Oregon Senatorial Race 2004,Oregon Senator
Home Page
Correspondence & CommentaryFair TradeMoral Superiority of ChristianityBible & HomosexualityPro Life PositionsNRA CorrespondenceSupport LetterTerri Schaivo & the Right to DieFreedom of SpeechSocial Security 1Depleted Uranium WeaponsIraq DiscussionFaith vs WorksRight to PrivacyGenetically Modified Seeds Religion and TyrannyPatriot ActPatriotism & Military ServiceWorld Situation & Islamic AttacksCheneys DaughterHigh Stakes -- Kerry vs. BushGarrison Keillor v. RepublicansBook OutlineEuthanasiaCulture WarGlobal WarmingAbuse AllegedVision for AmericaJesus and WarGood and EvilResist Not Evil
  The Supreme Court and Religion  
  Img37.png 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Jonathan"

To: “Thomas Abshier” <naturedox@qwest.net>

Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 11:34 AM

Subject: Bush Cites Religion as Factor in Miers' Nomination

 

Bush Cites Religion as Factor in Miers' Nomination

President Bush is facing criticism for citing religion as a reason why he selected his personal attorney and friend, Harriet Miers, to be nominated for a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.  "People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers.  They want to know Harriet Miers' background," Bush told reporters Wednesday.  "They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions.  And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion.”  Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, who serves on the Judiciary Committee, responded by saying "The White House is basically saying that because of Harriet Miers's religious beliefs, you can trust her.”  Bush's comments came on the same day that the influential evangelical leader James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, revealed that President Bush's top advisor Karl Rove spoke with him about Miers on October 1 - two days before Bush nominated her.  Dobson said Rove told him "she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life.”  Dobson denied that Rove gave him any assurances that Miers would vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.  Kermit Hall, editor of the "Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States," said “I cannot think of any president who has ever made a nomination because of the religious beliefs that a person held.”

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/13/1359233

Definition: Secular humanism is an active life stance that holds a naturalistic worldview and advocates the use of reason, compassion, scientific inquiry, ethics, justice and equality.

"Secular humanism" is distinguished from the broader "humanism" in that the secular Humanist prefers free inquiry over dogma wisdom—upholding the scientific method for inquiry, while rejecting "revealed knowledge" and theistic morality, though not necessarily faith. Secular humanism has appeal to athiests, agnostics, freethinkers, rationalists, skeptics, and materialists. Its basic tenets may be simplified as:

  • Humans have value and can solve human problems
  • Science, free speech, rational thought, democracy, and freedom in the arts go together
  • There is nothing supernatural

http://www.answers.com/secular%20humanism

 

Definition: Christianity is a religion founded in Palestine by the followers of Jesus. One of the world's major religions, it predominates in Europe and the Americas, where it has been a powerful historical force and cultural influence, but it also claims adherents in virtually every country of the world.

The central teachings of traditional Christianity are that Jesus is the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; that his life on earth, his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension into heaven are proof of God's love for humanity and God's forgiveness of human sins; and that by faith in Jesus one may attain salvation and eternal life (see creed). This teaching is embodied in the Bible, specifically in the New Testament, but Christians accept also the Old Testament as sacred and authoritative Scripture.

Christian ethics derive to a large extent from the Jewish tradition as presented in the Old Testament, particularly the Ten Commandments, but with some difference of interpretation based on the practice and teachings of Jesus. Christianity may be further generally defined in terms of its practice of corporate worship and rites that usually include the use of sacraments and that are usually conducted by trained clergy within organized churches. There are, however, many different forms of worship, many interpretations of the role of the organized clergy, and many variations in polity and church organization within Christianity.

http://www.answers.com/Christianity

 

11/8/2005

 

Dear Jonathan,

 

George Bush need not apologize for having noted Harriet Miers’ sincere devotion to Christianity and considering it a positive qualification for sitting on the Supreme Court.  A Supreme Court nominee should be firmly committed to comparing man’s laws and trespasses in the light of God’s standards.  Christians believe the Bible reflects the highest human standard of conduct intended by God.  Thus, in a Christian Nation, we would expect that a man who wishes to judge the morality of the nation's laws would declare his allegiance to the Truths underlying Christianity and the God of the Bible.

 

The question that arises is whether we are a Christian Nation or simply a multicultural mix of ideologies, creeds, faiths, and religions.  If we are a Christian Nation by majority, commitment, allegiance, and foundation, we have the right to choose a Christian standard as our moral code.  If we are a multicultural nation, then we should assiduously deny any single faith coming to prominence as a standard in judgment, legislation, and cultural influence.  The Left argues that we were intended to be multicultural and without religious focus as per the First Amendment and the “Separation” principle it implied.  The Right argues that our Christian heritage is strong and that that a false confusion has been injected into the debate by the competing religion of Secular Humanism. The Secular Humanist wishes to deny the moral-religious allegiance intended by the founders and discredit our heritage and history as a Christian Nation.  They posture themselves as superior in their presentation of history and their commitment to accurately judge the framer's Constitutional intent.  They thus declare themselves the righteous crusaders who will return America to its correct and original intent.  

 

Interestingly, this stand for a Secular Humanist original intent is the only aspect of the Constitution the Left considers sacred.  After having established that the Framers intended us to be totally Secular, their next argument is that the Constitution is a living document, and that it must be updated in the light of the changing context of modernity to maintain relevancy.

 

Thus, the Left loudly assaults our history, attempting to rewrite it by imprinting new slogans on our national psyche with declarative and firm rhetoric affirming the sacredness of the Separation of Church and State.  And having written this new principle of “Separation” into the Constitution, they then declare that we “are” a Secular Humanist nation and must cleanse government of any vestige of support for Christianity.  They diminish the statements and acts of the founders which speak to confirm that we are a Christian Nation by founding intent.  They ignore and contradict all argument and evidence of our Christian heritage, and proudly boast of the few quotes and acts of history that support their contentions of the founders' secular intent.  The Left will give no willing admission of defeat in the cultural debate. 

 

Thus, there can be no resolution of this dispute by a simple agreement between the political divide of Left and Right or the Secular Humanist and Christian religious factions.  Instead, the debate must be resolved by the process of democracy.  As Christians, seeking to properly implement a righteous and good Christian Nation, we do not wish to see a religion imposed upon us.  The diversity of opinion and perspective about the proper implentation of Christian doctrine in public life provides its own evidence against a monolithic state religion.  This fact validates the intent of the founders in prohibition the establishment of a Christian denomination and a national religous orthodoxy.  Therefore, as a populace, to have a government which embraces the principles and morality of a Christian Nation, we must vote to install leaders whom we trust will choose to legislate, judge, and act according to Christian principles.  As a Christian Nation, we must elect leaders who interpret the Constitution as favorable to the proper influence of Christianity in government.  

 

Which begs the question, "What is the proper place of Christianity in government?"  The Bill of Rights, in the First Constitutional Amendment gives us guidance in the declaration that, “Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Under this restriction, a Christian legislator and judge should approve of non-denominational Christian speech and acts both in the government and its funded entities.  To the Christian, such activities and acknowledgement of faith are do not rise to the level of "Congress establishing a religion".  Legislation of public policy follows naturally from one's worldview, and the inclusion of support for Christian institutions, symbols, and speech in funding reflects the basic drive of man to perpetuate and propagate the prevailing belief structure.   

