In My Humble Opinion
God & Politics
Death Penalties
Socialism vs Capitalism: A Thanksgiving
Story
Theocracy vs Democracy
Anti-War Sentiments
Christian Political Influence
Gay Gospel According to Ratner
Lethal Weapons
Pledge of Allegiance
Wise Up On Separation
God In Constitutions
GOD & POLITICS
(Printed 11/04:
Did you ever have a sense or feeling that you were supposed to do something? Did you ever have to make a crucial decision? A critical choice? Did the choice ever seem obvious or did it ever scare you?
Maybe it was buying a necessary item, standing up to an opponent, donating heavily to a worthy cause, or sacrificing time and effort for someone in need. Maybe it was an important business decision, or a choice that could affect your whole family. Maybe you were the sole person with responsibility for that decision. Thinking back, did you trust yourself? Did you take the responsibility or did you avoid it? Did you hope that someone else would come along to make the hard choice instead?
Knowing that we all must face such responsibilities and have some means of trusting our choices, the question then is: Where do our choices come from?
We heard a lot in this past election about God and faith. We heard people
actually say they weren't going to vote for someone because they mentioned such
elements in their decision-making process, personal or professional. We heard
others say that religious convictions should have nothing to do with government
or elections. We even heard a presidential candidate say that he had religious
beliefs, but he would never force them on others.
So it first makes me wonder that if a candidate has beliefs or convictions,
what are they for? We assume some of those convictions are based on mere social
or scientific facts. Sometimes they are based on clear and established rules.
But invariably, we are faced with decisions that have little basis in facts or
rules. Then it becomes a hard decision, a choice to be guided by a sense or
feeling we can trust - by our convictions. That's what they're for.
The person who doesn't like faith mentioned or utilized in a leadership
capacity (in other words, forced on others) probably makes important decisions
almost daily. They may even profess to have religious beliefs. Apparently, they
must ultimately decide whether they can trust the basis for their principles
and decisions. And if they're in a leadership position, they must then somehow
be assured that their convictions are solely conceived within their own mind to
justify their position against faith's influences. If their sense or feelings
about how things should be are even remotely based on religious principles or
the possibility of a God that guides our conscience, they must disqualify
themselves. If they can never be sure, they probably need to avoid such
positions of leadership altogether.
It becomes clear that no one with true faith can distance it from their
decision-making process in private or public life. The faith of a believer
merely recognizes that conscience, a sense of right and wrong choices,
ultimately comes from God. In an objective sense, the person who does not want
to believe this cannot justify their choices over the one who does. Their
position is not based on the validity of choices, only the source. And if they
profess to believe in God, how can they be sure that he isn't guiding their
conscience? How can they ever make a decision and assure people that it isn't
"religiously" motivated? And if there is any indication that leanings
might be associated with faith, will they then choose to make the alternate
choice simply to be safe from Godly coercion? Can this be the inevitable
outcome of a misguided definition of "separation of church and
state"?
Such positions with an aversion to decisions or leadership based on faith are
obviously deluded and/or hypocritical, and missing the honesty of those who
would acknowledge God's influence. The presidential candidate who doesn't want
to force his beliefs on others will invariably have to make choices in
agreement with his conscience. He won't choose in disagreement with his
conscience if he has one. If he is an atheist, I guess we won't have to worry
about his source. Or will we? But if he professes to have faith in God, then
what is our greatest concern - his acceptance or rejection of that guidance? Maybe
someone believing and trusting in something greater than themselves is not so
much a cause for concern as the alternative. One might go so far as to suggest
that trusting God in all things decided is not only good, it may well be
essential.
So when it comes to your life, your responsibilities, and your vote: Did you ever have a sense or feeling that you were supposed to do something? Did you ever have to make a crucial decision? A critical choice? Did the choice ever seem obvious?
DEATH PENALTIES
(Printed 10/04: Virginia News Service)
When reflecting on the strong moral component of the recent election and its potential effect on abortion rights, it may be worthwhile to consider a new perspective on the issue in general.
