Archive for November, 2011

In God We Trust…

3 November 2011
The Basis Of Our Laws

How many recognize our national motto? Not Barack Obama, surely: he, President of these United States, told an audience in Jakarta that E Pluribus Unum is our motto. You’d think someone who is President would know the difference, but nothing surprises me out of that guy any more.

In God We Trust. That says a lot regarding the regard the framers of the constitution and founders of The United States had for religion – in particular, christian religions. Yet, time and again, we hear the atheists and secularists argue against any inclusion of God into the conduct of our public business. Christmas, the holiday universally celebrated by Christians, is a taboo word in advertisements for sales and events that seek to make their fortune off of the traditions around Christmas. “Holiday” is their chosen word – but they have no difficulty with specifically naming fabricated holidays such as “kwanzaa”. They have no issue with Islamic holiday names emblazoned in the public eye.

Why is that? What have we become as a nation? Somehow, the representative nature of our government has been twisted from a system designed to promote equal opportunity and representation for all to a system that foists the views and desires of factious minorities upon all, counter to the desires of the people as a whole, as defined by our methods of representation. Politicians and bureaucrats regularly impose THEIR will on the people rather than implement the will and desires of the people they supposedly represent. Factious minorities have learned to use activist judges who believe they have the duty to legislate from the bench rather than interpret the law to regularly overturn the will of the people through very liberal and sometimes very imaginative and wholly fabricated interpretation of those laws. They’ve masterfully learned to appeal to the greed of politicians and their focus on re-election to their advantage by lobbying them with their views and plying them with money at re-election time.

How did this come to be? How do we rectify that?

Per the original premise of this article, one step would be to reaffirm what “Separation of Church and State” actually refers to: the Establishment Clause. This clause precludes a government-mandated, national religion. It does not preclude the mention of God in public. It does not preclude prayer in school, at sporting events, or at the start or finish of public (including government) sessions or meetings. It is only by extremely imaginative and liberal interpretations of that clause that anyone can come to the conclusion that the display of the ten commandments in a courthouse is a constitutional violation.  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Where, in this simple line, do you see a prohibition against public mention of God? Where, in this simple line, do you find prohibition against public prayer? Establishment here is a verb; not a noun. In modern terms, this clause says, bluntly: “Congress shall make no law which establishes any certain religion as the national religion of the united states.”

Thank goodness for those in the House of Representatives today who understand that. Thank goodness we have MANY Representatives with spine enough to recognize that the “PC” direction of our current politics and public policy is horrifically damaging to The United States. Granted, it was a “non-binding resolution”, but their reaffirmation of “In God We Trust” as the national motto is a bold and brilliant step to help bring The United States back to its moral underpinnings. And to those who voted no, to Representatives Justin Amash of Michigan, Gary Ackerman and Jerrold Nadler of New York; Judy Chu, Mike Honda and Pete Stark of California, Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, Henry Johnson of Georgia, and Robert Scott of Virginia – your “no” votes likely played well to the press – but no-one really cares what they think anymore. They’ve already been exposed as to who they are. Now, unfortunately for some of you in this list, you are now exposed for who you are. (Others: we already knew.) Let’s see how this plays out to your electorate.