 

But, the Left wishes to establish a broad penumbra of exclusion so as to declare any Christian act or speech falls them under the category of “Establishing a religion.”  Opposing this overly broad definition, the Christian Right has lobbied for a more narrow prohibition of the “Establishment of religion”; one which requires the practice of an official State religion, or the enforced prevention of the practice of a personal faith.  But the Left, having limited the expression of Christianity in any public manner, then reverses itself with regard to enforcing the propagation and indoctrination in Secular Humanist doctrine.  They deny the religious overtones and nature of Secular Humanism, and therefore feel free to impugn Christianity as violating the principle of "Separation", and pretend the state-enforced indoctrination in the Secular Humanist worldview (evolution, socialism, sexual license...) contains no elements of religious faith.  

 

We see clearly that the worldview of the elected and appointed government officials influences the laws passed and judgments rendered.  Thus, to implement a de facto Christian nation, as was intended by the founders, we should elect moral, mature, and truly Christians men into office; our vote and voice should charge them with legislating and judging according to the full text and context of the Biblical scripture.  This standard provides wide latitude for the interpetation of proper Biblical perspective on public policy. 

 

But even in the case of a uniformly Christian legislature, executive, and judiciary, hearty debate will still occur between men sincerely devoted to accurately divining the Word of God.  Excellent results will more likely arise when the discussion centers around the most Godly solution.  But, since men are human, fallible, and interpret scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit incorrectly, they can still legislate and judge poorly.  In such cases, their failures provide examples for the catalogue of history; relevant principles may be extracted from error which will help identify previously unseen principles.  Men may thereby avoid future disasters by accumulating evidence of the real world manifestation of the Law in public life. 

 

Regarding the proper choice of a Supreme Court nominee, there are two domains of competence required for confirmation.  1) Legal Competence: He must have a mastery of the body of case law; have the ability to compare the abstract principles illustrated by case law and the words of legislation; and have an understanding of the principles, history, and Godly intent underlying the Constitution.  He can then compare this broad and deep historical reference with the specific circumstances of the current question of violation.  2) Moral Competence: He must have a right moral standard embedded in his heart.  If he lives a life based on Godly moral judgment he will then reflexively resonate with the Godly perspective underlying our Constitutional principles of government.

 

The best judge engages each case with a righteous and skillful interpretation of the Godly principles underlying the Constitution.  He is able to judge matters of moral precedent properly because he has embedded those principles into the daily regulation of his personal life.  Humans automatically generalize, delete, and distort the actual circumstances of life according to their personal filters.  Likewise, we tend to want to actively influence the world to reflect our own image.  Thus, we should elect men whose vision of life resonates with our own .  We need make no apology for the fact that the man we choose embraces an ideology of Christian principles.  Every man will inherently impose his own values upon the creation of law and judgment of law.  Thus we should simply recognize that all law is legislated morality, and that all judgment is a reflection of our standard of Truth. 

 

The founders intended the Supreme Court to examine the rulings of the lower courts and judge their consistency with Constitutional principles.  But, the Supreme Court rulings have taken on the prestige of sacrosanct principles.  Their voice as the final and undisputed arbiter of True Constitutional intent has given them the status of gods, issuing edicts which then shape the national moral structure.  One ruling can reverse an entire cultural precedent and establish new law.  Their judgments then function as the template to which all future law and judgment must conform. 

 

***For example, many rulings are deeply established within the body of case law and the laws of State Legislatures, such as the prohibition of homosexual sodomy.  But, the Supreme Court ruled that homosexual sex was a Constitutionally protected right in Lawrence v. Texas.  This reversed centuries of case law and invalidated every State statute passed by the legislatures. 

 

Thus the question, “should the judge be given the right to judge the law?”  The answer is yes.  The judges at every level should judge the Constitutionality (Godliness) of the law.  But, the responsibility for judging the law should be society-wide.  The law should be judged by every jury, by every executive, every legislator, and every citizen.  We should all be examining whether the law as it currently is written is an appropriate prescription for social organization.  We are all responsible before God for our decisions; we cannot excuse unGodly actions by saying that we would be persecuted by the government.  The Bible speaks clearly to this point:

  • Luke 12: 4  "And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.  5 "But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!

 In other words, we are to live to a higher moral standard than simply the blunt instrument of man’s law.  By acting as active moral agents in the society, we are salt and light.  We must each judge right and wrong in our daily lives and take action based on our convictions about Truth.  We are to obey no law that contradicts God’s Law, but we must realize that Caesar will enforce his laws and punishment in his courts.  We can only hope that by standing up against man’s unrighteous laws, the day will come when man's law is put on trial.

 

The “activist” judges have thrown the moral structure of the nation’s legal system into turmoil by ruling that we must expunge laws which incorporate principles identifiable as originating from the Judeo-Christian moral system.  Hundreds of years of precedent in legislated and adjudicated Christian moral tradition have been contradicted by numerous opinions of the Federal and Supreme Court.  These anti-Christian rulings have come in the face of Christian history.  The courts are now ruling against a society where the majority of the electorate identifies themselves as Christians, and as such, they expect that the legislature will pass laws to govern the society which embody Christian standards.  They likewise expect that the judges will embrace these same standards of truth when judging the law. 

 

We have allowed the Supreme Court rulings to exert the legal effect of a Constitutional Amendment over our legal and social system.  But, such power over the group moral state was not intended by the Founders.  This cancerous mutation of the courts began early in our history with the 1802 ruling of Marbury vs. Madison.  The Dred Scott decision, which imposed slavery on the North, was countered by the Emancipation Proclamation from the President and an act of Congress after the Civil War started.  But, the forces of cultural libertinism never sleep or stop; they proceeded to plant the first successful seed of oligarchy and Secular Humanist domination with the 1947 Everson ruling.  In it they raised the Supreme Court to the level of Supreme Lawgiver and demoted our historical and nationwide allegiance to the Christian God to the status of a Constitutional violation. 

 

The slow motion morphing of a weak judiciary into the dominant branch has continued unabated since that time.  The Judicial Coup is almost complete, having convinced three generations of citizens that the Court's proclamations are superior to legislated law.  But, this currently accepted dogma of absolute judicial supremacy on all matters Constitutional contradicts the founder’s intent. 

 

The Legislature must consider the issue of Constitutionality in every new law it passes.  The Supreme Court has every right to judge an act of Congress as Constitutional, but the Legislature has a right to override a Supreme Court judgment they deemed unconstitutional.  Ultimately, any new principle of government that fundamentally alters the original intent and spirit of the Constitution must be referred to the people for Amendment.  Likewise, the Executive branch should protest and refuse to execute a Supreme Court judgment deemed unlawful and unconstitutional.  Such Executive action against the Supreme Court is the equivalent of a Presidential veto of Congressional acts.  

