Creeping Secularism Changing America

[HagiaSophia]

Bob Just’s recent article deals with the creeping secularism which is changing America forever if we don’t stem some of it:

So now America becomes officially a nation under “nothing” – government no longer recognizes any authority higher than its own democratic opinions, a true “dictatorship of the people,” as Lenin called it. Atheism is thus able to rise to a legal dominance never seen before in America, never even imagined. After all, atheism and secularism are twins – one doesn’t believe in God, and the other can’t. The end result is the same: Believers are made outsiders.

Sound farfetched? It isn’t really. An Al Gore victory easily could have given us a high court that looked like Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the Democrat appointee who shared the “under God” decision with Judge Goodwin. The truth is that even now we are only one or two secular Supreme Court Justices away from a solid ACLU court, and all that it implies – virulent hostility to America’s religious traditions.

One amendment, under God

While so many in the media have been doing their best to make light of the 9th Circuit decision on the Pledge of Allegiance, others recognize the very real dangers involved in that decision. By most accounts, the ruling is likely to be overturned, but that doesn’t change the sobering message that was sent to all Americans.

As currently interpreted, our Constitution is choking our religious traditions out of existence, and there seems to be no stopping it as the “under God” Pledge decision indicates. Even with a supposedly conservative Supreme Court, victories against the secular encroachments of government are too rare, and when they do come, they are attacked on all sides by groups like the ACLU. It is often a battle for inches.

Recently, a number of congressmen called for a constitutional amendment to preserve “under God” in the Pledge, but we need more than that. We need something more historically based, something capable of inspiring average Americans by eliminating the relativist interpretations of the First Amendment, something that would help our federal government reclaim its lost identity.

With so many secular forces in society hostile to the faiths of our fathers, it’s time to codify the “self-evident” truths of the Declaration of Independence by putting them in the Constitution.

Let us declare ourselves to history by re-establishing the simple, but essential, political principle that we are uniquely created beings, precious before God, and that our rights come from God and not from government. There can be no neutrality in this where government is concerned. We either have souls or we do not. Our nation is either under God, or it is not.

Of course, no one wants a theocracy, something repugnant certainly to Christian Americans who are, after all, in the vast majority. However, decades of overreaching by the high court indicate that secularism is not the answer either. There must be a third choice, because as long as “disbelief” is considered to be on an equal footing with “belief,” not only will faith find itself unwelcome in our halls of power, it will eventually be removed from the body politic like a threatening tumor. This could happen if we let it.

Consider the current situation. Michael Newdow, the atheist who sued to get God out of the Pledge, says that right now there are four Justices he believes are favorable to his view: David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens. Newdow also lists Justice Anthony Kennedy as a possible fifth vote, due to a 1989 church-state dissent in which Kennedy pointed out that the “under God” Pledge is problematic for atheists. …"

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28288

 

[kjvail]

HagiaSophia:

One amendment, under God

As currently interpreted, our Constitution is choking our religious traditions out of existence, and there seems to be no stopping it as the “under God” Pledge decision indicates. Even with a supposedly conservative Supreme Court, victories against the secular encroachments of government are too rare, and when they do come, they are attacked on all sides by groups like the ACLU. It is often a battle for inches.

Unfortuantely the Justices are correctly interperting the deistic, Freemasony-inspired US Constitution. “Separation of Church and State” in this country and all over has been and always will be about the state’s supremecy over the Church. It’s a freemason concept.

Of course, no one wants a theocracy, something repugnant certainly to Christian Americans who are, after all, in the vast majority.

That’s because most American’s don’t even know what
“theocracy” is, it’s a buzzword the left and clueless Americanists use to call up visions of the black legend of the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials and more recently Islamist dictatorship. Sometime in the next few messages someone will compare a Christian theocracy with an Islamic theocracy and think they have said something really smart when all they have proved is they don’t understand the difference between Christianity and Islam, between Truth and error.

 

[Zoot]

HagiaSophia:

Bob Just’s recent article deals with the creeping secularism which is changing America forever if we don’t stem some of it:

So now America becomes officially a nation under “nothing” – government no longer recognizes any authority higher than its own democratic opinions, a true “dictatorship of the people,” as Lenin called it. Atheism is thus able to rise to a legal dominance never seen before in America, never even imagined. After all, atheism and secularism are twins – one doesn’t believe in God, and the other can’t. The end result is the same: Believers are made outsiders.

