This is one of those things that I think should be rather self-explanatory. But since it apparently isn’t, let me offer a clarification.

The phrase itself is paraphrased from a letter from Thomas Jefferson, referring to the First Amendment of the US Constitution. (If you’ve never read it, you probably should. Your rights are likely being infringed upon.) The First Amendment, Article VI reads:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.“

— The Constitution of the United States of America, 1787

So, the important part is the “no religious rest” bit. It means that no one being sworn into office can be compelled to swear to a particular religion (read: Christianity). Most of the time, Congress and like governmental bodies add the “so help me God” to the end of oaths, but the person being sworn-in is in no way obligated to repeat.

The phrase “separation of church and state” is not actually included in our Constitution. What is included is the right to religious freedom. The right to choose one’s own faith (or lack thereof) is explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Amendment one 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 Bill of Rights, 1789

It’s the very first thing mentioned. And it states pretty clearly that Congress will not favor a particular religion or prevent any of its citizens from practicing the religion of their choice.

So why am I all in a tizzy about something so basic? Human rights, people!

I got into a debate discussion the other day with a family member (I won’t say who, because I live in a small town and shit gets around) about abortion. And whether life begins at conception and whether the life and rights of the mother are less valid that those of an unborn child.

Hint: they’re not.

And I had another discussion just this afternoon with a friend who genuinely wanted to know why its “so important for gay people to have their parades. Why do you need a parade to celebrate the fact that you sleep with men or women or whatever?” Now, in this friend’s defense, while this question sounds a little ignorant and insensitive, you can’t know anything until someone teaches you. So I taught her.

I told her that it’s not about celebrating a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. It’s about celebrating the progress we’ve already made as a society and letting bigoted people know that LGBTQ+ people are not going to hide any longer. It’s about basic human rights and the right to live as one truly is without fear or shame. And then I quoted Audre Lorde and felt incredibly woke.

The reason I bring up these two discussions in regard to this little lesson on the separation of church and state is that I firmly believe that both abortion and gay rights (along with several other issues, but let’s not get into that) are matters for the First Amendment. Pro-Lifers are largely Christians who argue that abortion is murder and that the life and soul of an unborn child is sacred.

That’s fine — believe what you want — but to make a law based on your Christian ideology is a violation of the First Amendment. Its imposing Christian beliefs and practices on other citizens who may not believe that life begins at conception, or who simply adhere to a different faith. That being said, I’m sure there are Pro-Lifers from every major and minor religion, but there’s no denying that Christianity is the largest Pro-Life camp.

The same goes for LGBTQ+ rights. I know there are opponents to gay rights from most religions, but again, we’ll focus on Christianity. But all this holds true for Muslims or Jewish people: making a law based on your religious beliefs is a direct violation of the Constitution. End of statement.

So whether you believe that homosexuality is a sin or a choice or an abomination or a really fun way to spend your evenings, attempting to stifle someone’s rights based on your religion is already illegal. So stop doing it.

I was raised Southern Baptist — a group which does not exactly have a great reputation for “open-mindedness” — and I own a Bible and, in fact, have read the entire thing twice through. Because I am an English major and I can’t resist a good book analysis. And I attend church semi-regularly and am incredibly involved with my church’s missions and activities (shout out to Wright’s Chapel for being the kind of place I can’t wait to bring my kids). All that is to say, I’m not some heathen.

I won’t go into a whole dissertation about what the Bible actually says and doesn’t say about homosexuality. But I do have a recommendation for a brief article here. The most important thing to remember about the Bible is that God’s giant holy hand did not come down from the sky and write these things out. Nor did a complete, edited, leather-bound book just come dropping down from Heaven. The Bible was written by men. By human men. And then it was later edited down by a Church(TM) which was trying to take over the world and destroy other religions. Keep all that in mind.

Actually, the most important thing is not that the Bible was written by men (because so was the Constitution), but that it is a specific religious text and therefor not a legally-allowed basis for any law.

And just for a bit about abortion and the Bible: nothing. The word does not exist. But you know the expression “an eye for an eye”? That is explicit. In Exodus 21:22-25, Moses recounts as a matter of law:

“If men fight and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

— Exodus 21:22-25, NKJV Study Bible

Harming an unborn child is subject to reprimand — the harm or death of the woman carrying the child is punishable itself by death. I’m willing to bet that most people who use the expression “an eye for an eye” were never taught the rest of this passage. It’d be pretty devastating for the Pro-Life camp if people actually remembered the entire passage.

I’ll get deeper into the issue of abortion at a later date, but I wanted to get these facts out there. Now, go and spice up your dinner conversation with your Right-Wing family!