 

Thus, each branch has an essentially equal obligation to judge the Constitutionality of the acts, laws, and judgments of the other branches.  Unless the system contains the mechanisms by which one branch may overrule the other, we risk the concentration of power that the founders sought to embed in our system of Separation of powers.  To vest sole authority to judge Constitutionality in the Judiciary puts us at risk of falling prey to the whims and enforced ideology of these 9 Black Robed Oligarchs.

 

A society's underlying moral standards governs its choice laws.  The representatives legislate, the Judges judge, and the executives should enforce according to that standard.  Each branch should be awake to acts of the other, and object to the implementations of error.  This principle extends to the public also; when any aspect of the system errs from a perfect reflection of that spiritual-moral standard, all that see the error should protest.  By persistent speaking into the public discourse, the erroneous principles will eventually be cleansed from the legislative and judicial template.  It can be very costly to an individual stand up against injustice alone; but the cost becomes small when numerous voices are raised in protest.  “Many hands make light work.”  But this is only possible with an honest media since we can only know the acts of government vicariously.  “An informed public is the cornerstone of democracy.” 

 

The perfect judge is sworn to evaluate the law according to its intent and letter.  Additional texture is given to legislation by case law which is the collection of historical examples illustrating the application of principles.  But, even the most perfectly dedicated lawyer, legislator, or judge cannot exclusively consider the words of legislation, the testimony of legislative intent, and the vast knowledge of case law to rightly judge in all matters of law.  An inevitable gap exists between law, precedent, and the current matter under judgment.  Each man must fill that gap with his own personal judgment of moral rightness.  In the best case scenario, the judge is absolutely committed to adhering to the precedent of rightly judged case law, the most moral spirit of legislation, and the original Godly intent of the Constitution. 

 

But in the case of the Secular Humanist judge, the man who desires to create a new nation that reflects modern moral principles as seen by man; such a judge will purposefully choose to see moral principles, offenses, and rights that match his own worldview and view as inimical the perspective of a Godly morality.  Such a man could use the dictatorial powers now appropriated by the High Court to advance his Secular agenda; and to shape the psyche and soul of the nation to match his utopian concepts of a perfect moral order.

 

In modern history, the rulings of the Supreme Court have been given the social weight of absolute instruction in right behavior and social moral judgment.  Thus, Justices of a Secular Humanist mind who believe the Constitution is a living document will issue rulings which reflect their moral and philosophical bias, rather than bending to the Christian guidance of the past.

 

Ideally, our Constitution is not simply a document of men, with human concepts of right, wrong and procedural direction.  Instead, the Constitution should be a document that has at its base a reflection of God’s Truth of what humans should be and do.  And, as a Christian nation, we believe that the standard of Truth may be found reflected by the Holy Bible.  Thus, given that every man biases his judgment of the law based on his personal worldview, we should install men who hold the Christian perspective.  And, in a democracy, we must elect a majority of such men if we wish our nation to be governed by the laws that attempt to reflect that absolute Standard of Truth.  In turn, we must each pass on our Godly Christian heritage to our children, and witness to our neighbor so that the electorate will hold internal the Christian ethic.  When the public holds God as their Lord, they will in turn request and require that same standard of public conduct from their representatives. 


We are a Christian nation by heritage.  John Jay, the first Supreme Court Justice said, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” 

 

We have fallen far from our founding principles when we criticize a President who commends a nominee’s spiritual allegiance to Christian principles.  Just as Israel fell from God’s grace when she worshipped other gods, we likewise risk losing our national blessing.

 

We were established as a Christian nation, and the Christian/Biblical morality is the foundation of our judicial/legislative system.  The sculpture of Moses bringing the 10 Commandments down from Sinai in the Supreme Court is only one of the innumerable evidences that reflect the general milieu of our Christian heritage and culture.  But, the Secular Humanists are attempting to rewrite history and stage a spiritual coup in the name of original intent. 

 

The Secular Humanist revisionists claim the founders were deists who intended to create a secular nation.  They have picked quotes from the lives of the Founders that appear to substantiate their claims of original secular intent.  But in actuality, Secular Humanism was only a competing philosophy that failed to rise to the level of preeminence as the standard of national morality.  The 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education gave the Supreme Court a precedent and battle cry by which they could suppress any propagation and perpetuation of Christianity via government. 

 

This ruling had no legal or Constitutional precedent or majority cultural consensus.  For substantiation of the Constitutionality of this ruling, the Court relied upon a quote (used out of context, and with an opposite intent) from Jefferson’s private correspondence to the Danbury Baptist Church Association about the “Separation of Church and State”.  The letter assured the Baptists that Government would never interfere in the affairs of the Church.  He noted that a strong wall of separation between church and state had been erected.  But in the Everson ruling, the quote was used to validate that the Constitution intended to prevent any government dictation of church ideology. 

 

When the 1947 Court invented this new principle of “Separation”, they ignored the fact that one of Congress’s first acts was to appropriate money for a Christian mission to the Indians (which was but one act in a general milieu of a Christian government and society).  But the court disregarded history and the vast body of precedent; they followed a seducing spirit and embraced the poisonous principle of “Separation” in the name of freedom of religion and original intent.  As with any spirit of evil, once implanted, it penetrated deep into the soul of its victim.  The judicial system was now armed with an anti-God precedent embedded in the body of Constitutional case law.  The Court could now cite this secular principle of “Separation” to extinguish the propagation of Christianity in any government sponsored setting.  With the Supreme Court as the final giver of law, the Court could now begin its campaign to convert government into a tool to proselytize for Secular Humanism.

 

This philosophical virus of “Separation” was given the imprimatur of Constitutional authenticity by the Supreme Court by the Everson ruling, and the forces of hell have used it as their trump card to validate the destruction of the entire edifice of American government built on Christian principles.  The goal of the Secular Humanists is the domination of the culture by the Secular Humanist philosophy.  At this time, their primary method of advancement of the Secular Humanist philosophy is by the enforced removal of Christian influence through any institution receiving public funds.  The Everson ruling established the Constitutional principle of “Separation”, and the courts have used this principle to validate rulings in favor of those litigants who sue to remove Bible reading from schools, to remove monuments from courthouses, and to remove prayer from classrooms, ballgames, commencements, and courthouses.  Any institution which takes money from the public coffers they argue has signed an implicit contract that they shall totally secularize their public expression.  In effect, education has made the Faustian bargain, and the cost is obedience to the giver of “gifts”.

 

The Secular Humanist philosophy is one of Godless exaltation of human wisdom and man’s inherent knowledge of right moral principle.  The Secular Humanist philosophy has always been, and will always be, a competing worldview to Christianity.  The two are mutually exclusive.  No compromise can be made between the Secular Humanist philosophy and the Christian worldview to reach a peaceful conclusion where the two religions are held as coequal philosophies about God and life.  

 

The real question is whether we wish to adopt Secular Humanism as the foundation of our national moral structure?  Do we wish to install the principles of Secular Humanism as the moral basis by which we legislate and judge?  Do we wish to declare ourselves a Secular Humanist nation, and receive the spiritual consequences of placing the God of Heaven as just one of the many gods we allow the people to worship in our modern day pantheon?

