Thom Hartmann ("progressive" radio talk show host) argues that we are not a Christian Nation, and that the Founders would not have supported Judge Roy Moore's placing of a 10 Commandments monument in a government building. http://www.opednews.com/hartmann1103_Moore.htm
The Founders Confront Judge Moore
by Thom Hartmann
Judge Moore, the "Ten
Commandments Judge" in
Hartman claims that The Founders clearly divided power into four categories: military, religious, wealth/corporate, and political. The interaction of these types of power produced the three historic types of tyranny - warlord kings; theocratic popes; and wealthy feudal lords or monopolistic corporations like the East India Company.
Every past tyrannical
government in the history of civilization, our Founders realized, had
oppressed its citizens because it had combined political power with one or
more of the other three categories.
This, they believed, was the fatal flaw of past forms of
governance, and they were determined to isolate political power from each
and all of the other three to prevent
Thus, political power would only be held by "We the People," and never again shared with military, corporate, or religious agencies.
Hartman’s basic thesis is in error. The issues of government combining with military, corporation/wealth and religion, were not the primary forces the Founders considered in framing the Constitution and our form of Government.
Rather, the Founders realized that every past tyrannical government in the history of civilization had oppressed its citizens because kings had consolidated within themselves a control over property rights, religion, military might, taxation, national banking and minting. With this power consolidation complete, the citizens were powerless before the all powerful tyrant.
From the time of the Magna Carta, the citizens declared that the king received the power to govern from the governed peoples themselves. British Common Law was thus modified by the Magna Carta, and continued to develop under the Christian influence of the Protestant Reformation. This gave rise to new forms of Church government based on democratic control by the adherents of a faith.
This movement began to
influence national politics world wide, but especially in
The “early comers” to
The Proper Inclusion of Religion in Government:
by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
Summary of the points made by Thom Hartman:
Hartmann believes the Founders crafted elements of the Constitution based on a concern that government would slide toward tyranny if allowed to combine with the military, corporate/wealth, or religious power centers. He cites the authority to declare war being given to Congress, instead of the President, as an example of this commitment to separate the power centers.
His thesis is weakly supported with regard to the power center of the corporation, since this entity is not included within any of the founding documents. However, they do consider the issue of appropriations and tariffs. So, in a peripheral way the Founders address the issue of wealth.
Hartmann mentions the Founders' concern for
the formation of a tyranny by corporate and military influence on
government. But, those issues are peripheral to Hartmann's real
issue. He uses
the Founders' purported concern about tyranny to justify his
hypothesis that they placed strong Constitutional injunctions
against religion influencing government. Hartmann believes
the Founders intended to create a Secular Democracy and intended
to prevent any involvement of religion (Christianity) in
the government. Hartmann validates this opinion by giving
examples of Founders who were not believed to be Christians and did not
intend to form a Christian nation. And in this effort he quotes
Just before the election of 1800, to his physician friend, Benjamin Rush:
"The delusion ...on the clause of the Constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists.
"The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, and they [the preachers] believe that any portion of power confided to me [such as his being elected President], will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough too in their opinion."
Hartmann then extended his thesis of the Founders' desire to strongly separate religion and government to imply that the Founders intended to prevent all expressions of religious symbol or speech in government buildings and government funded functions. Therefore, using these assumptions of the Founders' intent he concludes that the Founders would condemn Judge Roy Moore's placement of the 10 Commandments in the Georgia State Supreme Court Rotunda. In effect, Hartmann believes this principle of separating powers justifies the recent judicial activism to ban all influence or expression of religion in courthouses, schools, and other public places.
Hartmann appears oblivious to the adornments on the
edifices of Government in
Hartmann's declaration that the Founders held a strong concern about power center separation is interesting, and it may be true, but it cannot be well validated by the founding documents. Nevertheless, the concept of “power center separation” has the appearance of an important concept to consider in the framing of a nation’s constitution and bears further examination. For this purpose the following essay has been written, “to see if the potential for religious tyranny would be seriously threatened by a national acknowledgment of Christianity as the moral foundation of our culture?”
