Such moral anarchists talk much about the separation of church and state. For them it means freedom from religion, and the enforced silence of Christians on all matters of law and morality. (See Frank Brady on the Playboy position in Hefner, p. 219f, 1974.) Such people want to abolish religious freedom in favor of religious toleration. Toleration was the position of ancient Rome: a religion was tolerated if it submitted to licensure, regulation, taxation, controls, and certification, and, with all this, was silent where Rome wanted religion to be silent.
My two cents
This quote isn’t reassuring as such, but it’s telling. Back as a teenager, I was naive enough to think that the slogan of separation of church and state was a simple separation, and little else.
Now that I’m older, I can see how the corollary to that is the state slowly and steadily regulating the church by default. If I’m not mistaken, Obama et al are bent on taking society back to the 50s. No, not the 1950s, but the 50s (50-59 AD) when the Roman Empire set the tone for the earliest Christians.
If the church were a bird, it would be a battery hen that is trapped in a cage, and forced to lay eggs and having its beak, claws or wings clipped.
So yes, there is a separation between the hen and the farmer. But more to the point, the farmer controls virtually everything about the hen. Of course, the hen has freedom—freedom to exist, and freedom maybe to cluck. But at the end of the day, the farmer hated hearing that and slammed the hatchery door shut. How soon until the hen is sent to the slaughterhouse?
Not yet—it’s still laying eggs. Such is freedom when there’s wall of separation between hen and farmer.
Rushdoony, R.J. (1981). The Attack Against the Family. Available: http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/the-attack-against-the-family/. Last accessed 15th Jul 2013.