 

The principle of “Separation” is spreading ever more widely and deeply through the legal fabric of our nation.  As a result, challenges are being made at local, State and National levels to cleanse government of any Christian activity or symbol, or support for any agency or group which included Christianity in any form.  A few Christian lawyers, such as Jay Sekulow, have valiantly argued cases before the Supreme Court, and prevailed with their legal reasoning.  They have argued on the basis of various legal technicalities that some privately held Christian activities on public property are protected under free speech provisions, etc. 

 

But, all the legal maneuvering has avoided confronting the real issue, the fact that we have the right to choose to be a Christian nation.  We have the right as a Christian majority to choose to charge government with the task of providing public education to teach our children our faith.  We have the right as a Christian majority to expect that government will use as its standard of legislation and adjudication the moral code elaborated in the full text of the Holy Bible.  Scripture says, I will teach you, and you will teach your children.  Thus, we must resist the temptation to relinquish our children to the control and indoctrination of the State.   

 

We went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan so that the majority of people in those countries could choose to establish a Constitution which declared that they would pass no law which would contradict the principles of Islam.  As a democracy, we have the same right to choose a Christian moral code underlying our legislative and judicial system.  

 

The decay/Secularization of the legislative-judicial system has been proceeding for almost 60 years since the passage of Everson.  Many law schools teach Supreme Court decisions as factual illustrations of Constitutional law.  When erroneous precedents such as Everson are taught as landmark principles, the law students embrace the philosophical errors of the Court and frame the entirety of our legal structure on enforcing a Secular ideal.  These schools do not teach the Constitution from the perspective of original intent, but instead teach a living Constitution, one that is molded to meet the needs of changing times.  They teach the Supreme Court rulings as examples of what the Constitution is, rather than examining the Constitution as a primary document and judging the rulings.  But, such discernment of the True intent of Law could only be taught if the school embraced a higher law than the Constitution.  If God’s law were held as primary, a parallax could be sighted between God’s Law, Constitutional law, and the rulings of the Courts.  Such a comparison would provide a strong tool for judgment of law at all levels. 

 

But, by studying Supreme Court rulings as primary evidence of the meaning of the Constitution, the next generation of Constitutional scholars has been seduced into believing that "Separation" was a central principle intended by the founders.  In turn, an entire judicial establishment has arisen which is reflexively biased toward favoring the litigant who claims a violation of Church and State Separation in his school, Scout troop, local monument or city seal.  Thus, the Secular Humanist has installed a potent judicial weapon for enforcing Secular Humanism on the society.  It can be used to trump any majority desire to support the Judeo-Christian moral training through any public agency. 

 

The current battle for the heart of the nation includes objecting to any Supreme Court nominee who overtly embraces Judeo-Christian morality.  They oppose any who would use the Judeo-Christian morality as a criteria in his judgment of legal principles.  And they oppose any who believes that the Constitution was intended to be interpreted and implemented as a codification of the Judeo-Christian moral system.  This attitude is evidence that we are in a cold-civil war where the Secular Humanist chauvinists desire to implant legislative and judicial agents favorable to their moral structure.

 

As a Christian Nation we must resist accommodating to the demands of Secular Humanism on every front.  The Secular Humanists have a powerful legal advantage at this point, because of the cabal of Secular Humanist judges who have no allegiance to original intent, and instead follow the siren song set by the immoral precedent of Everson.

 

We are a multicultural, multiethnic nation, and as such, coexistence with the Secular Humanist, Buddhist, Muslim, and Atheist is necessary.  The Constitution should never be interpreted to allow the State to demand that we bow to a particular god or pledge our soul’s allegiance to a particular creed.  Every society will always contain a contingent of rebels, children, and misguided souls who resist the Will of God.  Still, if we do not maintain a majority of Christians at the base of our society, we will be pulled into the worship of foreign gods by the majority who possess the land, just like the Children of Israel.  And, when we lose our allegiance to God, we will lose our blessing just as they did.  Our national strength and blessing depend on our allegiance, love, and service to the True God.  The people will necessarily choose a god, and that god will own the land.  As Christians we have a right to claim ownership of America for the God of Abraham. 

 

The 1st Amendment explicitly prohibits Congress from establishing a State religion.  As such, we cannot use the initiatives of government to require the participation in a particular denomination.  We should not give the clergy positions of governmental authority where they are given the power to dictate orthodoxy.  Every man should speak from a level playing field; each should validate his beliefs with reason and evidence, rather than simply from position. 

 

Government should not declare a particular denomination or creed as having the proper or preferred belief structure.  Rather, as a Christian Nation, as a nation populated by a majority of Christians, the government should embrace the consideration of the whole of Biblical text as the foundation of legislation, justice, and cultural mores. 

 

A Christian Nation is not a theocracy.  The Christian nation is one whose moral structure is based on the principles of Christianity as found in the entirety of the Biblical text, and as interpreted by a consensus of the majority of clergy and laity.  A Christian Nation democracy has no theocratic hierarchy passing judgment on people because of their heretical beliefs.  There is no religious assembly of elders who dictate law by theological edict.  There is no official State religion, only the allowance of the practice of the executive, legislative, judicial, and administrative branches to govern according to the principles of the Biblical pattern.  In this sense, we were founded and intended to be a Christian Nation.  And, as a Christian Nation we must be on guard against the tendency of the church leaders to accumulate power and exert undue influence.  Such a pattern has strong historical threads binding us to the past.  Likewise, we should take heed of Jesus warnings about the leaven of the Pharisees.  Throughout history, nations have fallen under the iron boot of theocratic dictators.  We would do well to avoid this same trap.  Thus, the possibility of a Truly Christian nation holds the promise of a righteous society ruled by just law.  But, the promise can be betrayed by selfish men, deceived by their own arrogant proclamation of the truth.  It is for this reason that every man must take the position of priest and king in his public and private life.  No man should have absolute authority over the soul of another.  Each man stands alone before God, and he must justify his acts of support and passive acceptance.  Each of us has the duty to pursue wisdom, and thereby equip himself for the defense of Truth.  Such a society requires participatory citizenship.  This may seem dangerous, to propose such a nation-state organization.  But, as we approach perfection in societal organization, the distance between perfect and good becomes minute, and full dedication is required to avoid being seduced by the appearance of perfection.  The society can only be stabilized in righteousness if the entire citizenry participates in a full life-engagement of the process of daily judgment, protest, and participation.  The high stakes and dynamic nature of the polarity are inherent to the valiant quest.  To eliminate all possibility of the abuse of religious power is to reduce our nation down to the lowest religious common denominator of Secular Humanism.  And while the principles of Secular Humanism are for the most part noble and right, they fall short of the lofty heights we can reach if we assume the existence of God, and make the choice rightly.

 

The moral standards of Secular Humanism largely match the standards of Christianity.  In fact, it is possible to argue that Christianity is the sanctified version of Secular Humanism.  The Secular Humanist may argue that since no one knows who the True God is, that his religion is universal and the foundation of all religions.  He may argue that his morality is practical and right because it follows from the overall minimization of pain and the maximization of pleasure.  And, the he may argue that his morality produces good works and a just society since fairness and sowing and reaping are part of his worldview. 