We can reasonably note that many liberals, maybe a majority of them, are against the death penalty. When you question why they oppose it, they will have one of two answers: either they are against the death penalty altogether or, most likely, that they are concerned about the penalty being carried out on an innocent person. Though most would agree that the death penalty is a proper sentence for many of the heinous crimes we see committed, there have indeed been a few innocents in the past who have unfortunately been dealt this supreme penalty due to errors in the system. The argument against it might then be well taken. If we can't be absolutely sure that a man is guilty, it is better to be safe than sorry. You can always reverse a prison sentence; not so with a death penalty.
Unfortunately, such opposition has a limited universe. There is another situation where similar concerns for justice have not been considered. A liberal argument has been that the fetus is not a viable entity to be valued over a mother's personal choices - or is it? Scientific, medical, and legal findings now favor the unborn child as a legitimate human being, worthy of individual protection under the law in homicide cases. We've seen an obscenely revealing side of abortion through newer ultrasound and videography technologies, partial birth abortion is overwhelmingly recognized as barbarian, and the population's moral convictions are becoming more and more intense on this issue. Even our understanding of DNA and its existence in the earliest embryonic stages suggest their convictions may be right.
So, at this point, can anyone say for sure that the unborn child is not a legitimate human being worthy of total protection under the law?
A good point has been made regarding such arguments. If someone wishes to
declare that there is no gold in
So recognizing that, even now, our knowledge is still understandably limited and we only effectively utilize 1% of our brain (according to notable geniuses such as Einstein), who in his right mind can confidently and categorically state that the unborn child is not an individual person deserving the right to life over a mother's choice? And if a person is opposed to the death penalty in order to avoid a fatal mistake, even within the circumstances of a potential crime against humanity, how much more would that same person be expected to oppose the possibility of a fatal mistake against an unmistakably innocent individual?
There is obviously either a gross error in judgement here, or an unbelievable double-standard. It appears some people would rather we be safe than sorry with death penalty cases even though DNA evidence appears to have eliminated any recent errors, but would rather be sorry than safe in the case of thousands of legalized abortions each year. It simply doesn't make any sense, and the country needs to know it.
SOCIALISM vs CAPITALISM: A Thanskgiving Lesson
Despite politically-negative connotations to the term socialism, it was really born of good intentions - pooling the resources of the many to take care of the needy few. There are many well-intentioned individuals including Christians who would accept and even encourage a socialist style agenda within our government. So what's wrong with that?
A prime example was best illustrated with the arrival of the Pilgrims on
these shores in 1620. These faithful individuals adopted the Mayflower Compact,
a social contract requiring that "all profits and benefits that are got
by trade, working, fishing or any other means" were placed in the
common stock of the colony. Further, it required that "all such persons
as are of this colony are to have their meat, drink, apparel and all provisions
out of this common stock." In other words, it was
Unfortunately, not too well. Since those who worked harder and longer
received no more than those who worked little or none at all, an incentive for
hard work was absent. As a result, productivity was down, the colony barely had
enough to survive, theft and corruption became rampant, and many died of
malnutrition.
After a couple of years of such conditions, Governor William Bradford
implemented a change. In 1623,
It seems a contradiction that a small, close community of Christians could have failed at an experiment in communal (or socialist) living, especially when you consider they were likely basing it on biblical scripture. In Acts 2 and 4, it points out how the believers shared everything they owned, even sold houses and land to give proceeds to those in need.
The problem was twofold. It was based partly on a utopian ideal that a community, especially a Christian community, would be expected to conduct themselves in a near perfect manner given the right conditions. They would work hard, be honest and diligent, and even willingly sacrifice for the need of others. The Pilgrims failed to consider from their own scriptures that man is fallen, and will succumb to the weaknesses of human nature if not given the proper structure to achieve both physically and spiritually. The bigger problem was that the community was not given this structure to achieve. The Mayflower Compact mandated that the people give all they had to the community to be divided equally. Therefore, they technically had nothing of their own to offer. This is contrary to biblical principles which encourage people to work hard and prosper, to willingly offer their tithe, and to help the needy. These are all personal principles, not governmental ones, and are designed to be pursued voluntarily.
