Why the Religious Right wants to undo the 14th Amendment

Provisions of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution:

“The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.

Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons (individual and corporate) of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive rights and procedural rights.

Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause later became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States.

The amendment also includes a number of clauses dealing with the Confederacy and its officials.”

For further details, see here.

Most of the articles and blog posts written about the desire of the Tea Party, among others, to reverse the 14th Amendment have focused on the issue of race.  The common perspective is that since the Tea Party has exhibited or taken advantage of racist sentiments, the entire purpose of repealing this amendment is to empower the racists or to remove protections under the law for minorities of all kinds.

Consider an alternative interpretation, or rather an interpretation that adds to this:

The 14th Amendment provided that the Bill of Rights did not apply alone to the Federal government, that the rights entailed in the Bill of Rights could not be taken away locally by the various states (the Citizenship and Due Process clauses).

Remember that the 1st Amendment (the first Right) includes provisions for protecting citizens from religious tyranny – the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses in particular, as well as free speech.

So we should consider the possibility that the attack on the 14th Amendment may not be solely a maneuver to reinstate racism as an allowed practice.  It may also be an attempt to undermine the wall of separation between government and religion as part of a movement to establish a dominionist theocracy.  Since this possibility has not received any attention, so far as I can tell, I cannot help but wonder if this is the real intent of those who would repeal the 14th Amendment.  Re-establishing racism will only benefit a few, but allowing states to return to the original practice of establishing and supporting churches within the states -  that would create trouble for all.