"Hey, wait just a damn minute," I can now hear some liberals saying to themselves. "What’s all this crap about religion doing in my First Amendment?" Well, to quote journalism’s liberal icon, Walter Cronkite, "That’s the way it is!"

Like it or not, the very first clause of the vaunted Bill of Rights is not about freedom of the press, but about freedom of religion. (And might I add that it’s freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.) It was never intended by the framers of the Bill of Rights that men and women of faith should somehow be excluded from political discourse in the world’s greatest democracy. Instead, they sought to include the free practice of religion in the legislative bodies of the new nation, allowing no one to decide for others their practice of, adherence to, or expression for the God of their choosing. Indeed, the framers were all men of faith, overwhelmingly descendants of Europeans who arrived on America’s shores in search of a place where they might be free to practice their religion without interference from the state.

The Church of England took a dim view of anyone expressing an opinion contrary to its views, just as the British government took a dim view of anyone expressing an opinion contrary to its views. The First Amendment sought to remedy both intolerable situations, allowing Americans to practice – with equal vigor – the freedom to express their faith and the freedom speak the truth. Don’t you find it curious that American liberalism should defend the second with the same fervor that it condemns the first – especially considering that both are the subject of the same amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Don’t you think that maybe – just maybe – the founders intended that equal weight be given to both clauses?

"But," you protest, "what about ‘separation of Church and State’."

Well there you go again, reading into things that do not exist.

It might interest you to know that the words "separation of Church and State" do not appear in the United States Constitution. They do not appear in the Bill of Rights. They do not appear in any legally binding document with which I am familiar. They were originally penned by Thomas Jefferson – in a letter to a Baptist minister – and have no legal authority in Constitutional law.

To assume that the government has some vested interest in "separating" church and state is to assume government’s right to prohibit the free exercise of religion – a concept that the First Amendment specifically prohibits (NOTE TO THE MORALLY HANDICAPPED: Please refer to the text of the First Amendment, clause two, reprinted above).

Were it not for the tragic consequences, the attempts over the years to denigrate, minimize and marginalize those of faith (and even the concept of faith) would be laughable. But it’s just not possible to laugh at the human carnage that has been wrought by the success of liberalism (and the attendant decline for respect for people of faith) over, say, the last 40 years – a change attributable, in large portion, to the ascendance of media, especially electronic media.

And the change is remarkable. "Leave it to Beaver" has given way to "Beavis and Butthead". I remember when "shame" meant something. When out-of-wedlock pregnancy was reason for public ostracism. When outrageous conduct in our public schools was reason for expulsion. When "personal responsibility" was considered a commodity to be desired . . . and when the trash that passes for entertainment in today’s society would never have made it on the air.

Instead, unchecked liberalism has given us a world in which more than one million babies per year are torn apart in the womb and sucked into oblivion in the name of a woman’s right to "choose" (so long as the "choice" is abortion); in which our public schools routinely graduate those who are unable to read; in which welfare checks are handed out to freeloaders unwilling to participate in the greatest, freest economy in the history of the world; in which those who commit criminal acts are seen as victims of society; in which anyone wanting to escape personal responsibility of any kind, for any reason, is automatically granted "victim" status by the media elites.

Victimhood is the mating call of liberalism. It’s where they derive their strength. Individual responsibility is denied at all cost. And that’s where they run afoul of people of faith. Most major religions are grounded in personal responsibility.

I am what I am primarily because of the choices I make – not because of external limitations. How can anyone in this country – especially this country – deny that the only limitations they have are those they place on themselves?

Yet liberals deny it with venom. How else can you explain that our public schools say it’s perfectly acceptable to pass out condoms while denigrating any attempt to promote abstinence as an infringement on the (nonexistent) "separation clause"? You can have any kind of club you want on school grounds – except a religious club, even though the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Home schooling is publicly berated, as are vouchers and private religious education, despite their obvious superiority according to any quantifiable, measurable test available.

Despite what the liberal, soulless left would have Americans believe, religion and faith still play a major part in the lives of average citizens. More than that, we have an inalienable right to the practice of it, not just in our private affairs, but in our public discourse as well. Further, the constitution is rightly constrained from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

So how does government, and society, routinely sidestep this constitutional restraint? Follow the money. If schools, for instance, don’t severely restrict the free exercise of religion, the feds won’t pony up the cash. Instead, they’ll withdraw federal funds from any school or school district that doesn’t toe the politically correct line.

Once again, the 1^st Amendment says "congress" shall make no law. Nothing in the constitution prevents a state, for instance, from "establishing" a religion. Take the example of Utah. While no state-sponsored religion is expressly asserted, the average person running for public office in that state has little chance of success unless he/she is Mormon. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints wields tremendous political clout – inside the borders of Utah. And far from having the terrible impact liberals want you to believe would accrue from such a public expression of religion, Utah enjoys a comparatively low crime rate, educational achievement is comparatively high, and government corruption is comparatively non-existent.

People of faith, by and large, are those given to the exercise of restraint, discretion, and (dare I say it?) common sense. They are far happier in their personal affairs than agnostics or atheists, according to every study available.

It’s time for our government to get away from the business of prohibiting the free exercise of a way of life that is eminently superior by any measure of judgment you’d care to employ. If you don’t want your child to pray in school, fine. I don’t want to force any child to engage in conduct their parents prohibit in the home. But I certainly don’t want anyone to prohibit other children from engaging freely in such conduct, if that be their wish. That’s not freedom, but tyranny.