Consider that if you are forced to love and worship God, you are just a puppet and your expression doesn't really have meaning. But if you choose to love and worship God, it is truly your own desire and expression. This is the same understanding with offerings and charity. If the state owns or confiscates your possessions, even for a noble cause, it is not your offering to give. So how can you make an offering when you don't own one, where is the desire to help the less fortunate when that is the state's job, what is the reason for hard work if you see no tangible profit from it, and how do you feel better about your contribution to society when you are only doing what you are forced to do?
The believers in Acts 2 and 4 gave voluntarily to the church to fill the needs of the community. There was no specific law or requirement for the believers to do as they did. As a result, theirs was a true act of love, of charity, of the Golden Rule, and not an "act of Congress". And they averted the consequences of "absolute power corrupts absolutely". When you turn the principles of personal charity and what should be self-government over to the mandated regulations of established government, those in power will then be given control of those resources and how they are allocated. And we all know that bureaucracy and self-interests combined with wealth always leads to misuse and corruption. The Pilgrims finally understood this and changed from an economic platform of socialism to capitalism and true charity.
Charity is designed to function on a personal level, voluntarily through smaller scale community action within a simple economic structure. It is not designed to function through government, on a large national scale, involuntarily, and within a complex economic structure. That's why so many well-intentioned programs of government eventually fail or collapse. Empower the people, especially faith-based groups, to shoulder more of the immediate needs of others and you will find a whole population stepping up to the plate, taking care of their brothers and sisters, and doing it more passionately and efficiently. Then watch taxes and deficits fall.
A radio commentator raised the valid question about whether democracy could work in Iraq's Islamic culture. However, he also based that on a "separation" issue, stating that America as well has yet to get it together on that front. The problem is that such an arguable presumption is not the basis. Rather, it is the foundations of the faith itself.
Islamic doctrine from the beginning has been based on a "from the top down" order. Christianity has been based on a "from the bottom up" order. The early Catholic church tried the former and found that it failed miserably. This is because it is based on a necessary process of preserving corrupted power among the elite and ignorance among the masses to achieve its ends. And such a process is obviously not conducive to democracy and an informed public.
This contrast is best represented by the examples set by two religious founders. Muhammad set an example by aggressive and militaristic conquest. Establish political power over the people with a religious structure, and then force all to abide by the tenets of the theocracy - "from the top down". Jesus, on the other hand, sought to change the hearts and minds of individuals. He did not turn out to be the militaristic theocratic king that even his disciples were expecting. His was to change men's hearts, and then their own sense of self-governing values and principles would democratically dictate how government would function - "from the bottom up".
James Madison illustrated this best when he said, "We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." Robert Winthrop, US Speaker of the House for the 30th Congress, expounded on this idea saying, "Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the word of God, or by the strong arm of man..."
The difficulty we have seen in Iraq is that the culture there has been used to control from without, by the strong arm of men, from the top down.
America's unique prosperity and freedoms were founded on a capacity for self government based on a predominant Judeo-Christian heritage, a power from within, from the bottom up. This may not work in an Islamic culture unless the hearts of those people change. It is a conspicuous difference in our perspective which has allowed democracy to thrive in the American culture, and discouraged the establishment of an official church denomination as addressed in the Constitution's First Amendment. How many Islamic countries allow other religions free exercise?
Neither does this disqualify the principles of a Judeo-Christian majority from democratically influencing the course of our nation, the conspicuous and un-democratic goal of many Separation arguments. Separation of church & state turned around backwards will undermine the very concept of democracy. Therefore, an argument that ineffective Separation is to blame for Iraq's ills is missing the real point. It is not the influence of religion in general, but rather the influence of fundamental Islamic perspective and political control by a theocratic hierarchy that fosters brutality and oppression.
