"Separation of Church and State" part I

We, the people, often talk about the "Separation of Church and State", and we attribute it to the Bill of Rights. The Article actually reads:

"Article the third [Amendment I]
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."

Our Founding Fathers (with a little help from the Mothers no doubt) had the wisdom, based on actual experience, to write a Bill of Rights that specifically forbade the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. Furthermore, and arguably more importantly, the citizens or the United States were free to worship how and what they wished. You were free to worship a God, Goddess, Allah, or any of the thousand names for a deity, AND you were free to NOT worship if you so chose. You were free to use whatever resources you needed when developing your own sense of morality; the government might be charged with teaching you to read and write, but you were not going to be taught how to think. Don't you just love America? I do.
You only have to look around the world to see the horror that happens when religion and politics mix--today and historically (let's save that for another blog). The Taliban misuses the Holy Koran to keep women enslaved and uneducated, and lately, throws acid on school girls who have the audacity to want to learn to read.
Let's fast-forward now from the 1700's to the 1980's, at the time that Ronald Reagan was running for office. Remember that he was running against President Jimmy Carter, a man who was deeply religious, knew his Bible, but also knew his Constitution. Carter was a Christian who was President, but that wasn't good enough for some people--they wanted a Christian President, and a Christian nation. The election of Ronald Reagan ushered in trickle-down economics, and gave rise to the Christian Right. The people who, in the early 1960s, were afraid that President Kennedy might be guided by the Pope were now demanding that our nation be a Christian Nation, controlled by Christian principles--oh, but only the Christian principles that they believed in. No abortion rights, reproductive rights (especially not to teenagers!), no rights for gay people, no gun control--the list was full of issues that were sure to polarize the nation. Divide and conquer has been used in every winning military campaign since the dawn of time, and it certainly worked in present day America, finely-honed and tweaked over the past 28 years. Why, we even thought it was OK to ask the Republican candidates this year if they believed every word of the Bible--where was the outrage that this question was even asked, let alone answered as it was? We became an even more divided nation, the Us vs. Thems grew, and in 2008, the Republican candidates littered their stump speeches with hate language, but by now we were so used to it, we let it slide. Or did we? Did we, as Americans electing Barack Obama, finally say, "Enough is enough. No more hate speech and scare tactics. We want to unite as a nation. A secular nation."

Yes and no.

For while our country was saying a leader should not be judged on the basis of the color of his skin or the church he attends, citizens in three states were voting discrimination into their State Constitutions. Many of these citizens were voting this way because their church leaders told them to. From the pulpit. Via e-mail. With fliers. With television commercials, using children to raise fear among their followers. These churches felt it was their right, their duty to interfere with the government of the United States of America. The Roman Catholic church, the Mormon church, and a whole host of "independent Christian churches" poured money into the campaigns in Arizona, Florida, and California. The Mormon church leadership and followers gave over $8 Million to get Proposition 8 passed in California. To put into the Constitution of the State of California these words: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Why? Because their church believes it. The leaders of the church believe it, and they've told their followers to believe it. Somewhere in the Holy book of their religion, they think they can find words that tell them to believe this (note to those reading the Bible--Jesus said absolutely nothing about homosexuality. Guess it wasn't high on his list of priorities). And now they think the government should believe it.
But the beauty of the United States is that our Bill of Rights allows us to have our own personal belief system and be free of the dogma of any one religion. Some religious people thought slavery was OK, others thought interracial marriage was an abomination, and still others believed women were not human enough to be allowed to vote. But the government thought otherwise, thank goodness, and gave legal protection to these minority citizens through various amendments to the Constitution--GAVE them rights, didn't take them away.
Our country has risen against discrimination before, and I hope we can do it again--soon. As an eternal optimist, I believe we will rise against injustice, hate and bigotry, and leave this world a better place than it was before. Regardless of our religious beliefs.
That being said, I believe these churches broke the law, and I believe they should be punished.
The following is the Internal Revenue Code for a 501 (c) 3 organization:

"(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition ... or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. "
We should revoke the tax-exempt statuses of these churches, if for no other reason than to send the clear, understandable message that our nation is a secular nation, reflecting the views of many, not few. Our founders did this for the protection of all of us, and for the protection of the country we call our home. We would be wise to uphold their wishes.