The real meaning of separation of Church and State

Over at the Catholic Thing, Austin Ruse writes about a move by the Obama administration to put pressure on Bishop Burke in the hopes of shutting him up about Kathleen Sebelius, the rabidly pro-abortion 'Catholic' governor of Kansas who has been nominated to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. Ruse provides a good analysis of the situation, especially in pointing out that 

"More than anything else, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution was intended precisely to protect religious bodies from meddling by the state, even covert meddling by the White House like this. Obama and his pet Catholics should back off – and fast."

The First Amendment reads:

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.

The whole "separation of Church and State" provision, which has become a mantra for the progressive movement, does not exist in and of itself - it is based upon a popular interpretation of this amendment. As you can see, it is nowhere stated that religion cannot be involved in public life or in government. What this amendment intended was that there should be no established state religion, nor would anyone be denied the freedom to practice his or her own faith. In other words, the government shall not interfere with religion; not vice versa. I think the paranoia afflicting the secularists and "religion should be practiced behind closed doors" crowd is needless. If religion did infiltrate the government, it would do so only in its moral tendencies, as a state religion can never be established. Plus we're living in a democratic republic. If those religious views were not upheld by popular opinion, they would be ousted. Ah, but I'm forgetting - boo morals, right?  

Our man Martino

Coverage at AmP, LifeSiteNews.com, and CNA. 

Bishop Martino of Scranton, P.A. has released a statement through a letter penned by Auxiliary Bishop Dougherty to three Irish-American organizations, asserting that if any pro-abortion politicians are honored at the upcoming St. Patrick's Day celebration, that he will close St. Peter's Cathedral and any other Dioscesan churches if necessary.

While there is some debate over the necessity and relevance of his statement (there were no prior reports that any of the groups were considering honoring such politicians), I think this was a brave and commendable move. Even if none of the groups were going to to invite pro-abortion politicians, this publicity is good. Bishop Martino realizes that the battle to end abortion is not only a passive, reactive endeavor, but one that must be actively fought. By making this statement, he is keeping the issue at the forefront and reminding Catholics that pro-abortion politicians should not be honored or supported, but brought to task.

I pray that God may grant Bishop Martino and all of our bishops continued and increased courage and wisdom in this fight to defend life. 

And yes, this is the same Bishop Martino who has said he doesn't want Joe Biden coming to Scranton to talk about his "Catholic" values. Like Bishop Burke and Archbishop Chaput, he has asserted that pro-abortion politicians should not present themselves for Holy Communion.

It would get to complicated if I gave each bishop his own score, so I'm going to aggregate them. Bishops +1.