Until a transgender can morph themselves over into the next realm of impossibility and identify themselves as a Thomas Jefferson, opposing factions will continue the debate over Jefferson’s true meaning of Freedom of Religion and the “wall of separation“.
To paraphrase the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, our Creator, not our government, endowed us with certain unalienable rights – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now as we approach the 250th anniversary of the signing of that great declaration of freedom; the Progressive mind, through litigation, has remolded Jefferson’s words into a totally different direction of understanding – “our founders endowed us with limited and conditional entitlements as interpreted by the Courts – life (as they interpreted it), liberty (as they administer it), and the pursuit of happiness (as they determine equality”).
Ignoring the original gifter of these rights is a key element in redefining Freedom of Religion. The Progressive understands the intent of the Constitution to establish Freedom from Religion. The average Joe see little difference in the two. But when one has Freedom of “something”, they have a choice. When one has Freedom from “something”, they are physically separated from that “something”.
Consider a pot-luck dinner being sponsored at the local community center? At the event, the organizers set up various tables for the assorted food types – one of them being a dessert table. An assortment of cakes, pies and other sweet treats are displayed for selection by the participants. As they stand over the dessert items, they decide if they want pie, cake, cookies, or nothing at all. In this scenario, there is freedom of choice.
But in the back corner, a group of dessert haters assemble and murmur over the situation. In their mind, dessert is bad for you – wasted calories, refined sugar, bad health factors, etc. And the haters surmise the individuals gathered around the dessert table are simply too stupid to realize the pearl in partaking of the dessert choices; ignorant fools in search of a sugar high.
The dessert haters confront the organizers and demand desserts be removed from the table. In fact, their demands go beyond removal. They demand all desserts be restricted to the kitchen area. They demand all desserts be eaten only in the kitchen area – out of the sight of other attendees. They demand public acknowledgement of the dessert’s existence be suppressed. And at all cost, children must never be exposed to the evils of sugar, lest they be hoodwinked into finding pleasure in the delicacy. And finally, the haters demand that a disclaimer be posted at the dessert table: “Dessert does not exist! Sweetness can only be found in one’s heart”! And now, they have given you – Freedom from Choice.
Depending on which side one stands, a wall can protect valuables from thieves – or it can deny protection which need it.