Commentary on Separating Religion and Government to Prevent the Tyranny of a Theocracy
The prevention of a theocratic tyranny is important for the preservation of freedom. But, it appears that the actual agenda of the anti-Christian forces represented by the ACLU, elite intellectuals, and media personalities such as Thom Hartmann, is to completely remove the influence of Christianity from our culture. Their expressed goals are removing corruption, fraud, waste, discrimination, and other evils perpetrated on the populace by institutions, corporations, and government. But, the pattern of initiatives they pursue paints the picture of a different purpose. They write vitriolic and outraged characterizations of violations. They accuse of wrongdoing that stir visceral repulsion of the Christian Right. But, upon examination of the vilified persons and the circumstances surrounding their actions, we find the alleged crimes are actually stands for righteousness. The Left simply labels and condemns Christians who take an opposing stand on issues such as abortion and women’s rights, homosexuality and discrimination, public display of Christian symbols or speech and Separation of Church and State. They libel and slander their opponents with words connoting evil, malfeasance, selfishness, shallowness, or other low character traits to tarnish the Christian stand for righteousness.
Thom Hartmann has taken aim at Roy Moore and
impugned his Christianity for placing a “graven image” of
the 10 Commandments in the rotunda of the Georgia Supreme Court.
Hartmann's condemnation of
But, Hartmann is committed to disconnect
The [First Amendment] clause speaks of "an
establishment of religion." What is meant by that expression?
It referred, without doubt,
to that establishment which existed in the mother-country... endowment at
the public expense, peculiar privileges to its members, or disadvantages
or penalties upon those who should reject its doctrines or belong to other
communions – such law would be a "law respecting an establishment of
religion..." They intended,
by this amendment, to prohibit "an establishment of religion" such as the
But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people... They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistic apathy. Not so had the battles of the Revolution been fought and the deliberations of the Revolutionary Congress been conducted.
We are a Christian people... not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay due regard to Christianity.
What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed, defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances, which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the non-conformist. There never was as established religion without all these...
Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain religion in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should be upheld by a free people. Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle.
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. The object was not to substitute Judaism or Mohammedanism, or infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among the [Christian] sects to the exclusion of others.
It [Christianity] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment – without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.
In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity: that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. There is a great and very prevalent error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized this Government did not legislate on religion.
The great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Hartmann's quotes of the Founders may have been accurate, and if these men had said nothing positive about the issues of Christianity and the involvement of government and religion, then his thesis may have been plausible. But, upon examination of other quotes by the Founders (these same men and others), we could come to an opposite conclusion. Please note the Founders quotes as collected by Federer; see www.doctorsenator.com/Founders.html.
“Religion is the basis and foundation of government… We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
We shall leave the examination, comparison, and conclusion about the meaning of these quotes to the reader. Compare the two sources for validity and intent. At the very best Hartmann’s quotes simply match one for one with quotes which support an exactly opposite conclusion. But in my opinion, the scale swings heavily in favor of the intent of the Founders’ to include Christianity as the implicit backbone of the American legislative system, just as the Congressional Judiciary committees concluded in 1853 and 1854.
But having stated my belief and bias about the intent of the Founders, we shift our attention to a consideration of the philosophical motivation behind the Founders’ First Amendment prohibition of Congress establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Please note: they did not prohibit or authorize any other interaction between religion and the Federal or State governments. Thus, the Constitution is silent on the issue of school prayer, public funding of faith based initiatives, tax exemptions for churches, prayer at football games, and religious texts and slogans on public monuments. The nation began as a democracy with a largely Christian population; therefore as a majority they had the right to vote to establish laws that support Christianity in the public domain. As Christians, we are to treat others as we would be treated. Thus, in the realm of public behavior, we must consider the proper relationship between majority and minority. In a democracy we have the right to implement laws that do not offend God's Law. And given that most law reflects the majority's opinion about God's law, the minority does not have a right to impose their concept on the majority. The minority must simply wait and lobby the nation, state, or community to implement the principles of moral judgment they believe are Godly. Thus, if a majority of citizens wish to include Christian symbols or speech in government, no court should prevent the majority from expressing their corporate will.