 

But, Secular Humanism does not acknowledge the existence of God, and hence he misses the more subtle human costs of unGodly sexuality.  A society that follows an incomplete moral system will suffer.  Secular Humanism is seductive because it resonates with the human spirit on many levels.  But, the seeds of corruption from this incomplete system, with its scattered errors of concept and perspective, will eventually sprout, bloom, and produce a bitter fruit. 

 

Much of the Secular Humanist philosophy can be summarized in the phrase "Do no harm".  But the myopia of man, his inability to see into the realms of cause and effect, which are the realm seen only by God, has blinded him to the harm caused by improper sexuality.  The Secular Humanist has judged that the full spectrum of sexual behaviors cause no harm.  By exalting his own wisdom, man has become blind to the subtle, long term, and society-wide effects of unBiblical sexuality.  The man looking at human behavior through a Secular lens does not see the destruction at the end of the seemingly "harmless" sexuality of mutual consent.  The pursuit of sexual pleasure pulls a society’s moral compass off track and biases its judgment and legislation of social policy toward permissiveness. 

 

The ultimate manifestations of the Secular Humanist errors of ego and boundary are the genocidal mania of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.  Such philosophical error would have never been allowed to reach such maturity in a truly Christian Nation.  A whole society dedicated to following the spirit behind the Word of God would have objected to the errors of cultural organization and morality long before they reached the level of manifesting the murderous tyrant.  But, there is only a small window of opportunity for the vigilant Christian society to respond to the growing abuses of the tyrant-in-making.  Thus, the safest approach to preventing a societal slide to this level is an ongoing vigorous comparison of every law, court decision, and expenditure in the light of the metaphor of the Biblical account.

 

The Secular Humanists contend that we were founded to be a secular haven, a nation dedicated to living by the sensible creeds of human reason, a nation free from the influence of religion in the matters of state.  (This truly was the embraced opinion of France, and the blood of the French Revolution is a testimony to the fruit of such reason.)  But, this opinion about the founders’ intent is just another possible belief structure, not unique or special, since there are many possible historical perspectives that can be extrapolated from selected quotes and acts of the founders.  Historical facts, if chosen and isolated from context, then framed for a purpose, can be manipulated to validate any line of reasoning. 

 

The arguments that the founders intended that we be a Christian Nation could be impugned by the Secular Humanist who was dedicated to finding pieces of evidence that supported his Secular Humanist nation theory.  He could find such support by noting that a non-Christian person participated in writing the Constitution or Declaration.  He could find more support in noting that some of the founders were in fact Secular, Deist, or Atheistic.  (But, on closer examination we would find that men such as Ben Franklin and Jefferson wrote confessions of faith that would be considered the stand of a Right wing religious extremist in modern culture.)  The Secular Humanist could find some evidence of the existence of Secular Humanist influence by citing court rulings, cultural debates, books written, and the behavior of the citizens and evidence of the lives they lived, art they created, and books they wrote throughout the nation’s history.  But, the honest person will realize that the preponderance of evidence supports the proposition that we are a Christian Nation by our history and its acts, etc.    

 

But, as the Christian Right, we could likewise use the same methods to validate a contention that the founders intended that we be governed by the principles of Christianity.  A study of our history strongly validates the Supreme Court ruling of 1892 in the Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, that we are a Christian Nation.  Even so, as Christians, we cannot validate our desire to legislate on Christian principles by citing a uniform history of the words and acts of the founders and our people.  But, this standard is irrelevant since the Secular Humanist likewise cannot use the pure record of history to claim that the Founders intended that we be Secular, and divorced from any reference to any belief system.  Rather, the nation was formed in the context of a debate between two sides that were vying for power and ultimate predominance.  This is not to imply that it was a debate between an equally divided electorate.  Rather, this is to acknowledge that evil, self, and humanism are embers that have burned and will do so forever throughout history.  We expect that the Secular Humanist will twist facts, use the gentlemanly posture of the Christian to advance his own position.  Thus, we simply note, that the debate between good and evil springs eternal, and we should never be surprised by any tactic used to convince us to give the Secular Humanist possession of the land.  In this case, they use the argument of history to seize the nation.  If that does not produce the result; they will quickly adopt another method to steal our nation into their camp.     

 

I believe the stronger historical arguments support Christianity as the intended moral foundation of the nation.  But naturally, the Secular Humanist contends that history supports his view that the founders’ intention, and that acts of State reveal that we are to be a Secular Nation. 

 

History strongly influences the direction of a nation.  The body of Constitutional and case law should give the social order stability.  The structure of a Constitutional Republic dictates that each generation should follow the original intent of the Constitution in creating legislation and adjudicating that law.  But ultimately a government of the People, by the People, and for the People must choose how to live and govern themselves at each moment.  The body of law and its enforcement should prevent rapid social change.  But, a man who introduces a purposeful initiative (for good or ill) can move the social order with persistent pressure on the system.  Still, the most powerful transformations occur when persistence, prayer, and enrollment are combined.

 

Currently, we are witnessing a culture battling within itself over the issue of spiritual allegiance.  Two religions are struggling to claim rightful inheritance to the blessings of original Constitutional intent.  Their arguments of historical scholarship do not appear to be creating consensus or concession by the opposing side.  The judiciary has taken the posture of final judge upon itself (in a manner not intended by the Founders), and has been moving the country toward the Secular Humanist position by judicial activism.  As a result, we cannot appeal to the wisdom and judgment of an impartial judiciary to resolve this cultural debate.  The will of the people to overrule the Liberal Judiciary was seen in the election of a Republican President, House, and Senate.  But, these two branches of government, which were constructed by the framers to be the stronger branches, have both deferred their will to the judgment of the weaker judiciary.

 

If we allow a liberal judiciary to direct our social trajectory, we will find an ever stronger State imposition of Secular Humanism on our culture.  The people have attempted to oppose this judicial tyranny and exert an opposing force through the normal channels of government by electing representatives who stood for “values” issues.  By the process of appointment and confirmation, the Christian majority has attempted to move the Supreme and Federal courts toward a pro-Christian bias.  This strategy may eventually be successful, or it may be routed by presidents like George W Bush appointing stealth candidates who may or may not actually support a Christian Nation perspective.  Hopefully Judge Alito will prove to be a faithful servant of the God of our Fathers as has been indicated by his years on the Federal bench.

 

Clearly the Judiciary, Legislature, and Executive branches are not willing to stand up and articulate the standards of a Christian Nation.  Thus, the people must do it in their individual lives, and begin to bring the concepts of the Christian Nation into mainstream ideology.  We must push against the imposition of the Secular State; we must bring into common wisdom the fact that the current judicial justification for imposing Secular Humanism came from a de novo judicial fabrication in the Everson ruling.  As a nation of people, as a democracy, as a republic based on a Constitution with as body of law, we can begin to propagate our own rhetoric.  We the People have the right to choose to return to the pre-1947 days when each city and state could decide its level and type of support for religious activities in schools, court, and government. 

