitutional jurisprudence. EVERY colony that became one of the original thirteen States HAD AN ESTABLISHED STATE CHURCH! Taxes were routinely used to support religious institutions and activities. Government functions were routinely prefaced with explicitly religious invocations. The Founders were quite comfortable with this, and equally comfortable with the public expression of religious sentiments. Your ignorance is understandable, however, since the erroneous interpretation of the Constitution and particularly the First and Second Amendments has been inculcated in our public (i.e., government propaganda) schools. Nevertheless, the truth is out there and I suggest you familiarize yourself with it. You won’t be so frequently embarrassed.
Your remark about leftists finding public masturbation more acceptable than public displays of religious belief reminds me of the current public displays of twerking by enraged Furies defending pro-abortion “rights.”
Given that masturbation is the perfect expression of Satan’s declaration in Paradise Lost that “The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven” (Shakespeare’s sonnet on lust confirms that it does both simultaneously), what then is public twerking if not the promotion of some hellish standard of moral conduct, whereby the pursuit of sexual pleasure trumps the natural (dare I say, God-granted?) and longer-lasting state of happiness that generally accompanies the procreation and nurturing of children? In simpler language it says, sex good, giving birth bad — so bad, in fact, that Fauxcahontas wishes to erect abortion tents in national parks and other federal lands. Really? It’s come to this?
Lift high your Cross, Glenn, and all those among us who are in the closet. We’re at war.
Pro-abortion = atheists; pro-life = people of faith who believe in God, the Holy Bible, and the 10 Commandments, one of which says YOU SHALL NOT KILL. It’s simple. Either you believe in God; or you don’t. But at the point of death, you will believe in God. While traveling in Israel, we walked through a Muslim checkpoint. Everyone kept saying, “Hide your crucifix, and cross”, or they won’t let us through. So I proudly displayed my Miraculous Medal, my Jerusalum cross, and my crucifix, all of which are in chains around my neck. Guard didn’t through me into a Muslim jail. We have freedom OF religion in this country. No. freedom FROM religion.
throw me into a Muslim jail. Not freedom FROM religion
Glenn, does Chris Berman get a residual for his “All. The. Way” ending used here? The Founding Fathers were adamant about not being forced to support or even have a national church.
They were adamant about not having a national bank or a standing army, and explicitly precluded an income tax. I can give you many examples of these adamantine principles, simply using The Federalist Papers and its Anti-Federalist counterpart. Can you provide examples of your claim of opposition to a “national church? I am legitimately curious. Thanks.
Also note that when the first amendment was ratified, some states had state sponsored churches – the first amendment only prohibits the feds from making a state church. (Not that I’m advocating for state churches). This observation is the simplest way to debunk the “separation of church and state” quote taken out of context from a letter by Thomas Jefferson. He wrote those words to assure a church group that the constitution forbade the feds from interfering with their religious practice.
Darn, and all this time, I thought that opiates were the opiate of the people. How did I get this wrong?
Pingback: AWED Newsletter: We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections. - Dr. Rich Swier
Pingback: The Media Balance Newletter: 1/8/22 - Australian Climate Sceptics blog