ANTI-WAR SENTIMENTS
(Printed 4/04: Virginia News Source)
While we hear the same determination and desire to complete the mission and secure the situation expressed by our soldiers in Iraq that we heard from those pulled from Mogadishu, and the statements and polls from a majority of Iraqis that wish us to do the same, we hear sentiments from liberals and Democrats such as "send the troops home", "American policy in Iraq is a failure", "your President has lied to you", and "your President has betrayed you".
In a time of unquestionable war, are such statements not reminiscent of Tokyo Rose? Are they not supportive to the enemy and meant to undermine, either consciously or without conscience, the morale and resolve of our forces in combat? Are they not based primarily on polarized ideologies and politics apart from real concern for the welfare of the troops and the ultimate aims against terrorism?
I would hope that the unwarranted and hostile grilling of a distinguished and eloquent Condoleeza Rice by liberal elements of the 9/11 Commission only reinforces the obvious, and that the brutality of terrorist elements burning alive and desecrating Americans illustrates once more the importance of the US mission.
In
Just as in every war, new tactics and strategies will have to evolve from
successes and failures we may experience. But tremendous casualties in a single
day on
I have to make a comment about Christian influences in government and society. There have been those principles and values which affect society as a whole that have formed a necessary and stable foundation for our nation and its laws, policies, and Constitution, and this whole experiment in certain "inalienable rights" has been based on that which is "endowed by our Creator". Some may not like the idea that this country and its laws were founded on Godly principles and are intimidated by the influence or limitations that might suggest, but the fact remains that the experiment has worked because of those who stuck to their guns (though that's another issue) and were active in public affairs and policy-making. If those with a more "common good" God-based value system allow themselves to be brow-beaten into submission and inactivity, others will further their attempts to drastically alter that successful foundation, and I believe it would lead to our collapse under the collective weight of self-serving ideals and motives.
One example is pro-choice liberties. At some point, religious activism may establish the legal rights of an unborn child and get the law overturned. Opponents would cry persecution and "separation", but any change would ultimately be from a legal and scientific acknowledgement that individuality and individual rights starts early in the womb and likely with individual DNA. As with many issues, Christian influences may be a catalyst, but it would be progressive public awareness in conjunction with the unwavering Constitution that would determine the outcome. So would they be pushing religion over rights or truth over self-interest? Consequently, let's not be intimidated by what Christians may bring to public affairs or their right to do so. I submit that it is their activism and self-sacrifice that is responsible for the overriding integrity and success of this nation. Worry more about those who would undermine it all to create a foundation which is "endowed by our Special Interests". Who's endowment do you trust more?
GAY GOSPEL ACCORDING TO RATNER
Ellen Ratner, a commentator for talk radio and Fox News has had some
interesting comments recently on the Gay and Gay Marriage issues:
"Gay isn't really a preference – it's biology, most likely genetic –
like blue eyes, black hair, right or left handedness. It's not a choice, it's a
fact, just like heterosexuality." -TalkRadioNews
She also apparently remarked in an interview that courts should be deciding the
gay marriage issue, not the people. She cited the 1960s Civil Rights issue as
an example.
On her first point:
I guess if homosexuality is simply biological and gays don't have a choice,
then why should anyone be held accountable for adultery, sado-masochism,
polygamy, pornography, relations with a child, etc? In other words, are these
not also just normal expressions of our "biological influences", our personal
inherent and natural desires to engage in what otherwise may be considered by
the masses as less than normal sexual engagement? Forget the understanding that such sexual tendencies can be detrimental to culture
or health, much less our youth either directly or indirectly. Shouldn't such natural
sexual expressions be not only tolerated, but encouraged in the
public domain and media? If this sounds ludicrous, where is it any different
from Ratner's assertion and those of the radical gay movement? Yes, we all have
varied tendencies that can be destructive to ourselves as well as those around
us if we choose not to recognize them for what they are. So is society now
expected to condone, and even endorse, these tendencies as acceptable and
legitimate? Quite frankly, I have known too many homosexuals that have
themselves acknowledged their bad choices and chose to change their
habits including one who had a sex change back to his original gender. They
best illustrate and declare the foolishness of Ratner's statement.