 

As a nation, every person of faith should boldly declare the right of our state institutions to embrace the God of Abraham from the highest to the lowest levels of government, and throughout our society.  We must take up arms against the forces of decay, sloth, selfishness, avarice, and lust to win the war in our day for the possession of the soul of our nation.  Each generation will face a battle reminiscent of this fight.  We can only do our best to leave a sufficiently strong history, educational indoctrination, legislative and judicial record to give evidence to the intent of their forefathers.  And, ultimately we must manifest the good works and fruit that come from a true reflection of the heart of God's will. 

 

I believe the arguments supporting the intent of the founders to create a Christian Nation weigh heavily in favor of the conclusion that they intended us to be a Christian Nation at the foundation of our moral, legislative, and judicial structure.  Nevertheless, the spiritual opponents of Christianity use historical facts, quotes, and acts of the founding era to support their belief that we should be a Secular nation.  But the record of history is so strong of our Christian Heritage, we can only assume their proclamations and protest are disingenuous, intended only to advance their cause rather than to argue for truth.  Thus, we find our fate as a nation being decided by the combination of history, logic, bravado, and gut feelings.  We should determine our future action based on a commitment to follow the Spirit of the Constitution.  When each generation bases our acts of law and justice upon the same Constitutional spirit, it gives stability to our national identity.  But, the Secular Humanists and the Christians both believe they are the rightful heirs of original Constitutional spirit.  Thus, the true battle rages in the heavens over which religion shall lay hold to the claim for the soul of America. 

 

An accurate judgment of past intentions requires a comprehensive knowledge of all acts, speech, writings, and the context of each declaration.  Such a universal view of life cannot be assembled in any situation.  Thus we are left with limited evidence about an issue with the two sides contradicting each other.  Still, a decision must be made, and will be made, about the direction of the country.  This is the essence of the political process, an abbreviated public debate by advocates of two polarized positions.  Thus, the decision is made based on limited argument, force of personality, selective examination of facts, and the whims and bias of the representatives, justices, or people voting on a particular day.  In other words, very weighty issues that change the directions of history and nations hinge on the feelings and guesses of the masses.  In this confusion and abbreviated knowledge, God can move on the minds of men to work His purposes.  We may see the movement of the hand of God swaying the courts issuing a ruling, or an executive order or speech, it may be a national tragedy or conflict, or it may be a change of heart of the people.  But ultimately, God’s will is accomplished.  A miracle happens, possibly unrecognized, but ultimately the leaders follow God’s direction; none is sovereign but Him. 

 

We entertain ourselves, attempting to justify the correct position and direction of the nation by assembling arguments based on the past, but no person or nation is totally consistent in its speech, acts, or philosophy throughout its entire lifetime.  We could look at which side predominated in the previous generation's battle between the two religions.  Or examine the fruit created by the previous generation's reign.  We could consider the theory, reasonableness, and justification used by each side to validate their particular belief structure.  But ultimately, these indicators are only guides for us of the present era to make a decision how we should choose to regulate our national morality.

 

The Secular Humanists wish to create Secular Humanism as the State religion of America; and to the largest part they have been almost completely successful.  As the Church, we should likewise strive with equal fervor to enroll the populace in support of placing Christianity as our moral icon.  No apologies need be given for our Christian Nation stand.  We simply must speak the truth with love.  We must each sound the alarm in our own sphere and inspire passion to support local, state and national officials to legislate and judge according to Christian principles.  We must mobilize the church to create a National movement to stand up and take back the ground that the Secular Humanist religion has taken.  If the majority of the People speak boldly, vote in concert with their desire to legislate and judge according the God of the Bible, we will return our nation to its Christian moral foundation.  As a Christian Nation, the minority cannot claim the mandate to remove every symbolic or oratorical reference to Christianity from the public.  As a Christian nation we can return a proper hierarchy to the judgment of sin and virtue. 

 

The Secular Humanists have based their advocacy of sexual sin on a right to privacy, choice, and the fallacious principle of Separation of Church and State.  In a Christian Nation, we return the pinnacle of moral standard to the God of the Bible.  His warnings about sexual sin are best heeded by a nation that wishes to continue to prosper.  Sexual sin is justified under the rubrics of freedom, choice, privacy, personal rights, and harmlessness.  Such arguments are based on secondary principles of human virtue rather than the primary standards, which are Gods direct commands to abstain and follow the paths of holiness.

 

The best central concept governing any country must be a commitment to the highest Truth, as defined by God.  The Christian has as his standard the God of the Bible.  As Christians, we hold the Bible to be a reflection of the Truth of God's will and way.  We do not claim that we as humans know, or can know in perfection, the Truth of the Bible as intended by God.  Such knowledge would be the equivalent of being God.

 

Still, as men, we must make a stand as to what we believe are the highest standards of life, the True rules of nature, and the rules governing man's behavior as intended by the God of Heaven.  As a people we are required to honestly uphold that standard.  And, as a democracy we have a right to implement the standard we choose and impose it on ourselves as the law of the land.  As a Constitutional Republic, those standards should be consistent with the spirit of the original Constitutional intent.  That intent can be changed, but it should be done through the process of amendment, not by judicial fiat.

 

The Secular Humanist’s concept of Truth cannot be absolutely true at its foundation since the Secular Humanist does not recognize God as the source of the Truth.  Thus, the Secular Humanist legislates based upon man's changeable sense of right and wrong.  The Secular Humanist has elevated man’s wisdom and inherent knowledge to the heights.  He must establish man as the supreme judge and lawgiver because the Secular Humanist recognizes no Supreme God as creator or lawgiver.  Thus, the Secular Humanist must elevate himself to a level equivalent with God, knowing with the same wisdom as God the ways of mankind, and the proper regulation of the masses and individual.  The problem comes to fruition when the Secular Humanist takes minor principles such as non-discrimination, privacy, equality, and choice, and places these as the primary standards that govern man's social policy and personal interactions, and does not call upon the Holy Spirit to give wisdom.  Praying to a lesser god may produce some results, but they will be inferior to what is available to the Child of God.

 

"We the People" have a right to choose to reflect our best understanding of God's Truth in our Law.  That is the essence of democracy. 

 

Democracy automatically manifests the will of the majority; hence the people will only be served well if the general tenor of the public uses the highest concepts and standard of Truth to guide their public debate and decisions.  As a Republic, the will of the majority is slightly blunted, providing some buffer against the mob spirit that can possess a people.  Our goal as a democracy is to bring the people up to the level of statesmen and men of principle.  In such a society, a democracy will choose their leaders and laws well.  Such a people should use the Truth of God, as they have conceived it, as the basis of their education and public policy.  Democracy and representative government are turned upside down when we require that the majority refrain from public displays of support for their moral standard in deference to the standard of truth held by the minority. 

 

As the minority, the Secular Humanists have the job of attempting to enroll America in their belief structure.  The church opposes their position, and has the job of perpetuating a faith in Christ in the populace to maintain and expand that majority position.  The prevailing climate of the culture changes when God’s rule is overthrown and the people worship another god. 

 

We were founded as a nation of States, each sovereign in their right to apply religious-spiritual paradigms in their law, media, and educational systems.  The 1st Amendment restricted the authority of Congress to establish a national religion, but no such prohibition was placed upon the States.  This leaves open the possibility of a patchwork of religious loyalties throughout the nation.  The Mormon experiment in Utah is only one example of such a local allegiance to a particular perspective of God. 