Sound farfetched? It isn’t really. An Al Gore victory easily could have given us a high court that looked like Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the Democrat appointee who shared the “under God” decision with Judge Goodwin. The truth is that even now we are only one or two secular Supreme Court Justices away from a solid ACLU court, and all that it implies – virulent hostility to America’s religious traditions.

One amendment, under God

While so many in the media have been doing their best to make light of the 9th Circuit decision on the Pledge of Allegiance, others recognize the very real dangers involved in that decision. By most accounts, the ruling is likely to be overturned, but that doesn’t change the sobering message that was sent to all Americans.

As currently interpreted, our Constitution is choking our religious traditions out of existence, and there seems to be no stopping it as the “under God” Pledge decision indicates. Even with a supposedly conservative Supreme Court, victories against the secular encroachments of government are too rare, and when they do come, they are attacked on all sides by groups like the ACLU. It is often a battle for inches.

Recently, a number of congressmen called for a constitutional amendment to preserve “under God” in the Pledge, but we need more than that. We need something more historically based, something capable of inspiring average Americans by eliminating the relativist interpretations of the First Amendment, something that would help our federal government reclaim its lost identity.

With so many secular forces in society hostile to the faiths of our fathers, it’s time to codify the “self-evident” truths of the Declaration of Independence by putting them in the Constitution.

Let us declare ourselves to history by re-establishing the simple, but essential, political principle that we are uniquely created beings, precious before God, and that our rights come from God and not from government. There can be no neutrality in this where government is concerned. We either have souls or we do not. Our nation is either under God, or it is not.

Of course, no one wants a theocracy, something repugnant certainly to Christian Americans who are, after all, in the vast majority. However, decades of overreaching by the high court indicate that secularism is not the answer either. There must be a third choice, because as long as “disbelief” is considered to be on an equal footing with “belief,” not only will faith find itself unwelcome in our halls of power, it will eventually be removed from the body politic like a threatening tumor. This could happen if we let it.

Consider the current situation. Michael Newdow, the atheist who sued to get God out of the Pledge, says that right now there are four Justices he believes are favorable to his view: David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens. Newdow also lists Justice Anthony Kennedy as a possible fifth vote, due to a 1989 church-state dissent in which Kennedy pointed out that the “under God” Pledge is problematic for atheists. …"

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28288

Newdow lost when the Pledge got to the Supreme Court. New rallying cry needed. This one is bogus.

 

[Bob_Baran]

I believe there is only one solution to this problem and that’s for all those who proclaim to believe in God in America (95%?) to renew their faith whatever it may be and attend their weekly services (Mass, Temple, Church, Mosque, etc.).

 

[bapcathluth]

kjvail:

Unfortuantely the Justices are correctly interperting the deistic, Freemasony-inspired US Constitution. “Separation of Church and State” in this country and all over has been and always will be about the state’s supremecy over the Church. It’s a freemason concept.

That’s because most American’s don’t even know what
“theocracy” is, it’s a buzzword the left and clueless Americanists use to call up visions of the black legend of the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials and more recently Islamist dictatorship. Sometime in the next few messages someone will compare a Christian theocracy with an Islamic theocracy and think they have said something really smart when all they have proved is they don’t understand the difference between Christianity and Islam, between Truth and error.

Are you saying that America should be a Christian theocracy? I don’t understand your point.

 

[kjvail]

bapcathluth:

Are you saying that America should be a Christian theocracy? I don’t understand your point.