On her second point:
I guess Ms. Ratner conveniently fails to acknowledge that de-segregation was
enacted in the Civil Rights Act of 1875 by congressional legislators, the
representatives of the people and popular opinion, but the "activist"
courts struck it down. It took almost one hundred years before this basic right
was re-established. So as to Ms. Ratner's lack of confidence in the voice of the
American people, it was their representative voice that would have established
Civil Rights long before the court corrected their horrendous injustice?
Secondly, it appears that over the life of this nation, democracy's mainstay of
popular opinion is the one balancing influence that has made it possible for wrongs to be
eventually righted. Now we should trust the liberals to ignore or reject that
voice and let judges and special interests rule? Can we spell o-l-i-g-a-r-c-h-y?
A final point:
So for all those who publicly embrace relativism and political-correctness on
this issue ("not that there's anything wrong with that"), why is it that the
vast majority don't want their children to embrace homosexuality and wish to
shield them from it? Could it be that they recognize something is terribly wrong
but are intimidated to silence and self-doubt by the finger pointing of the
radicals? Should the better part of conscience be abandoned to the whim of the
homosexual community to aggressively establish itself even more firmly in the
culture and our lives? Maybe there is something wrong with that.
Much of the unrest over Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ mirrors that caused by the Second Amendment: Arm people with a weapon, whether it be firearms or The Gospel, and they are less likely to be victimized by those with an ominous agenda.
“I pledge allegiance to the views
Of the Liberal Judges of America
And to the oligarchy for which they stand
One nation, without God, intolerant
With Humanism as justice for all.” -
The Pledge of Allegiance is a statement, not a prayer, it is optional, and it has nothing to do with "church and state". The term God is used as a general theocratic term crossing religious lines, and is not exclusive to a particular denomination or "church".
In regard to the 1954 bill inserting "under God" in the Pledge, opponents state that the related views expressed by the sponsoring Congressman and President Eisenhower suggest a premise for the establishment of religion as prohibited by the Constitution. However, this is an incomplete process that fails to follow through by researching the clearly documented views of the founding fathers and Thomas Jefferson on their clear premise behind the Establishment clause and separation of church and state. You would find that they indicate common concern for the establishment of a theo-political church organization such as the Church of England, and did not intend restrictions on free speech, the exercise of religion, and the expression, acknowledgement, and activity of theocratic ideas in the public and governmental arenas. Because of this, it has been perfectly acceptable for 226 years to acknowledge God in our government invocations, on our public buildings and cemetary monuments, and on our currency. Therefore, the insertion of "under God", regardless of an expressed premise, was only an acceptable continuation of that understanding.
In addition, since the Pledge was eventually made optional, it now exists within a situation of tolerance. But the current court ruling which allows for no option in the matter creates a condition of intolerance and restriction. It seems clear that the people should have the final say on this issue, and this is covered by the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." As stated by Justice Goldberg, "The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believe that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments... and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive."
Christmas time is always a catalyst for unfortunate controversy and "separation" debates: separation of Christmas and State, Christmas Tree and State, Carols and State, Nativity and State, etc. But did you know that such displays or expressions have never broken any law, but rulings against such displays are breaking the law?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out, and it is so simple that it tends to slip by American citizens unnoticed. Unfortunately, that's how manipulative special interests and their pawns serve to erode liberties, achieving gradual yet devastating changes right under our ignorant and/or apathetic noses. It is time to stop cowering in the corner in a defensive mode, and reveal the deceit behind "separation" and political-correctness run amok.
