Posted on 6/28/2002, 1:13:07 PM by Stand Watch Listen
What, you didn´t expect this? That a U.S. federal appeals court would rule that the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States is unconstitutional because it contains the phrase ‘under G-d´…? Then just where have you been for the past thirty years?
I wanted to call this essay ‘Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain, ´ because of all the misdirection and duplicity that has been on display since the 9th Court of Appeals made their ruling on Wednesday. That same afternoon, members of our Senate stood on the Capitol steps and bravely recited the Pledge. It´s enough to make you tear up, isn´t it? Or throw up!
For this is the same Senate that recently voted to deprive us of First Amendment rights of free speech concerning elections.
The same Senate that allows Leahy and Daschle to ignore their Constitutional responsibilities for confirming the president´s judicial nominees.
And when finally forced to at least give a hearing, they demonize and slander good men, not based on judicial temperament or qualifications or personal character and integrity, which should be their only criteria, but based on whether they´re sufficiently ‘liberal´ in their rulings. It is that criterium that has resulted in the type of judges who rule that prayer in public schools is unconstitutional. Or that there is a ‘right to privacy´ in the Constitution--that generations of jurists somehow overlooked until 1972—that guarantees a woman´s right to kill her unborn child. And now to rule that the Pledge is unconstitutional.
This ruling is simply the logical conclusion of increasingly brazen ‘liberals,´ who are actually thinly disguised socialists intent on removing G-d from all areas of public debate and deliberation. Why would they be interested in doing that, you ask? Because the man-centered humanist philosophy of socialists insists that man is basically good and that he can create a perfect society. But the Bible, the Word of G-d, says just the opposite, and what observation confirms: that man is inherently evil and will ultimately choose evil, necessitating the rule of law that applies equally to all.
Belief in G-d, then, stands in the way of the ‘liberal´ view that some are wiser and more capable of leadership, and that it is they who should, by rights, be in charge. Oh, you won´t hear them say it that way, but just as Lenin´s ‘vanguard of the proletariat´ was peopled by the elite among the rebels, the ‘liberals´ see themselves as the only ones knowledgeable enough, sensitive to the needs of others and caring enough, to be the makers of law and policy…for the good of us all, of course. So G-d has to be removed from the public sphere, and ultimately from our private consciousness, to make way for this ‘new´ god, man.
But it´s the oldest ‘god´ in the world. Adam chose himself over G-d, even though he was told the result would be death—spiritual death, separation from the G-d Who created and sustained him. ‘Liberals´ are still making that same choice, man rather than G-d. Oh, they pretty it up with all sorts of rhetoric, and proudly boast of their church affiliations, even as they pass legislation to destroy the principles of G-d upon which this nation was founded.
It began with this nefarious notion of ‘separation of church and state,´ with which we have been indoctrinated these past several decades. That´s the first step, you see; if G-d can be removed from all deliberation and consideration in the making of law and public policy, then ‘liberals´ are free to substitute their own man-centered philosophies, and thus further their agenda of creating the perfect society. You would think the history of the 20th century, where as many as 200 million people died under the heel of such idealism, would be enough to convince ‘liberals´ that their dream is lethal, but such is the arrogance of the new Gnostics, who know better than the common man, who will take care of us better than we do ourselves, if they can only get the power to do so. And we´ve been letting them acquire that power.
But there is not one word in the U.S. Constitution about the separation of church and state. Surprised? Don´t take my word for it; go back to the Front Page of Toogood Reports, scroll down to the bottom of the center column, click on ‘U.S. Constitution,´ and read it yourself. It is not a long document (unlike the voluminous, indecipherable claptrap today´s politicians use to disguise their self-serving and often traitorous legislation). Stalin once said that if you tell a big lie, and tell it often enough, people will eventually believe it. Works, doesn´t it?
The phrase ‘separation of church and state´ came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in response to the Danbury Baptists. That letter complained to then-President Jefferson that their freedom of religion was being infringed by legislation, and ‘…therefore what religious privileges we enjoy …we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights …these favors …are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. ´
In his response, Jefferson wrote, ‘…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties .´ In other words, Jefferson agrees with the Danbury Baptists that expressions of religious belief and worship—which would reasonably include the acknowledgement of the Object of that worship in the public sphere—are ‘natural rights,´ those inalienable rights of which he wrote in the Declaration. And he is explicit that such naturals rights are not in opposition to his social (i.e., civic) duties!
