| CURRENT WEATHER: Clear, 41° |
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
December 22, 2004
The breakdown between church and state
Seven weeks have passed since the general election of 2004 and the leftist, liberal, progressive wing of the Democratic Party still refuses to accept the results or the reasons for those results. This is very good news for the vast majority of U.S. citizens who have finally indicated a basic dissatisfaction with the direction of our country over the past 60 years. For those who are unaware, that is basically the period of time that has elapsed since the socialist forces now dominating the Democratic Party began their legal challenges to almost every aspect of our national psyche. Having failed during the 1930s and '40s to achieve their goals at the ballot box, they decided to attack our institutions using the very laws meant to protect us from a tyranny of the minority. In order to understand how they were able to accomplish this you must first look at what was necessary for their success. Quite simply, once they realized they were not dealing with a morally bankrupt nation like Czarist Russia, they knew their mission must be to replace our traditional concepts of individual responsibility, charity and fair play. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereto had always meant Congress was prohibited from establishing a national religious denomination. This was so Congress could not require all Americans to become Baptists, Catholics, Anglicans, Jews, Muslims or members of any other denomination. This understanding of "separation of church and state" was applied during the time of the Founders and for 170 years afterwards. James Madison explained it well when he said that the First Amendment to the Constitution was prompted because The people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. The simple fact no such effort was ever attempted in our history has not changed the mission of those requiring us to forfeit our moral backbone. This forfeiture must occur if the creation of a utopian socialist society is to become a reality. As an example, please review the following statement on the website of Americans’ United for Separation of Church and State: "Courts, city halls and other units of government should refrain from displaying religious symbols because such actions send the message that the state has a favored religion and that people who do not share that faith are second-class citizens." For those who don't see where the difference between the two statements may lie, I would ask you to show where "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is protected in the second. To be sure it is not. This is how the American Civil Liberties Union and other attorney organizations have been able to remove the 10 Commandments from courthouses and prayer of any kind from our schools. To be politically correct, we are required to wish everyone happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas, and solely because of the first five letters in the name of the holiday. And for those who believe these limitations have been in place a long while, please remember the beginning of today's interpretation of the separation began less than 60 years ago. In 1947, in Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black construed the First Amendment in a more restrictive fashion, which went well beyond the original intent of the framers of the United States Constitution - and paved the way for future cases that would further restrict religious expression in American public life. This ruling declares that any aid or benefit to religion from governmental actions is unconstitutional. As Justice Black said: The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. Then, in October 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States removed prayer from schools in a case called Engel v. Vitale. Justices said that because the U.S. Constitution prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion, officials of public schools couldn't compose public prayer even if the prayer is denominationally neutral, and that pupils may choose to remain silent or be excused while the prayer is being recited. And so today we are left with no moral basis for conduct in our public schools, courthouses, or other government entities. School administrators have no basis for discipline for those who would disrupt classrooms and threaten teachers. Judges release known sexual predators and we wonder why when they strike again shortly after the release. One judge even wanted to remove "so help me God" from the oath taken by witnesses in court cases. He was thwarted by the district attorney who refused to allow the change. Politicians who show no hesitation in stating outlandish distortions of fact and expect us to simply accept them best illustrate the disparity between morality and perception. For years they were aided by a media willing to print every word without verification. Our defense against government by a free press was sadly lacking while our rights were removed. Now, thanks to the advent of alternative news sources and the spread of the Internet, there is no longer a single source for the news or its ramifications. People are discovering the practice of their religious beliefs is not the cause of what ails our country, but the solution. It has always been the case, from the time of the founding of our nation, that our strength lies not in our institutions, but in the heart and soul of a free and responsible population. Little writes from Pahrump. His column, "The Other Side," appears here on Wednesdays. |