Now do a search for any laws enacted by Congress establishing a religion. Guess what, there are none. But wait! You will find references all over Washington DC of religious symbols, pictures, sculptures, and scripture all over the public buildings, in the historical documents of our leaders, in civic cemeteries, and in religious references offered by our representatives, Supreme Court justices, and appointed chaplains of the government and military. Such have existed for over two hundred years because they do not reflect a law establishing a religion nor do they break any law. These religious beliefs had already been "established" in people's hearts and minds for eons and these merely represent the "free exercise thereof" and freedom of speech, even by those within public office and on the public buildings that they frequent.
So who has been breaking the law? Based on the Constitution, anyone who rules against the "free exercise thereof" including public displays. Whether it be legislation by a congressional body or false legislation within a court ruling, denying freedom of religious expression anywhere by the government is unconstitutional, pure and simple.
Bottom line: a Christmas Tree erected in the public square is not a law, it's a free exercise. Same with naming it a Christmas tree, displaying a Nativity scene or Menorah, singing carols or wearing a cross on school grounds, or just about any other form of public expression you can think of. Nor is a holiday specific to one religion legally obligated to patronize others. And a general mention of under God in a pledge or In God We Trust on our currency or buildings is not establishing a religion for the term inclusively transcends across many religions and, according to the Declaration of Independence, God is author of our "unalienable rights" over the strong arm of man and governments who try to quash those rights. That's why it was declared against the law to prohibit these religious exercises and expressions.
1. Jefferson (as well as James Madison, author of the Constitution) allowed church services within the Capitol building itself and attended such services.
2. Jefferson recommended federal money to support a missionary to an Indian tribe.
3. In Jefferson's first education plan, he used the Bible and a hymnal as principle reading texts for students.
4. Jefferson said, "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"
5. Jefferson was also involved in the Virginia Assembly's bill for Establishing Religious Freedom which stated, "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion."
6. Jefferson signed an act in 1802 which stated, "Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged."
7. Regarding some of his peers who suggested he was anti-religion, Jefferson wrote in an 1802 letter to Benjamin Rush that his views "are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions."
How do you think Jefferson would feel about courts establishing rulings against religious expression? Few people are aware of a grievance in the Declaration of Independence penned by Jefferson which exemplified his concern for abusive rulings spawned by our leaders and others (such as special interests). Fact #12, in this case regarding the King of Great Britain, states:
"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation." Sound familiar?
In a letter to William Jarvis expressing concerns that the courts had too much power, Jefferson also said: "If our nation be destroyed, it would be from the judiciary."
It is simple to see that none of the above examples represent any actual legislation establishing a religion, but rather represent the freedom of expression, profession, argument, and exercise of religion by any man or woman including those in public office and within public life. The encouragement of religion in general and a belief in God represents an inter-denominational freedom and tolerance that may not be hampered by legislative action or judicial ruling. Period.
So how do special interests make a case against public religious expression? Along with corrupting the true meaning of the Constitution, they also declare that such religious expression interferes with the rights of others and offends their views. While such an argument is obviously in opposition to the tolerance and freedom of expression demanded by the Constitution, it also sets a precedence for undermining any freedom of expression. No matter what your views might be including those in concert with an overwhelming majority, they will invariably offend somebody. Therefore, it really doesn't matter what you wish to believe or profess, you will infringe on someone's so-called right to "not be offended", therefore all can be deemed unlawful. So if your faith might offend even one person, then you should not have the constitutional right to express it on public grounds - right? And intolerant people should take priority over a majority's best wishes - right? Now you understand how ridiculous and deceptive the whole argument is.
This exposes a premise that even democracy itself can be undermined because the vote of a majority can "offend" the rights of a minority. That is the reason some public referendums supported by a majority have been overturned by a court. That is why a sole individual has the liberty to protest and potentially deny the liberty of everyone else. Just as Jefferson suggested, our nation's democracy and majority rule can indeed be destroyed by an oligarchy or special interests manipulating the judicial system. This is abuse of judicial power pure and simple, and cannot be allowed by the people or their representatives. That's what our collective democratic voice is all about.