The Founding Fathers did not want a national church like the Church of England, which got involved politically and wielded inordinate power; that is the meaning of ‘separation of church and state.´ But writings by the Founders show that they would have been appalled and outraged at the idea that the Constitution—which they wrote, after all—called for or supported the removal of G-d from the public arena! (See accompanying article, ‘The Founding Fathers on G-d and Religion´.)
The phrase ‘separation of church and state´ has been used repeatedly to justify the removal of G-d from the public arena. It was used either in willful ignorance, for Jefferson´s writings are widely accessible, or in deliberate deceit for the furtherance of an agenda to which Jefferson himself would strenuously object.
People used to build houses of straw and sticks, but they offered scant protection from the elements, and storms would destroy them. Some would build with mud bricks, but rain or extended drought would destroy them. Others built with logs, and later with lumber, but fire and flood destroyed them. Finally, men built homes with stone or brick, upon a foundation of concrete and held together by mortar. These homes stood through storms, flood and fire, and served as a strong and safe shelter from the elements, and even as a fortress against hostile men.
Similarly, the United States was built on the solid foundation of the principles of G-d, and has been held together, brick and stone, by the common acknowledgment of His sovereignty. Through all sorts of storms—war, famine, depression, massive immigration, etc.—the nation has stood firm and sound. But in the past three decades, there have been those who would remove the mortar from the bricks, who would demolish the foundation upon which this nation rests. The first step was the banishment of G-d from schools under the false justification of ‘separation of church and state.´ The ‘liberals´ have now become so brazen as to declare the Pledge of Allegiance to this nation unconstitutional, because it dares mention the G-d Who has been the source of our blessings.
We should not be surprised, for the removal of G-d from American life has always been the underlying goal of the ‘liberal´ agenda. Thirty years of unhindered chipping away at that foundation has emboldened the ‘liberals´ to dare this latest assault. To the American people, I give this solemn warning: Accept this outrage like you have so many others, allow this to stand without swift and sure rebuttal…and you will live to see this nation crumble around you, like a house of bricks without mortar, without foundation. And if you leave it to your Senators and Congressmen, whose hypocrisy knows no bounds, that is the fate you choose for our nation.
Thanks for posting this excellent article.
On the other hand, they despise founding father John Adams who wrote, "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly unsuited to any other." And by "religious" Adams meant not Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism, but religion according to the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Adams prophesied that when the people no longer felt themsleves restrained by morality and religion, the Constitution would be torn asunder by their godless indulgences and vices leaving them subject to anarchy or tyranny.
That Adams was right has been proven over and over again. Over the past 100 years, as atheism and humanism have muscled into the public square and driven religion out, the Consitution has been steadily weakened and the federal state has gained enormous power. This is no mere coincidence. It is a necessary consequence flowing from the action.
The pre-1954 pledge was flawed because it did not include God in its recitation. Atheist libertarians smirk and suggest the pre-1954 pledge was penned by a "socialist." This, they believe, makes the entire pledge an obscene statist ploy.
Actually, the pre-1954 pledge was born during the initial burst of humanism and atheism. Eisenhower and Congress rescued it, and gave it a soul by adding the words "under God" to it. To the chagrin of atheists and humanists Eisenhower and Congress turned a sow's ear into a silk purse.
Now the atheists are demanding that the pledge be turned back into a sow's ear. Because the character of American culture and society has become much more humanist and godless, a Godless-pledge (or, ideally, no pledge at all) will favor the destructive purposes of our enemies to an unprecedented degree. If the swing is away from the social-statism, it will be toward anomie and anarchy--which is just substituting one evil for another.
Returning to John Adam's prescient observations, there is simply no way to preserve the Republic under the Constitution as designed as long as immorality or amorality and anti-religion are ascendant.
Yours isn't even the whole quote. I used that part of it (and actually as a paraphrase because I was quoting from memory) necesary to make the point. The entire quote more fully proves the point--it doesn't weaken it.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Well as a Conservative Southern Christian, I would tend to agree with them. Watching FOX last night, John Lofton basically said the same thing. That this nation is divisible, as evidenced by the state lines, and that it was more an example of civic religion than anything.
That being said, I would rather pledge to the Constitution and the Declaration. Blind loyalty to a symbol without the knowledge of what that symbol actually stands for is almost as bad as not saying the pledge at all. Flame away
The flag represents the 13 original colonies and the GOOD PEOPLE of the 50 current states. Perhaps you should take it up with them.
Members of the military, judges and public office holders, however, DO swear to protect uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic. Many of them (except the military) fail miserably and in fact routinely trample on it.
If anyone deserves a good beating here it is certain judges and the average member of Congress.
LET'S ROLL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.