Posted on 07/01/2005 5:14:40 AM PDT by goldstategop
In his book, “The Cube and the Cathedral,” Catholic scholar George Weigel explains why the proposed constitution for the European Union, a 70,000-word document, does not contain the word Christianity – in other words, why its framers deliberately ignored 1,000 years of European history.
Weigel writes: “In the minds of many Europeans, Christianity was not simply a non-factor in the development of contemporary European public life; Christianity was (and is) an obstacle to the evolution of a Europe at peace, a Europe that champions human rights, a Europe that governs itself democratically.”
This also explains the Judeo-Christophobia of the U.S. elite, including the elitists on the United States Supreme Court, who view even the most innocuous acknowledgements of our Biblical roots with fear and loathing.
How else to explain the court’s contradictory and seemingly incomprehensible decisions in two Ten Commandments cases announced this week.
By a 5-4 vote, in Van Orden v. Perry, the court upheld the constitutionality of a 6-ft granite monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. But, by the same one-vote margin, the court declared unconstitutional framed copies of the Ten Commandments on display in two Kentucky courthouses, in ACLU v. McCreary.
The difference? The Texas statue was among 17 displays spread over 22 acres, paying homage to everything from the Alamo to Hood’s Brigade in the Civil War. The Kentucky postings initially stood alone. Later, other historical documents – including the Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact and Declaration of Independence – were added, in a vain attempt to make the Decalogue kosher in the eyes of the judiciary.
Under the Supremes’ three-reindeer rule, religious symbols will be tolerated in a public setting, if they’re sanitized by secular kitsch – i.e., mangers will be allowed in a Christmas display if Joseph and Mary are lost among plastic Santas and candy canes.
Thus, the court will countenance religion only in a non-serious context. In terms of Ten Commandments exhibits, it is terrified by the possibility that onlookers will take the Decalogue seriously, and, in so doing, realize that rights come not from the state (including a group on elderly individuals in black robes) but from a higher source.
What killed the Kentucky presentations (besides the fact that secular window dressing wasn’t there at the outset) was a statement of intent The county commissioners committed the unpardonable sin of saying that the Ten Commandments postings were meant to call attention to “America’s Christian heritage.”
For shame, the court’s ACLU majority scolded. Christian heritage, indeed! Why, you’d think the Pilgrims and Puritans were devout Christians – that the Mayflower Compact said the Plymouth Plantation was “undertaken for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith,” that the Declaration of Independence referred to men being “endowed by their Creator” with “unalienable rights,” that the Constitution proclaimed it was signed “in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven,” that Lincoln expressed the hope that “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of liberty,” that every president from George Washington to George W. Bush took his oath of office on the Christian Bible, and so on. All true, by the way.
The Supreme Court’s Gang of Five would have us believe that America just happened – that it sprang full-grown from the brow of Jefferson, that the Founding Fathers dreamed up the idea of all men being equal, that human rights were created out of thin air or came from Enlightenment philosophers, that the concepts of human dignity and free will (upon which republican government rests) are self-evident – instead of all being the result of an encounter at Sinai and the subsequent history of Israel narrated in the Bible.
In the secularist mindset which dominates the high court, to imply that The Ten Commandments played a special role in our nation’s history is to impermissibly favor religion.
Writing for the majority in McCreary, David Souter – perhaps the most muddled mind in a body famous for murky thinking – disclosed, “The touchstone of our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and non-religion.” Also, “when government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates the Establishment Clause value of official religious neutrality.”
To which Justice Scalia shot back, “Nothing stands behind the court’s assertion that governmental affirmation of the society’s belief in God is unconstitutional except the court’s own say-so.”
Just so. Not the intent of the Founding Fathers, the clear meaning of the Constitution, the history of the United States, or even Supreme Court rulings up until about 60 years ago, support the notion that the Establishment Clause mandates a separation of church and state (words which do not appear in the Constitution), or – more to the point – religion and government.
To promote religious-cleansing of the public square, in 1947, the Supreme Court began lying about the meaning of the First Amendment. Now, whenever justices want to justify the latest attempt to crush religious expression, they refer to previous lies (which they call precedents) and speak loftily of their “principles,” which, in reality, have nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution.
If transgressing the court’s assumptions weren’t enough, framed copies of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse might be offensive – in violation of the Constitution’s Inclusiveness Clause? – Souter cautioned.
“By showing a purpose to favor religion, the government sends the … message to … non-adherents that they are outsiders not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members,” the justice insisted.
Souter does not try to explain how Kentucky’s Ten Commandments displays are qualitatively different from the religious expression the court still permits – “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, ‘In God We Trust” on our currency, a stanza from The National Anthem (“and this be our motto, in God is our trust”), those offering testimony before the courts taking an oath on a Bible – or the doors to the Supreme Court’s own chambers engraved with the Roman numerals one through ten.
Imagine the emotional turmoil experienced by the poor non-adherent at a public event who hears people pledging allegiance to the flag and to “one nation under God,” with the clear implication that America is under the authority of the Almighty. What an acute sense of alienation he must feel. And what a tremendous ego-boost to believers, who are thus validated as favored members of the polity.
More bizarre even than Souter’s alienation argument was Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s sweeping re-writing of American history in her concurring opinion in McCreary. “Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly,” O’Connor inquired.
The “system” here referenced (militant secularism) has been in effect for roughly 40 years of our nation’s 229-year history. Has it served us well? The system is arbitrary, capricious and inconsistent. (Scalia, “What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principles.”)