When it comes to majority will over a minority, religious expression in the public domain, and legislation that fits with moral law, Dr. Martin Luther King said it best in his famous Letter From A Birmingham Jail (1963):
"The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: There are just and there are unjust laws... A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law...
"An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself. This is difference made legal. On the other hand a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow that it is willing to follow itself..."
The whole idea of freedom of speech and religious expression, the democratic vote, and representative government established by our Founding Fathers is that the majority will of a people of faith and self-governing accountability to each other and their Creator will ultimately provide a balance of sound principles allowing for optimum liberty, and establish the laws and environment for happiness, prosperity, and perseverance. Indeed, our first two hundred years has proven them correct. Yet our educational systems have been progressively erasing elements of faith and religion from our history to raise a new generation that has no concept of this crucial element of our heritage and liberty, further allowing the voice of the many to be silenced by the voice of the few. The last thing we should allow is for these rights and principles to be undermined by the judiciary, anti-religious special interests, and others seeking to tear down our democratic system and the legacies behind it.
We are not living in the Dark Ages where only the courts can tell us what the Constitution means. We can read it for ourselves and see in plain English what it means. As a people, we need to cease being brow-beaten by the courts, ACLU, and others who attempt to falsely convict us as lawbreakers when it is they. We need to stand against their unconstitutional activism against freedom of religious expression anywhere in this nation. Your representatives have the power to oppose the courts on rulings that are not legally based on any enacted congressional law "respecting an establishment of religion", on their restrictive rulings against "the free exercise thereof", and for ruling on a definition of separation as a "constitutional" principle when it is specifically absent from the Constitution, and when Jefferson's own actions and statements belie their radical interpretations of such false legislation.
The groups and institutions denying our freedom of religious expression are not above the law. And they are not above the people and our unalienable constitutional rights. Our collective voice is louder than theirs. Wise up, and speak up!
After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, just maybe, there is an acceptable pattern here, the ACLU is out-of-control, and the liberal courts are wrong!
"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." - William Penn
Alabama1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution ..
Alaska1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ..
Arizona1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
Arkansas1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...
California1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ..
Colorado1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe...
Connecticut1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy...
Delaware1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences ...
Florida1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty . establish this Constitution...
Georgia1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...
Hawaii1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance ... establish this Constitution.
Idaho1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings ...
Illinois1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors
Indiana1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government.
Iowa1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings . establish this Constitution
Kansas1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
Kentucky1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...
Louisiana1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
Maine1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine.. acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ...
Maryland1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...
Massachusetts1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe ... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity ..and devoutly imploring His direction ...
Michigan1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom .. establish this Constitution
Minnesota1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings
Mississippi1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippiin convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
Missouri1845, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ... establish this Constitution ...
Montana1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty. establish this Constitution
Nebraska1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .. establish this Constitution .
Nevada1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution
New Hampshire1792, PartI.Art. I.Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
New Jersey1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors ..
New Mexico1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ..
New York1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.
North Carolina1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those ..
North Dakota1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...
Ohio1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common ...
Oklahoma1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty .. establish this
Oregon1857, Bill of Rights, ArticleI.Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences..
Pennsylvania1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance
Rhode Island1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing
South Carolina1778, Preamble. We, the people of he State of South Carolina. grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
South Dakota1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ... establish this
Tennessee1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...
Texas1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
Utah1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution ..
Vermont1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man
Virginia1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator ... can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other ...
Washington1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution
West Virginia1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia. reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ...
Wisconsin1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility ...
Wyoming1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming,
grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties .. establish
this Constitution ...
For more excellent commentary, click here...
Back To Welcome page...