wretchard at the Belmont Club has posted an interesting article about the link between beliefs, God and the War on Terror.

Yet before anyone reserves a bottle of champagne against the day, British historian Karen Armstrong warns that we may have been fighting for the wrong side or at least for a cause we never fully understood. In their own perverted way, Armstrong argues, the Al Qaeda have been fighting to assert the existence of God in world that has forgotten Him.

While having weighed in on the topic (Reminder to import previous blog), I feel there are some issues which our founding fathers faced in discussing a land of liberty where freedom of religion reigns.

In fact, the very issue of religion is covered in the very first Amendment to the Constitution. It is the same amendment which grants freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Some call this "separation of church and state", but it is clear from this wording that it was not the intent. By using law to separate religion from public life, we have created a reality where faith has no basis is public life.

Wallis states:

Religion is not as undemocratic as the secular fundamentalists want to make it out to be. But fundamentalists need to learn that bringing faith into public life doesn't happen by the takeover of the mechanisms of the state. They have to learn the dynamics and disciplines of prophetic religion.

I think prophetic faith is, finally, the best counterpoint to fundamentalist religion. You bring your faith into the public square in a way that says your political conviction is because of your faith. But to win, you have to win a democratic argument about why the policies you propose are better for the common good. That's the discipline religion has to be under when it brings its faith to the public square. Some fundamentalists haven't learned that yet. But they shouldn't be told to be quiet or to take over. They should be told to win in a democratic arena by offering their faith as their deepest conviction.

But this idea is garbage. To make the assumption about faith, that faith must prove itself to be in the public square, assumes that the religion of "no religion" is better than all others.

It must be stated that beliefs in a god, are not the issue. The fact that judges have bench legislated a public square without a god, is the issue.

Currently, traditional faith is not allowed in schools, courts, politics, public speech, or the work place. While the Inquisition was a shame for Christianity, the new Inquisition where people will be punished for exercising their constitutional rights, is somehow accepted.

When will we realize that a lack of religion is as much a religion itself as traditional religions? Why can’t we allow people to just be free?

A secular liberal does not need to take affront at my display or discussion of religion, just as much as I should not take affront to their choice to ignore the spiritual. How can one having a lack of faith have more rights than one having faith?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

NO LAW! It does not state that there is a separation, it is a restriction on government to stay OUT of our faiths. The major problem is that it has, and continues to do so with activist judges.

The problem with the Constitution here is that it should state Government to make it very clear.

We are to restrain government, not religion and not people of faith. We especially need to protect those whose faith is “no faith”, but not to the restraint of all other people’s rights.

The problem in society we face today is a violation of Islam. The religious beliefs of Islam have been violated by our government. However, they should not attack us with violence because we authorized the government to fight back to protect us. It is the right thing to do, to authorize a war against those who seek to destroy us.

While we have our issues in this experiment of government, we do not deserve this violence. Violence that occurs because of one’s beliefs is no way to force a change. Just because I believe in God, and pray to him in public, so that others hear, does not mean that I should loose thousands of dollars and time. This too is violence that is perpetrated upon the believer.

Because faith has been removed from the public square, Islam and others feel there is no other recourse. Faith MUST be in the public square as ugly as it might become. We must give faith a chance in the public square to be a part of it.

I remember when my kids were learning to walk, we did not restrict them from standing, we incurrage it. Did that mean that there were no tears, or does it mean we didn't have to take a trip to the doctor to sew something up? No, the pain that was endured by both the parents and the children was well worth the freedom that came from their first steps.

In the same way, we need to place faith in that same position. We must encourage each faith to stand in the public square. We must endure a few bumps, bruises and pain. We must make each one accountable for their actions apart from their religion. But in the end, faiths will not fall, they will be strengthened as we will be.