Skip to main content

Keeping Religion Personal and Government Limited

By Matthew Hayward

Louisiana's new mandate requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every classroom represents a significant overreach by the state into the lives and beliefs of its citizens. While the Ten Commandments hold substantial religious and historical value, imposing them on public educational institutions infringes upon individual liberties and violates the core principles of a free society.

Can religious beliefs really stay out of government? This question becomes increasingly pertinent as we witness attempts to blur the lines between personal faith and state policy. Louisiana's legislation is a stark reminder of why the separation of church and state is essential. Libertarianism fundamentally champions individual freedom, personal responsibility, and minimal government intervention. When the government dictates religious expression, it undermines these principles and sets a dangerous precedent for further encroachments on personal freedoms.

The essence of liberty lies in allowing individuals to make their own choices, including those related to faith and belief systems. By mandating religious displays in public schools, the state effectively imposes specific religious beliefs on students, parents, and educators, regardless of their convictions. This coercive approach is antithetical to the libertarian ideal of voluntary association and individual choice.

Moreover, this mandate disregards the diversity of beliefs that exist within our society. America thrives on its pluralism, where people of various religious, spiritual, and secular backgrounds coexist. Forcing a particular religious doctrine into public institutions alienates those who do not share these beliefs and diminishes the rich tapestry of cultural and religious diversity that defines our nation.

From a constitutional standpoint, the First Amendment explicitly prohibits the government from establishing religion. This mandate clearly violates this principle by endorsing a specific religious viewpoint. Upholding the Constitution is paramount in preserving the freedoms that our country was founded upon, and any legislation that undermines these protections should be rigorously opposed. As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to rule on this issue, the nation watches to see whether it will side with the ACLU's defense of individual rights or the state's assertion of religious mandate. It is my belief that the so-called conservative court will almost assuredly side with the ACLU, proving that the liberal radicals' worst fears about the court are simply wrong. If I am wrong, I will be out in front protesting the decision. 

Is Louisiana on the right path? History has shown us the dangers of intertwining government with religious mandates. Similar laws in the past have faced legal challenges, with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling such mandates unconstitutional due to their lack of secular purpose and clear religious intent. This legal precedent underpins the current debate and highlights the importance of maintaining a clear boundary between church and state.

As libertarians, we must consistently advocate for protecting individual rights and freedoms, regardless of popular sentiment or political climate. This includes opposing any government action that seeks to impose religious beliefs or practices on its citizens. The government's role should be to protect our freedoms, not to dictate how we express our personal faith.

While the Ten Commandments may be meaningful to many, they belong in the hearts and homes of individuals, not mandated by the state in public classrooms. Let us stand firm in defending the principles of liberty and ensure that our educational institutions remain places of learning and free thought, unencumbered by government-imposed religious doctrine. This stance extends to all forms of ideological imposition, whether from the right or the left. Our children should be free from all forms of agenda-driven mandates.

Sources:




Comments

  1. Misinterpreting Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists has opened the door to the introduction of every 'religion' into our schools and government offices EXCEPT the basis of our rule of law and Western civilization. In a perfect, utopian, world every citizen would exercise individual freedom AND personal responsibility. We would then need no societal boundaries in the form of law. But we don't live in a perfect world and we now have competing religions vying for power through our children. If you think earth worship, abortion, and sharia aren't faith-based doctrines, think again. Do not confuse freedom of religion with freedom from religion. Teaching the history of our foundational principles, and where they originated is not teaching religion, unlike teaching elementary students to worship Gaia on Earth Day, or kindergartners they can change sex, or middle schoolers how to practice 'safe sex' or high schoolers how to wear a hijab or recite Shahada. All of these faith-based actions are part of our school curricula now. We have appointed and elected judges deciding law based on their Muslim faith and adherence to Sharia. Our schools are indoctrinating good little activists into all these various RELIGIONS. This is the practical result of a utopian worldview of governance combined with a lack of honesty in teaching history and civics. I just don't think this was the desired result of the Framers.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Could Today Be the Cheapest Price for Bitcoin Ever Again? Here’s Why

By: Matthew Hayward Current price  Nov 10, 2024 76.72K 80.43K Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin? Bitcoin has come a long way since its early days as a niche digital asset. Today, as we enter another phase in its established four-year cycle , Bitcoin may be at a historic high, but it could soon become the new baseline price. This cycle, which has repeatedly shown Bitcoin’s resilience and long-term growth potential, suggests that the current price might be the lowest we’ll see again. While recent political shifts, including Donald Trump’s landslide election victory, have added new momentum and support for Bitcoin, the timing within the cycle itself makes this an ideal moment to consider buying. A Political Shift: From Anti-Crypto to Pro-Crypto For years, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have faced an uphill battle against a U.S. government determined to restrict and control their growth. This opposition was largely led by Gary Gensler, who waged an outright war against crypto from hi...

When Government Demands Papers We Refuse

 By Matthew Hayward  9/19/2025  The Supreme Court just paused a lower court order that had limited federal immigration stops in Los Angeles. That stay lets federal agents resume roving patrols and interior operations that critics say rely on appearance, language, job, or neighborhood to pick people for questioning.  This matters because it normalizes a posture of suspicion. Checkpoints miles inland and roving patrols turn movement inside the country into a condition to be earned rather than a freedom to be enjoyed. The government already claims expanded authority inside the 100-mile border zone. That claim, plus an open green light for stops based on appearance, is a recipe for arbitrary enforcement.  Philosophy of resistance John Locke told us that the consent of the governed is the foundation of legitimate power. When rulers invade life, liberty, or property, or when they become arbitrary disposers of people’s lives and fortunes, the social compact is dissolve...

The National Guard Was Never Meant to Be a Federal Tool

By Matthew Hayward 7/13/2025 Let me say this clearly: the National Guard was created to defend the states, not to enforce the will of the federal government. It was meant to serve as a local militia—an armed extension of the people under the control of the state. The highest authority a Guard member was ever supposed to answer to is their elected governor, not a bureaucrat in Washington, not a federal agency, and certainly not a sitting president weaponizing military force on domestic soil. Yes, I know the laws have changed. I know the Montgomery Amendment, the National Defense Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in Perpich v. DoD rewrote the rules. But legal doesn’t mean constitutional. Gradualism doesn’t legitimize usurpation. You don’t get to trample foundational principles and call it progress. What’s happening now—federalizing state forces to deploy them in cities without gubernatorial consent—is blasphemous. It's an insult to the very spirit of the Constitution. The ...