Said “system” has led to decades of contentious, increasingly bitter, litigation. It was imposed from above, over the strenuous objections of the American people. It’s unconstitutional, anti-democratic, a denial of our history and heritage, and is based on a monumental lie – that any commingling of government and religion will result in civil strife.
The position of O’Connor and her First Amendment-bending colleagues is that a framed copy of The Ten Commandments on display in a court house will inexorably lead to religious tests for public office, a Church of America, and a reprise of The Thirty Years War.
But, not so long ago, America had crèches in public parks at Christmas, prayers in public schools, and presidents like Harry Truman, who could proudly proclaim, “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the mount” -- without engendering Inquisitions, pogroms or religious wars. To the contrary, America was the most religiously tolerant nation on earth.
Only an elitist who lives in a cocoon could survey the decline of morality over the past four decades (and the corresponding rise of social angst), and say the Great Divorce that the Supreme Court presided over – the separation of faith from our public life – has served us well. Compare the divorce rate, homicide rate, rates of illegitimacy and mental illness or any other index of societal trauma in 1961 and today, to get some idea of how well O’Connor’s “system” has served the nation.
The week before McCreary, a majority of the court decided to expand the definition of eminent domain to allow municipalities to seize property for private use. It validated a plan by the City of New London, Connecticut of confiscate homes and business and turn the land over to a developer to build an office complex. Now, anyone’s home can be taken away, if government deems that someone else can put it to better use (i.e., generate more tax revenue).
If Souter and his accomplices honored the Ten Commandments the way the Founders did – if they understood that the road to Philadelphia in 1787 started at Sinai – perhaps they’d comprehend the meaning of “Thou shalt not steal.”
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding the attacks on Sept. 11).
Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.
And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"
In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.
Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says "thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal", and "love your neighbor as yourself". And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."
Pretty standard document boilerplate for the time at the very end of the Constitution; mentioning it just highlights how devoid of mentions of God or Christianity the rest of the Constitution is, which clearly was a deliberate decision by the founders.
That's the heart of the matter.
http://hnn.us/articles/12089.html
Actually, they weren't. Even Franklin, at an impass in the constitutional convention stopped the proceedings for a public PRAYER. Madison, supposedly not very religious, prayed daily and attended church weekly.
America's leftists, like "Europe's" self-appointed rulers, are Marxists at heart. Once we understand that, their determination to eliminate any authority that transcends the state is totally predictable.
It was boilerplate at that time BECAUSE it was believed to be reality.
We don't do it today for just the same reason....most don't take it to be true. If it were boilerplate, why not now?
That's the thing about Franklin. A diest, not very religious, yet still acknowledged the Judeo-Christian moral foundation that the nation was to be built upon.
bttt
You're right, it WAS a deliberate decision by the Founders NOT to mention God....
Why?
Because the Constitution is a POSITIVE law contract between the ARTIFICAL entities known as States and the artificial entity of the centralized government, a.k.a. the 'United States'.
The Constitution has NOTHING to do with the people except to enumerate a few positive law rights.
The people are accountable only to Natural law, or Commandments 5 through 10 of the 10 Commandments. Prohibitions against murder, theft, etc. were nothing new... they had been part of various jurisprudence ever since the concept of a 'civil' society.
____________________________________________________________________________
Noah Webster, the man personally responsible for Art. I, Sec. 8, ¶ 8, of the U. S. Constitution, explained two centuries ago:
The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.
________________________________________________________
If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.
John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
________________________________________________________
That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774
________________________________________________________
[T]he laws of nature . . . of course presupposes the existence of a God, the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong, of just and unjust, binding upon man, preceding all institutions of human society and government.
John Quincy Adams
________________________________________________________
The law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”
Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Constitution
________________________________________________________
The “law of nature” is a rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator and existing prior to any positive precept. . . . [These] have been established by the Creator, and are, with a peculiar felicity of expression, denominated in Scripture, “ordinances of heaven.”
Noah Webster, Judge and Legislator
________________________________________________________
Commandments 5 - 10 are what defines CRIME, and the 2 very separate forms of law is what guarantees us our 'inalienable rights'.... making us a Republic.
Amen. Your words bear repeating.
"In terms of Ten Commandments exhibits, it is terrified by the possibility that onlookers will take the Decalogue seriously, and, in so doing, realize that rights come not from the state (including a group of elderly individuals in black robes) but from a higher source.
That's the heart of the matter."
Your first point re "standard boilerplate" method of dating probably is valid. However, no person of today can accurately conclude that "it just highlights how devoid of mentions of God or Christianity . . .," and for any one of us in 2005 to attribute motive to the Founders (i. e., that not doing so was a "deliberate" decision) is simply impossible.
First of all, the Declaration of Independence included references to numerous manifestations of a Supreme Being--"Laws of nature and of nature's God," "Divine Providence," "Creator," and "Supreme Judge of the World." The final one indicating that citizens in any humanly-constructed government are subject to what Madison and others referred to as the "Governor of the universe." That Declaration, according to Jefferson, its author, reflected the "American mind" of the time.
It was the statement of principle and philosophy upon which the Constitution was based.
The Constitution of the United States of America simply structured the limited government of separated, balanced, and very limited powers for a people who wished to protecte and secure their liberty (see Preamble). There was no need for references to God in the document that structured such a government.
Our understanding must be informed by reading the prolific writings of the founding generation (now available on the Internet). One instrumental person in that founding was John Adams, who said:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams, Oct.11, 1798 Address to the military"
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.