A Constitutional Democracy explicitly allows and disallows some legislation in its founding documents; it is up to the courts and legislature to extrapolate the implicitly allowed and disallowed legislation. A moral foundation common to the Founders is required to make a proper judgment in the areas only implied by the Constitution. Thus, moral judgment must be intimately incorporated into the legislative environment since all situations and moral considerations cannot be included in a framework document. But, the Founders were clear that the framework of the Constitution rested on American societal adherence to Christian Biblical Principles and Judeo-Christian moral judgments.
The specific implementations of various policies must be put in place by the legislature, and the judiciary will in turn check that legislation for its fidelity to the spirit of the Constitution. Obviously, such a legislative and judicial process depends upon a culture-wide acceptance of a moral system, and preferably one that reflects absolute Truth.
is presiding over an almost daily "Constitutional Convention."
If the Supreme Court has absolute sway over
the issue of the "Constitutionality" of everything, our nation has
been reduced to a slow-speed oligarchy, a rule by the 9 men
who shape the fabric of society without recourse by the
People. Such an oligarchical rule was entirely antithetical to the
Founders' intent. In fact,
But the Bible has been taken from the school because of a gradual shift toward public education and the Supreme Court's ruling against supporting Christian involvement in education. And, the liberal judiciary has argued that this removal of the Bible, prayer, and Christian symbols was the supposed intent of the Founders to ensure a "Separation of Church and State."
While there are valid considerations in regard to the establishment of a theocratic tyranny, it appears that most who proffer this concern do so with a pretense of sincerity. Their actual goal appears to be the advancement of their agenda to totally remove all Christian influence from government and the public sector. They use the specious principle of “A Wall of Separation between Church and State”, and falsely present it as though it were a Constitutional phrase and mandate.
Hartmann attempts to
give logical weight to this prohibition by emphasizing the concern about
the alliance of religion and the power of government. And, no doubt the Founders were
acutely aware of the potential for religious abuse at the time of the
American Revolution since we had just fought to free ourselves
from the theocratic monarchy of
But, religion cannot be separated totally from government, just as government cannot be isolated fully from the realm of the capitalistic and corporate involvement. Government naturally makes laws affecting the nation's wealth and business activity as they establish policies to collect taxes, award grants to fund research, loan money to struggling companies, invest in the financial markets to fund pension plans, regulate trade and tariff laws, create money, and legislate rules to regulate business activity. All of these activities are inherently disturbing to the economy; and, the greater the influence of government on business the closer we move toward the tyranny of the socialistic state.
In other words, Government must necessarily involve itself in significant transactions with the Military and the Corporate/Capitalistic/Wealth power centers. We can separate the money and military power centers to some degree from the direct authority of the power centers of Government. But, the interrelationships between the various aspects of society are intrinsically interconnected. Thus, when designing the Constitutional framework of the society, the Framers attempted to separate the power centers of military and commerce from government to some degree. But, that separation can only be partial because the functions of the military and commerce penetrate unavoidably into the domain of government.
Thus, given that we can enforce only partial isolation of the functions and power centers of commerce and military from government, we can by extension extrapolate that religion will likewise necessarily have a degree of involvement in government, as it has throughout recorded history, and it will influence on the people and institutions of government regardless of the level of intent to suppress its presence. Every legislator has his own opinions about God and moral probity, and he will support legislation reflecting that bias. Every citizen will likewise vote for representatives and initiatives that most closely reflect their spiritual bias or persuasion. But, given that goodness and Christianity have moral contenders in the socio-political-spiritual realm, we can be sure that these opponents will attempt to occupy and overtake the hearts and states owned by the God of Abraham. The method the enemies of Christianity have used to release the hold of God over our nation is through court orders that prevent the government supported acknowledgment of Christ, and remove public support for the education and enrollment of the succeeding generations in following and learning the Way of Christ.
