David Limbaugh gets it wrong at WingNutDaily

Just a few months ago, a California court flagrantly interposed itself in the private, internal affairs of a Lutheran church in Fresno. The conflict began when certain members of the Free Evangelical Lutheran Cross Church there stopped attending church services because they didn't appreciate what the pastor was preaching.

The church elders decided they would revoke the memberships of the absent congregants but would first give them an opportunity to be heard at a formal meeting. Instead of appearing at the hearing, the members filed suit against the church, contesting its right to terminate their memberships.

The court, appallingly, ruled in favor of the members and against the church, basically saying that the church doesn't have the right to enforce its own rules of discipline. (Somehow I doubt the case is as simple as is implied here...and it isn't, more below).

Oh, so now the bonk job suddenly becomes a proponent of the separation of church and state. Apparently, it doesn't matter how often one proposes the hypothetical state religion scenario with, for example, Islam as the official religion, the bonk jobs don't seem to get it. It's not until the government starts to "interfere" with the church that the close-minded open their minds to the genius that is the separation of church and state. Jefferson knew what he was doing; knew that it was a two way street. Separation protects both the state and the church.

They ("secularists") contend that unless we adhere to this principle (of church/state separation), we will forfeit our religious liberties and our pluralistic society will fall prey to religious totalitarians. But the California court's decision betrays both religious freedom and the separation of church and state. Yet we hear not a peep from the secularists about this decision.

I'd bet that if you ask most separationists, they'd agree that the state has no business meddling in the affairs of the church. But the reason there is no outcry from the secular society on this one is likely because they (we) feel it's about time the bonk jobs had a taste of their own medicine. They want this to be a Christian nation. They want the state to behave according to their religious views. Then the state gets to meddle in the affairs of the church. This is what happens when church and state are mixed.

But let's look at how they apply the principle in practice. In public schools, for example, they tell students they can't pray even on their own time and in a nondisruptive manner, such as when a kindergarten teacher prohibited two kindergarten students from praying at the snack table.

No we don't. That would be a violation of religious freedom. Also, I couldn't find any record of this ever happening. I did find record of a teacher stopping a student from passing out jelly beans with prayers attached to them, but that's quite different from disallowing a quiet, on-your-own-time prayer.

Similarly, school officials have enjoined more than one high-school senior from discussing his or her Christ-centered life in a valedictory speech to the student body.

This is an example of a state sanctioned activity and how the student used it to proselytize to a captive audience. Obviously a violation.

In these examples, and countless others, the school administration tells students that they can't freely exercise or express their religion because to do so would be tantamount to the school endorsing the religion. But if that's true, then it's also true that the federal and state governments are endorsing the content of this column by "permitting" me the freedom to express myself in writing.

Nope. The First Amendment guarantees the right to express these views. And they are not given the appearance of federal or state endorsement because 1) we are not a captive audience; web surfers are free to read or not to read, and 2) the views expressed aren't being posted on a government website, or in a public school, or on a courthouse wall, etc.

You can see how absurd that is...

Yes, we can see how absurd an understanding of the First Amendment you have.

Follow-ups:

The case of the Lutheran church that is being forced to reinstate its disgruntled congregants: Limbaugh neglected to point out that the church isn't owned by ecclesiastical order or a denomination, but by its members who stood to lose property rights if they quietly walked away. It turns out the decision isn't as black and white as shown by Limbaugh, but blurs into a shade of gray in the civil court jurisdiction. Details, details, and more details