 

Allowing public sector support of non-denominational religious teaching strengthens the hold of a religion in that region.  Church-state alliances will produce a social schism between the regions that chose different religious allegiance.  But, such disparity is not Constitutionally forbidden.  Allowing the marketplace of religion to express itself from the populace to the government will produce a competition between the religious species.  This competition and comparison of cultures will show which is the more fit and worthy of cultural dominance.

 

Today we heard in the news that the military is considering preventing Chaplains from proselytizing the unaffiliated in the military to a belief in Christ.  Such a policy is a huge reversal from the traditions of our country, and another example of the Judiciary legislating an advancement of Secular Humanism and imposing their concept of a religion-free government.  If the Constitution clearly commanded that such a “Separation” be enforced on America uniformly in all branches of government, and by all agents of government, then such a ruling would have been Constitutionally consistent.  But, this “Constitutional” concept was manufactured by implication from the 1947 Everson ruling.  Such fundamental philosophical Constitutional revisionism is the equivalent of a Constitutional Amendment, and the people have a right to object to any such Amendment-like ruling.  Congress and the President have the right and obligation to reverse such rulings.

 

The Left is claiming that their cleansing of the government of all vestiges of religious reference brings the government into Constitutional compliance.  But, in fact this action merely makes a deeper installation of Secular Humanism as the de facto State religion.  Thus, any act of government which speaks to the participation, or non-participation, of religion in government will automatically be an act of government-religion endorsement. 

 

It is impossible for the State to be totally religion-neutral.  As a nation, the founders clearly put a limit on the penetration of government into the people’s religious lives by prohibiting Congress from establishing a religion, or preventing the free exercise thereof.  But, no restriction was established on the penetration of religion into the government.  Thus, as people we must make a choice; we must decide from generation to generation how much involvement we want religion to have in government. 

 

In matters not covered by the Constitution, the Supreme Court cannot dictate with absolute Constitutional authority the laws upon which the State or Nation imposes upon themselves.  The job of the Court is to judge the law based on case precedent and legislation.  The court does not have the authority to issue de novo edicts about matters not explicitly elaborated in the constitution. 

 

This limited role of the Court provides a more proper role for the Judiciary.  As experts in case law and legislation, the Judiciary’s rightful job is to give advice to the Executive with regard to the proper application of the law in cases of infraction.  The Executive is under no obligation to execute the judgment of the Judiciary.  

 

Thus, the State has a significant effect in perpetuating the majority religion by virtue of its decision to allow or disallow the public support of religious influence in education.  Since the majority of parents have given the government proxy right to indoctrinate their children, the parents have a right to demand that government execute their will in inculcation of values.  Thus, given that the influence of the state has a powerful perpetuating effect on the religion of the culture, we must not cast aside our rights as possessors of the land for God because of a philosophical-political technicality.  If we cede moral authority to the Secular Humanists, and give them the possession of the tools of the maintenance of power (media, legal precedent, and legislative authority) we give them the ability to create a stable state that enforces its Secular Humanist moral mandate on all people.

 

The Christian moral dominance of the nation will shift when we allow a new religious majority to establish its influence over the next generation of youth.  The parents have given away their authority, trusting that the public school system is a benign influence.  But in fact, the Left is purposefully advancing its agenda to take the hearts of our post “home school” America, and indoctrinate the youth to serve its new national god.

 

We cannot allow the Secular Humanist ethos to control the direction of our culture.  No other religion will be as beneficent and tolerant of the beliefs and practices of the minority religions as Christianity.  Thus, we must use our position of power, influence, and righteousness to insure the perpetuation of Christianity as the de facto State religion.  It is inappropriate that we declare any denomination as the National Religion.  Rather, we should embrace the whole of the Bible in issues of Legislation, Judicial ruling, and Executive action, and intrasocietal relationship.  The entire culture will be civilized by recognizing that Biblical Scripture is a reflection of God, a lens through which we can see Truth. 

 

The Secular Humanists claim that the founders confirm their position of religious dominance.  In this war, the Secular Humanists are using the media, partisan politics, and the courts as tools to leverage themselves into the position of social power and moral authority.  The Secular Humanists are claiming the right to impose their religious concepts on America, while at the same time declaring that Christianity has no right to use government or public education to maintain and perpetuate itself.

 

Democracy is a political system which authorizes the majority to exercise the right to implement social policy as it sees fit.  A Constitutional Republic is a democracy limited in its options by the principles of the Constitution.  Our Constitution does not explicitly prohibit the public from using religious principles as the argument to justify its laws.  Likewise, there is no explicit prohibition against religious schooling, prayer, or pledging allegiance to a nation under God.  Such prohibitions are extrapolations from the belief structure of the Secular Humanist.  Thus, to enforce these prohibitions, the Secular Humanist has enrolled the help of the Supreme Court to create new rights and principles of morality that can be used to restrict the using Christianity as the basis for public policy. 

 

In their argument to justify their moral positions, they use secondary principles such as fair play and tolerance.  These limited-scope virtues have merit in judging some circumstances.  But, they cannot trump God’s hierarchy of values.  The Secular Humanist strongly declares injustice based on his assumed system of moral absolutes.  But he misapplies the hierarchy of God’s Law, and uses minor moral principle to attempt to justify the violation of major moral precept.

 

Since democracy allows the majority to allocate funds to implement policies consistent with the prevailing belief structures, we have the right to include prayer in school, to teach a history that validates our Christian heritage, and to discipline and instruct children in the ways of Biblical morality.  And yes, there may be those who do not like the fact that the society supports an allegiance to the God of the Bible in its schools, laws, and judgments.  But, as a democracy based on freedom of expression, we have the right to collect funds, and establish social institutions to educate our children as we see fit. 

 

If the Christian majority wishes to transfer the responsibility of education to surrogate parents (the school teachers), the real parents have the right to expect that public funds will be used to teach their children in the ways of the Lord.  Those who do not like public prayer in schools or the indoctrination in Christian social principles, have the right to pay to create their own alternative educational experience.  Every parent has the right and obligation to insure that his child is indoctrinated in the belief structure of his chosen religious tradition.  But, requiring the majority to concede to the mediocrity or standards of the minority violates the basic tenets of democracy and majority rule. 

 

At one time Christianity was so deeply inculcated into the fabric of our nation that the Supreme Court in 1844 in Vidal v. Girard’s executors, ruled that even private schools must use the Bible and the general principles of Christianity in the education of their students.  Such a standard is more closely aligned to the laws of a millennial society. 

 

This entire system of eliminating Christian influence from government has been validated by the supposed original intent of the founders.  But in fact this ruse has been perpetuated by the Secular Humanists in order to gain full spiritual dominance of the culture.  The Secular Humanists argue that the founders wished to have no religious expression whatsoever in government; thus, by creating a Secular Humanist state, they can appear to be following the high ground of original Constitutional intent – which is a lie. 