We note that the desire to possess and expand influence over territory generates naturally inside every living organism. We see this territorial drive overtly in the reptilian brain, whose analogue resides in the medulla at the base of human brain. Therefore, as humans we feel this drive to maintain and expand our territory just as the lower animals. This drive is so inherent to life that even the more primitive single and multi-cellular organisms act as de facto invaders and occupiers by virtue of their reproductive rate and metabolic machinery. Thus, given the deep pressure to occupy and expand, we expect to see metaphorical evidence of this drive for power-spread in the group-mind of the governmental, commercial, military, and religious psyche.
This fact of group-life reflecting the nature of the individual warns us to remain vigilant to the potential abuses of power that could come from the expansion of any single power center into the domain of others. It was for this reason that the Framers attempted to erect a Constitutional-legal structure that established a mutually balancing relationship between the various social power centers. But, regulating subsystems inside a larger system is more complicated than simply establishing blocks to the flow of influence and control. Sub-systems will naturally communicate and control other systems, and this will in turn have an effect on the overall characteristics of the larger system. Thus, any change in the way that a system's subsystems interrelate will in effect produce a new system.
The Left has used this principle to change our society from a Christian nation to a Secular Humanist nation. They introduced the "Separation of Church and State” concept, and as a result the entire system of public education has shifted. We must remain vigilant against allowing further changes in the nation's moral foundation, and we must reverse those erosions by organizing, educating, and voting for change. Until we have reversed Everson v. Board of Education the rot will remain in our foundation, and it will continue to spread. That one rotten plank is so virulent that it could bring down the entire national structure.
A trivial examination of our social order reveals that no literal iron fist prevents the merger of government and military, commerce, or religion. We are restrained in our behavior only by our agreement to comply with the law. The violations of God’s Laws produce consequences, and the same must be established for man’s laws. Consequences are necessary to train our sense of boundaries. Thus, a necessary constituent of law is the requirement to establish a punishment of various sorts to supply feedback to those who would disrespect the boundaries of the established law.
As a Christian Nation, the laws we agree to impose and enforce upon ourselves arise from an underlying Truth that dictates the proper and right way to live life. This Truth is succinctly expressed in Biblical Scripture:
The Secular Humanist may declare that these rules of behavior are inherent to the nature of man, and merely follow from the fundamental principles of pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain. The Christian would frame this pleasure-pain concept as a reflection of the fact that the laws God has ordained for men to follow will produce pleasure when followed, and pain when violated. The payment for compliance or violation will follow inexorably and will be experienced in this world and/or the next.
One of the most important functions of religion is to properly direct individual and group actions to produce a long term good and pleasurable life experience. Inherent to religion are rules and beliefs that the adherent feels are beneficial to the individual and group. As a result, religion seeks to multiply and expand its influence to produce a more ideal, pleasurable, and good society. But, this desire to dominate the world by multiplying a particular belief structure is one of the driving forces that make religion a power center requiring restraint. The Left should realize that their actions were anticipated by God over 3000 years ago when he predicted their rebellion. He spoke through King David the Psalmist:
Those who oppose God should not be lulled into a false sense of hope and victory, God has had a plan in place for millennia to deal with those who love lies and seek to harm or destroy those who follow God’s will and ways.
The pleasurable emotions we experience when we feel
in control are common to all men.
Therefore we each bring that desire for personal and group control
to the various offices and departments of government, the social power
centers, and the interactions within business, home, and friendship. God implanted the thrill of power
and control in our hearts to enhance our ability to survive inside our
flesh man. But, we can abuse
control and elevate "control" to the level of addiction and idolatry
just like any of the other strong pleasure stimulants such as sex, drugs,
or rock and roll. The
religious man can lose perspective and lose his ability to connect with
the individual and empathize with his pain and life choices. The man who works to expand the
Thus, we see the drive for men to establish kingdoms and experience the thrill of executing power and control in all aspects of our group and private lives. And as wise people, we should protect against allowing any of the power centers from enlarging past their proper boundaries. In the case of the government-religious merger, we see the potential for creating a tyranny of action, thought, speech, and heart control. Religion, by its very nature, occupies the function of propagating and perpetuating a particular concept of God and His rules of relationship.
