Atheists, Activist Courts And Constitutional Ignorance

Thanks to activist courts and an ignorant citizenry, atheists tend to dictate public policy when it comes to the separation of church and state. Not surprisingly, a recent incident in New Jersey has ruffled the feathers of some atheists who have absolutely no understanding of the U.S. Constitution.

Members of the Board of Freeholder in Warren County voted unanimously to hang posters with the words "In God We Trust" in all county-owned buildings. The decision was met with resistance from the New Jersey-based American Atheists.

One member of this Godless organization, Frank Zindler, was quoted in the New Jersey Star-Ledger as saying, "The major intent behind this is to make this a Christian nation. This, of course, is forbidden by the First Amendment."

As with most atheists who take offense at public statements of faith, Zindler's concern is misplaced. While Christian principles certainly had a strong influence in the founding of the United States of America, this country has never been a "Christian nation," and to equate the posting of our national motto with bringing citizens under the heavy yoke of a theocracy is ludicrous.

Since the drafting of our Constitution, atheists have enjoyed every immunity and privilege guaranteed to those of religious faith. No matter how offended they may feel, atheists cannot claim persecuted status. From politics to education, from business to charity, they have been actively involved in virtually every aspect of American life.

If anything, religious citizens are the ones who have been reviled. Prayer has been purged from our schools. The Ten Commandments have been taken down from courthouse walls. It is now unconstitutional for Scripture verses to be displayed in national parks. Freedoms once taken for granted have been stripped away in the name of tolerance—and this has been done without a single law being passed.

Like it or not, we are at the mercy of a judicial oligarchy. Over the years judges have reinterpreted the Constitution, effectively gutting our republican form of government. Every action taken by a public official—even at the state and local levels—must meet with the approval of these black-robed zealots.

This has been especially true in cases relating to the First Amendment. Courts have consistently ruled that allowing anything religious to be displayed or promoted on public property is unconstitutional. The reasoning is that government approval of religion is tantamount to government establishment of religion. Yes, it's ridiculous, but you can be sure that the Warren County freeholders will be sued over their totalitarian decision to post "In God We Trust" in public buildings.

There is another issue here that needs to be addressed: the Constitution in no way applies to what goes on in Warren County, N.J. What was meant to restrict Congress does not restrict what goes on at the state, county or local levels of government.

This notion may seem a bit unorthodox, but the Bill of Rights was never intended to be binding upon the various states. If you take the time to read the text of the First Amendment, you will find that it specifically refers to the federal government. ("Congress shall make no law…")

That the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government is reiterated in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. It was understood that matters regarding issues affecting freedom of speech and religion were to be dealt with on the state level. James Madison made this rather clear in Federalist No. 45:

For an atheist or anyone else to say that posting the words "In God We Trust" on county property is unconstitutional shows a blatant disregard for the founding principles of this nation. "Separation of church and state"—a phrase appearing nowhere in the Constitution or in the writings of its framers—has become synonymous with eliminating all religious references from the realm of public discourse. This was never the intent of the founders.

The Faith of the Founding

Only Judaism and Christianity have a doctrine of God as Spirit and Truth, Who created the world in order to invite these creatures endowed with intelligence and conscience to enter into friendship with Him. Only the Jewish and Christian God made human beings free, halts the power of Caesar at the boundaries of the human soul, and has commissioned human beings to build civilizations worthy of the liberty He has endowed in them. So high is this God's valuation of human liberty of conscience that, even though He has launched a divinely commissioned religion in history (in two Covenants, Jewish and Christian), He would not have either of these religions imposed by force on anyone. So devoted were the American founders to this understanding of religious liberty that, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography (1821), the authors of the Virginia Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom refrained from mentioning the exact name of the "holy author of our religion." Here is Jefferson's explanation for the omission:

Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the words "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion"; the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.

Like it or not, we are at the mercy of a judicial oligarchy.

Since the judicial oligarchy knows there will be no interest in Impeach SCOTUS - WorldNetDaily.com, Farah, 3 July 03 or any other provisions within the Consitution to hold them accoutable for their errors.

The most obvious difference between the two due process clauses is that the Fifth Amendment clause as it binds the Federal Government coexists with a number of other express provisions in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing fair procedure and non-arbitrary action, such as jury trials, grand jury indictments, and nonexcessive bail and fines, as well as just compensation, whereas the Fourteenth Amendment clause as it binds the States has been held to contain implicitly not only the standards of fairness and justness found within the Fifth Amendment's clause but also to contain many guarantees that are expressly set out in the Bill of Rights. Due Process

Justice Scalia calls his own interpretive philosophy "textualism," and distinguishes this term from the popular term "strict constructionism." He writes: "A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means." Scalia cites an example of an unreasonably strict construction in Smith v. United States (1993), a recent case from which he dissented. "But," Scalia says, "while the good textualist is not a literalist, neither is he a nihilist. Words do have a limited range of meaning, and no interpretation that goes beyond that range is permissible." As an example of unreasonably loose construction, Scalia cites the mass of cases, beginning with Dred Scott v. Sanford, in which the Supreme Court has defended substantive liberties not mentioned within the text of the Constitution's Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. A Matter of Interpretation

. . . .The object of the [Fourteenth] amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law.... Justice Henry Brown - Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)

Because the Fourteenth Amendment specifically addressed the states, it drastically expanded the reach of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court used the amendment to apply most provisions in the Bill of Rights to state governments. As a result, the Fourteenth Amendment is cited more often in modern litigation than any other. In fact, many constitutional scholars believe that, through its wide scope and promise of equality, the Fourteenth Amendment created a new Constitution. National Constitution Center: Interactive Constitution

"Separation of church and state"-

Religion and Morality are the essential pillars of Civil society." -- George Washington Were Church And State Meant To Be Separate?

a local government building decides to put up signs saying "In Allah we trust" or "Praise be to Alla"?

I would have a problem with praise be to Nietzsche or Alla, since both are antithetical to a Constitutional Republic.

"[I believe] with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith and his worship . . ." [Italics added.] --President Thomas Jefferson, articulating a theistic definition of religion in 1802

"Religion [is] the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it . . ." "This duty is precedent . . . to the claims of Civil Society." [Italics added.] --President James Madison, articulating a theistic definition of religion in 1785

"[Numerous evidences previously cited] add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."
--The U. S. Supreme Court in Holy Trinity Church v. U. S. (1892), reiterated in MacIntosh v. U.S. (1931)

Islamic Law & its Challenge To Western Civilization Most people in the West believe that Islam is a religion in the traditional sense of the word. However, this is a fateful misconception. Islam is not just a religion. It is much more than a religion. Muslims themselves describe their faith by saying, Islam is a Complete Way of Life. This is certainly a more apt description, because Islam is a religious, social, economic, educational, health, political, and philosophic way of life. In fact, Islam is an all-embracing socio-politico-religious utopian ideology that encompasses every field of human endeavor.

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.