 

But even such an argument, is betrayed by the Secular Humanist’s own policy regarding Constitutional Law and original intent.  They argue that the Constitution is a living document, meant to be molded in its meaning by the circumstances of the times.  Thus, the argument that the founders intended a “Separation” is hypocritical and simply attempting to use an argument that the Christian/ Conservative/ Originalist would respect.  The Secular Humanist has no respect for original intent, only a commitment to advancing the State supported status of his religion. 

 

Thus, no weight or credibility need be applied to the Secular Humanists arguments for original intent.  The battle must instead be brought to the Secular Humanists turf and be won in the court of public opinion.  The Secular Humanist is simply a bully and opportunist.  He wants to accumulate as much power to himself and his position as possible so that he can rationalize his sexuality, and the submission of the Christian.  The Christian is an irritant to his mind because of Christ’s unchanging stand on sexual morality.  Ultimately a man’s political philosophy is dictated by his morality.

 

The court system and the Supreme Court in particular, is the focus of the current skirmish in the spiritual war.  We have given the Supreme Court the authority (unrightfully) to be the sole and final determinant of all Constitutional principles. 

 

“It is the people, not the judges, who are entitled to say what their Constitution means, for the Constitution is theirs; it belongs to them, and not to their servants in office – any other theory is incompatible with the foundation principles of our government.”  Theodore Roosevelt, 1912

 

Nevertheless, we have been seduced into believing that the Supreme Court casts the final vote in all matters judicial.  Therefore, the Secular Humanist activists have made philosophical dominance of the Supreme Court their priority.  Supreme Court rulings have become the defining standard by which to validate or negate social programs and cultural morality.  When the Supreme Court issues a judgment, regardless of its historical or Constitutional consistency, it creates a case law upon which the Secular Humanist crusader can rest future social mandates to advance his cause.  The Secular Humanist uses these newly created precedents as cultural turning points.  He can use them as substantiation from which to base the appropriation of the tools of social power for more deeply implementing Secular Humanism as the State Religion. 

 

This debate about whether we are a Christian or Secular nation makes more sense when we get the big picture.  This entire drama is simply a reflection of that fact that we are the foot soldiers in a war directed by the spiritual forces of heaven and hell.  We see the reflections of this battle in the myriad of cultural debates and political skirmishes.  The Secular Humanist minority is dedicated to becoming the majority and governing our nation.  They wish to place us under the rule of their philosophical-religious paradigm and establish a political-educational system that rules and perpetuates their religious principles.

 

The Secular Humanists have infiltrated the educational system and ruling class.  They have engaged in a pervasive campaign to redefine the words that govern us and rewrite the history that preceded us.  This redefinition of the spiritual-cultural paradigm is most clearly seen in how they have turned the First Amendment guarantee to freedom of religious expression and practice into a demand that government be entirely separated from all religious influence.  And again, the purpose of this initiative is to validate their sexually immoral lifestyles.  By so doing they can pretend they are guiltless by declaring and creating a cultural paradigm which accepts unGodly sexuality.  The man who believes that society is the source of his guilt about his unGodly sexuality, must mold society and God to conform to his own image.

 

The Secular Humanists wish to suppress the propagation of Christianity by preventing government support of any religious principle.  Such is a de facto establishment of a government enforcement of the moral ideology of Secular Humanism.  They validate their claims of original intent by citing the Federalist debates which clearly illustrate the problems with mixing religion and government.  But, this debate assumes that man can create a totally religion-free government – it is impossible.  A Secular Humanist State has the superficial appearance of endorsing and promoting no religion, but in fact this implementation is simply the embrace of a Secular Humanist religion.  The enforcement of no-religion is in fact a religious edict.  To restrict a Christian majority from being able to use its religious principles in legislation, judgment, and education prevents a Christian society from attaining its full potential. 

 

As a nation with a Christian heritage, we have a right to choose to perpetuate our belief structures.  Our foundation is built on a respect for the right of every person to choose to practice and believe as his heart directs.  But, the society will necessarily press upon every citizen a moral pattern encoded within it laws, and it will enforce those laws, and the underlying moral system, with police and cultural censure.  Thus, regardless of whether we are a Christian or Secular Humanist nation, we will be trained by force in the ways of the dominant cultural paradigm.  Living in a nation under the implicit influence of a spiritual-religious-moral system is not optional; it is inherent to government, society, and group life.

 

Thus, the argument of the Secular Humanist that we are to have no religious influence in government and no religious influence from the government is fallacious.  It cannot be implemented.  Rather, the question is whether inappropriate coercion is being used to require allegiance to a particular spiritual practice.

 

As a Christian or Secular Humanist nation, we will necessarily come under the influence of the laws and judgments of the land.  Thus, if the majority chooses to be governed by a Christian philosophical morality, we should as a nation commonly and openly include frank discussions about the precepts of the moral system undergirding our laws and judgments.  Such a discussion is not an establishment of religion; it is an overt acknowledgement of the principles upon which we base our moral system.  By openly engaging in an examination of the premises for legislation, we can gain control of the forces driving us to regulate our behavior.  If we do not acknowledge the root of our cultural assumptions, we will operate out of secondary principles such as choice, privacy, equality, and non-discrimination and be unaware of our allegiance to those minor principles.  As a result of avoiding a strong consideration of Truth, and the relationship of God to His people, we are far more susceptible to the application of error to our societal governmental structures.

 

The Secular Humanist argues that he has taken the high road of religion-free government.  But in fact, he is simply instituting his own religion under the disguise of a common sense revelation of human relationships.  As we enforce a cleansing of Christianity from public life, we will find that it will go underground.  The remnant of the faithful will become more fervent under this suppression, but the culture will suffer by the removal of the life-giving influence of Christianity as the general bias of society. 

 

The war is invisible, the plot is being planned by spiritual powers, and the Secular Humanist pawns that so violently wage war against the Christian influence of our culture are probably unaware of the larger struggle for spiritual dominance.  Spiritual forces have moved the loyalists in each camp to use the tools of State and Media to shape the minds of the people in its own image.  

 

The most incredible aspect of this double-think heist is the imposition of a new State Religion of Secular Humanism in the name of the Non-establishment of a State religion.  If the Secular Humanists manifest their dream, we will someday find ourselves enslaved by a Godless national paradigm which will steal our blessing from Heaven.

 

We cannot stand by as the judicially enforced Secularization of America is thrust upon us in the name of Constitutional intent.  We will suffer an unacceptable societal degradation if we capitulate to the Secular Humanist dogma of “Separation”.  We must each participate in the larger effort to defend the Christian worldview as our judicial, legal, and cultural moral standard.  We must abandon our false pacifistic notions of Christianity and speak the truth with love.  We may offend those who oppose us, but if our words are True they will have power.  We must use the minimum force necessary to repel the invaders in our defense of truth.  Truth needs a voice, and she depends on us to speak for her.

T.

 

Click to email comments to Dr. Thomas Abshier


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 | Religion and Tyranny | Patriot Act | Patriotism | World Situation | Cheneys Daughter | High Stakes | Lake Woebegon | Book Outline | Euthanasia | Culture War | Global Warming | Abuse Alleged | Vision for America | Jesus and War | Good and Evil Distinction | Resist Not Evil People