No group, or person, except Jesus, can claim a perfect vision into the Holy of Holies and know with certainty the Mind of God. Nevertheless, religion plays a valuable place in the life of the believer. It offers a place of fellowship with both God and man, the possibility of outreach to help the hungry and hurting, the opportunity to educate others in the Truth of His way, and a place to simply honor God and experience His presence.
An important consideration to remember is that religion and its moral valuations provide the basis for individual judgments and determinations of law. The propagation and maintenance of morality is the specific and purposeful center of religion. Every man has his own opinion about the proper relation between God, law, and behavior. But, these concepts will be inevitably included into the function of government and the concepts of Law.
Those who argue that the Founders were Deists, do so for the purpose of gaining authority for a governing philosophy of Secular Humanism. And, while Deism and Secular Humanism are not identical, Deism is a step away from the personal God against which the Secular Humanists rebel. The Deists would argue that God has wound up the universe and let it operate according to its embedded natural laws, and therefore that no direct, meaningful, or ongoing guidance is available from the Divine in the affairs of men. They assume that their lack of a current living relationship with God leaves man in charge of determining the Laws of the universe. Thus, they are free of oversight and responsibility as they enact legislation to govern man's affairs. The Deistic assumption leaves man free to judge himself, his fellow man, society, government, and the law without fear of recourse. It is then a short extrapolation from the theology of the Deist to the philosophy of the Secular Humanist who declares that man has within himself the knowledge of right and wrong and is therefore best able to govern himself with that inner wisdom. In fact, they believe that man should throw off the antiquated dogma of myth and superstitious power-based religion.
The Secular Humanist's worldview is strongly at odds with Christian theology which assumes the possibility of an actual intimate and communal relationship with a true and living God, and co-creating His Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. The Christian believes that when a nation allows and pursues a deeply penetrating relationship with God the result is true freedom personally, and nationally, since the internal leading allows us to minimize the legislative and judicial functions of such a nation. When every man judges himself, and listens to the guidance of the Holy Spirit within, he will function as an autonomous legislative assembly and judicial court convened within his heart. A well ordered society follows automatically when every man follows his own desire and commitment to follow the highest consideration of loving God, neighbor, and self.
Judge Thomas Jefferson’s words for yourself. Are these the words of a Deist?
Remember that all well intentioned walks through life are not morally equivalent. There is a difference between religious zeal for laws that gives us an ego boost for being "right", and the lawful life of service, love, and relationship led by the Holy Spirit. While the distinction between these two states is subtle, life flows from one and death from the other. Every man must guard against the moment by moment seduction of ego, and pursue the leading of the still small voice. The importance of this principle and distinction is seen in Jesus' own life; He spent most of his ministry preaching against the self-righteous pharisaical imposition of religious practice. The poignancy of His warning against the leven of the Pharisees was climaxed by His crucifixion arranged by these same hypocritical men. The Pharisees are the would-be religious tyrants; these are the people who are the enemies of freedom and cause people to fear the imposition of religious tyranny. The Pharisees truly are enemies of the soul and state. Every man and his government must remain vigilant for the emergence of the Pharisee in himself and his leaders.
The Secular Humanist is especially susceptible to falling into the trap of pharisaical pride because he does not believe that God intervenes in the affairs of men. Thus, any action taken is directed by man, and any goal worth doing is for the purpose of pleasing man. The lack of a higher level of accountability or service makes it even easier to fall into the trap of pride and belief in personal inerrant vision.
The Right believes that the modern day Secular
Humanist Pharisees dominate the media and spin the news to fit their
vilification of all things sacred.
The entire cast of Democratic leadership (Kennedy, Pelosi, Biden,
Dean, Boxer, Frank, Byrd…) line up to support the Left wing propaganda
This motley crew of liberal ideologues personifies how important it is to prevent the would-be religious tyrants of Godless Secular Humanism from enforcing social policy based on the orthodoxy of a priesthood with absolute control of the reigns of government. Seeing the tyranny the Secular Humanist could impose illustrates how important it is to embrace the leadership of the Godly servant and Godly worldview.
The fact that Fundamentalist zealots prooftext their own personal truth and attempt to impose it on others does not negate the fact that Truth exists and must be followed. God is too big to completely capture Him with words, but that does not mean that all religions are equally true. Truth is still truth, and if the essence and Spirit of Christianity are in fact true, then the Words and moral guidance of the Holy Scripture are worthy of incorporating into the public debate.
The people of a nation should be able to decide if a religion actually embraces and embodies Truth, and they should be able to use public funds, the media, and the public spaces to post the symbols of their chosen religion as public reminders of that Truth. Certainly, the quality of the person who emerges from a lifetime of commitment to disciplining his mind and heart to follow the Word and Spirit of God, will make a valuable living building block in the edifice of society.
Likewise, the non-Christian man who dutifully strives to follow the leading of God in his life may likewise contribute well and wisely to the social order. But without guidance from a roadmap written by those who have heard from God Himself, most men will be seduced by their own passions and attempt to force life to move in directions that benefit themselves inordinately.
One of the challenges of a multicultural immigrant
society is to accommodate for the non-injurious practices of culture,
thought, speech, and belief of all people in the society. Christianity has proven itself to
be a good neighbor and lord of the house in this regard. The Jewish people in particular
have found a safe haven and a natural ally in our Christian nation. The Jewish people are God's
We can call ourselves a historically Christian nation because Christianity was the dominant religion practiced in the early American Colonies and throughout the history of our nation. And, we have placed the symbols and moral phrases of Christianity on the public places of power throughout the Nation’s life. But, we now find the public recognition of our faith under increasing attack by the weevils of anti-Christian sentiment who wish to wipe out all forms of public acknowledgment of Christianity. They use as their tools of attack questions about the Founders intent, and the appropriateness of allowing Christianity a place of preference in this nation.
This proactive forcing of Secular Humanism has taken place in the face of the Founders' clear instructions to the Congress and Judiciary disallowing the passage of laws to establish a national religion. And of course, this dictum has been violated by the judiciary using the pretence of following the Founders' intent; an intent they have hypothesized based on decontextualized quotes and stands made by rebels against God.
The cabal of media and their bevy of Left wing sympathizers functioning as experts and advocates for their cause in all layers of society have made the appearance of a groundswell of public support for their revisionist history. In turn, education, and the general sense of political correctness and common culture begins to embrace and believe this fabricated history and immoral perspective. Democracy could be hijacked by the Leftist priests and revisionist rabbis if foolish and ignorant Americans are persuaded by the propaganda to vote away their heritage and place the shackles of tyranny upon themselves.
It is clear that the Founders did not intend
to prevent the influence of religion on every level of
government. Their only injunction with regard to religion was that
Congress not establish a national religion by law. Thus, under the literal reading of
this Constitution, the individual States can declare themselves
Islamic, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Catholic, or
Baptist. In fact some of the original colonies had formal
denominational loyalties for a number of years both before and after the
Revolutionary War. For
example, the Anglican Church was the official Church of the State of
No, the current debate is not about what the Founders wanted, accepted, or intended as the proper relationship between State and Religion. Rather, the modern day propagandistic revisionism about the “Separation of Church and State” is an attempt by the anti-God forces to remove any societal recognition of our Christian heritage and stem all public support for propagating the faith.
To overcome this "Separation of Church and State" juggernaut, we must remember and apply the force we have in numbers; we are still a democracy of, by, and for the people. In a democracy the majority rules, as long as their will is consistent with the Constitution. The Constitution can be amended only when the majority of people in 3/4 of the states approve of that change.
The current concern over the "rights of the minority" has become the new rallying cry of those who wish to impose their will upon the majority. Disagreement will always exist within a group, but disagreement does not mean eternal inaction or capitulation to the minority's concerns. The Senate filibuster issue, where the minority can stop the will of the majority, is simply a reflection of the desire of those who have not yet enrolled sufficient support for their position to take control. This concept is entirely antithetical to the precepts of democracy. In the past, the majority won, enacted their legislation, and the fruit of the law was seen in society over time. The minority then continued the hard work of showing how the majority opinion was flawed. Eventually the pendulum of public opinion swayed toward the minority side, and eventually the once-minority attained power and influence.
Currently, Christianity is the majority religion, and there is no fundamental Constitutional prohibition against teaching our children in the public schools about the precepts of Christianity. In fact, given that this nation is populated by a majority of Christians, the Christian majority has a right to pass laws that direct funds toward the perpetuation of the Christian culture. And yes, under such a system, those who are not Christians will be exposed to the teachings of Christ, and they may not like it. They will be under the influence of a public system of indoctrination in a system not in accord with their own beliefs. But, every society must choose the standards and principles it wishes to guide its citizens. History is littered with cultures that collapsed due to the consequences of choosing wrong guiding principles.
A ten-year research
project conducted at the
But, this is nothing new in the history of the
world. Every society taxes
those under it to maintain the system that perpetuates the culture.
The Constitution guarantees freedom of thought and speech, and our Christian roots promise tolerance of other ideas. But, when the vote is cast, one side will win, and the rest of the society will submit to the will of the majority. Even though the minority did not agree, in a Christian society the minority agrees to obey the new law as it submits to authority. Such principles assure domestic tranquility even though there is not uniformity of agreement across the society. As Montesquieu asserted, Judeo-Christian Principles of relationship and societal dynamics have repeatedly proven to be the ones that elevate and prosper nations. Those nations that have chosen to reject those principles have inevitably fallen and will continue to do so, because only God’s Rules of Relationship work. All other systems create havoc and misery.
Such a system might be considered unfair by the non-Christians. But, if we examine the current system of totally secular education, we will notice that the Christians, who are in the majority, are being forced by law to send their children to public schools, paid for by their tax dollars, where they receive an education indoctrinating them in a belief structure antithetical to their most sacred beliefs.
The system of public finance has been hijacked by the anti-God, anti-Christian lobby. Through the judiciary, they have put the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent of the legislative-judicial system. The break in the public support of Christian education started with the specious Everson vs. Board of Education decision of 1947. In that case the court ruled that spending of public funds to transport children to a parochial school was prohibited because it violated the principle of the Separation of Church and State.
From that point on, any expression of public faith
or expenditure of public monies to support education which enhanced a
Christian worldview in any way could be ruled unConstitutional.
The ACLU, People for the
The clock is ticking. The ax of
secularization has already taken significant strength from the once robust
tree of our American Constitution and of
The Left has a simple philosophy of political operation: When the opposition is in the majority, the principle of “minority rights” and the spirit of “bipartisanship” should apply. The principles dictate that the minority's position must be considered and incorporated into legislation. And, when Left is in the majority, they declare that the winner deserves the spoils of victory. The Left has claimed that the last two elections were fraudulent, and that a great voting conspiracy took place to prevent every vote from being counted. But their supposed allegiance to counting every vote is thin. When they win, such as in the election of Washington State Governor, they claimed foul play until the 3rd recount. When the Democratic candidate finally won they declared that contesting has this has gone on long enough, and that the Republicans should just be good sports, even though there were credible indications of voter fraud.
When the Left lost the popular vote and the
Electoral College in 2004, they failed to understand that it was because
their values did not resonate with mainstream
As the majority, as a nation of Christians, we have a right to ask for what we want and to require our elected officials to fulfill their Constitutional duty to faithfully protect the Constitution and to represent the best interests of those who elected them. At this time, our major task is education and mobilization.
Our Founders were wise in recognizing the tyranny
and foolishness of which the masses were capable. Thus,
they established our nation as a representative democracy. By
electing representatives for the various population centers, they
incorporated elements of Plato's Republic and required that the
representatives must reach a majority agreement about public policy
before it was implemented as law. The
Thus, before the Christian majority is turned into a minority by the public education system, it is time to take back the foundations of government bequeathed to us by our Forefathers. It is time to restore our right to choose to educate our children to become mature and knowledgeable Christian citizens. It is time to educate dissenters in the basic principles upon which our nation was founded and regulates our lives, society and culture.
It's time for the dedicated non-Christians among us to pay taxes AND pay for private education to give their children the secular-only education they wish to impart. This is what many Christians have done for decades. It is time for those who desire to give their children a secular-only education to bear the burden and expense of their special desires. Parents want to choose the form of education their children receive, and at the very least we should allow funding for Charter schools and vouchers. It’s time to stop requiring the majority to beg the public schools to educate their children in their chosen manner.
It's time for the Left to learn to be
tolerant. They want the majority to tolerate their Gay Pride
Parades, Gay Weddings, abortion clinics, and protest marches, but they
have no tolerance of Right wing
Capitalism is the political equivalent of majority rule, a system where only the most fit survive. When a majority passes legislation, and imposes its will on the minority, that law will only stand as long as the majority remains in power. Democracy requires an idea be promoted sufficiently to gather majority support. Thus, if a Christian education proves to be a public disaster, then the minority can publicize the results and pass laws that direct money toward secular education.
But, currently we are not operating under the rules
of Democracy, nor are we acting in a manner consistent with
the Framers' Constitutional intent. We are living inside of a court
ordered, governmentally enforced, nationwide secular public
education system. We will someday see the fullness of
the results of subjecting our children to an education based on
the Secular Humanist Religion.
Given the founding principles of the nation, and the majority
status of Christians in
But, as Christians, we have allowed this theft of our heritage because we have not demanded that Congress repeal Everson vs. Board of Education. As a result, this ruling stands as a landmark precedent in case law. It allows the Left to cite it as legal justification for enforcing injunctions against any district which chooses to use State funds to include any Christian philosophy, history, or doctrine in its curriculum. As a result, we have allowed the courts to prohibit public support for Christian education, even though Christians comprise the majority population.
As a Christian nation we have become weak and afraid to take back the God given right to govern ourselves and teach our children in the Ways of the Lord. We have allowed the Left to intimidate us into acquiescing to their every demand, just because they are convinced that we have no right to impose our beliefs on them. We constantly hear the mantra “you can’t legislate morality.” But, through the liberal judiciary they are legislating from the bench and forcing us to live in a society where they legislate im-morality. The truth is ALL LAW IS LEGISLATED MORALITY. The question is only whose morality will direct the formation of the laws and personal code of conduct for the citizens of this nation? Will it be the radical Left’s Godless agenda or God’s 10 Commandments?
Will the premeditated murder of innocent babies be
the new standard of American “morality” or will
The points of action for societal transformation include:
2) The minority has the right and obligation to endure in well doing, to inform the majority of their error, and enroll them in “right” thinking.
3) Everson vs. Board of Education gave a non-Constitutional concept, “Separation of Church and State” the status of Constitutional decree and it must be overturned by legislative action or judicial reversal.
4) Any public display of religious symbol or speech is allowed by the Constitution as long as that display is not subsequent to Congress establishing a nationally sanctioned official State Religion.
In conclusion, as a Christian Nation we must recognize that the Constitution prohibits Congress from establishing a State Religion. Any implementation of legislation which favors Christianity in terms of funding, social preference, or public expression IS Constitutional. In turn, we must oppose the tyrants of the Secular Humanist priesthood who demand that we cleanse the society of anything offensive to their practice and imposition of their State sanctioned dogma of Secular Orthodoxy.
Correspondence | Home Page | Fair Trade | Moral Superiority of Christianity | Bible & Homosexualty | Pro Life Positions | NRA Correspondence | Support Letter | Judicial System & Godliness | Freedom of Speech | Social Security, The Problem | Depleted Uranium Weapons | Iraq News | Faith versus Works | Right to Privacy | Responsible Technology | Patriot Act | Patriotism | World Situation | Cheneys Daughter | High Stakes | Lake Woebegon | Book Outline | Euthanasia | Culture War | Global Warming | Abuse Alleged | Vision for America | Supreme Court and Religion