Theocracy is not the Christian way, however neither is the vision of the American founding fathers who sought to create a secular government indirectly influenced by the piety of it’s people. All states owe obedience to the one true God and His Church. In the words of H.H. Leo XIII

Wherefore, being, by the favor of God, entrusted with the government of the Catholic Church, and made guardian and interpreter of the doctrines of Christ, We judge that it belongs to Our jurisdiction, venerable brethren, publicly to set forth what Catholic truth demands of everyone in this sphere of duty; thus making clear also by what way and by what means measures may be taken for the public safety in so critical a state of affairs.
Diuturnum (On the Origin of Civil Power), 3

As a consequence, the State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion. Nature and reason, which command every individual devoutly to worship God in holiness, because we belong to Him and must return to Him, since from Him we came, bind also the civil community by a like law. For, men living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, no less than individuals, owes gratitude to God who gave it being and maintains it and whose everbounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its teaching and practice-not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion – it is a public crime to act as though there were no God. So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, would hold in honor the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule. For one and all are we destined by our birth and adoption to enjoy, when this frail and fleeting life is ended, a supreme and final good in heaven, and to the attainment of this every endeavor should be directed. Since, then, upon this depends the full and perfect happiness of mankind, the securing of this end should be of all imaginable interests the most urgent. Hence, civil society, established for the common welfare, should not only safeguard the wellbeing of the community, but have also at heart the interests of its individual members, in such mode as not in any way to hinder, but in every manner to render as easy as may be, the possession of that highest and unchangeable good for which all should seek. Wherefore, for this purpose, care must especially be taken to preserve unharmed and unimpeded the religion whereof the practice is the link connecting man with God. Now, it cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion, if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking. We have, for example, the fulfillment of prophecies, miracles in great numbers, the rapid spread of the faith in the midst of enemies and in face of overwhelming obstacles, the witness of the martyrs, and the like. From all these it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate.

 [Immortale             Dei](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13sta.htm)  (On the Christian Constitution of States) 6, 7

 

[kjvail]

I’m saying that all authority comes from God, not from the amorphous blob called “the people”

Indeed, very many men of more recent times, walking in the footsteps of those who in a former age assumed to themselves the name of philosophers,[2] say that all power comes from the people; so that those who exercise it in the State do so not as their own, but as delegated to them by the people, and that, by this rule, it can be revoked by the will of the very people by whom it was delegated. But from these, Catholics dissent, who affirm that the right to rule is from God, as from a natural and necessary principle.
It is of importance, however, to remark in this place that those who may be placed over the State may in certain cases be chosen by the will and decision of the multitude, without opposition to or impugning of the Catholic doctrine. And by this choice, in truth, the ruler is designated, but the rights of ruling are not thereby conferred. Nor is the authority delegated to him, but the person by whom it is to be exercised is determined upon.
Diuturnum (On the Origin of Civil Power), 5, 6

Accordingly, it has become the practice and determination under this condition of public polity (now so much admired by many) either to forbid the action of the Church altogether, or to keep her in check and bondage to the State. Public enactments are in great measure framed with this design. The drawing up of laws, the administration of State affairs, the godless education of youth, the spoliation and suppression of religious orders, the overthrow of the temporal power of the Roman Pontiff, all alike aim to this one end – to paralyze the action of Christian institutions, to cramp to the utmost the freedom of the Catholic Church, and to curtail her ever single prerogative. Now, natural reason itself proves convincingly that such concepts of the government of a State are wholly at variance with the truth. Nature itself bears witness that all power, of every kind, has its origin from God, who is its chief and most august source.

The sovereignty of the people, however, and this without any reference to God, is held to reside in the multitude; which is doubtless a doctrine exceedingly well calculated to flatter and to inflame many passions, but which lacks all reasonable proof, and all power of insuring public safety and preserving order. Indeed, from the prevalence of this teaching, things have come to such a pass that may hold as an axiom of civil jurisprudence that seditions may be rightfully fostered. For the opinion prevails that princes are nothing more than delegates chosen to carry out the will of the people; whence it necessarily follows that all things are as changeable as the will of the people, so that risk of public disturbance is ever hanging over our heads.

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.

Immortale Dei (On the Christian Constitution of States) 29-31

These are the chief errors of the Constitution, which is to be regarded as the highest law of our nation. Therefore the very foundations of American law are contrary to the authoritative teachings of the Church and we are reaping the fruit of that disobedience.

 

[Zoot]

kjvail:

I’m saying that all authority comes from God, not from the amorphous blob called “the people”

These are the chief errors of the Constitution, which is to be regarded as the highest law of our nation. Therefore the very foundations of American law are contrary to the authoritative teachings of the Church and we are reaping the fruit of that disobedience.

The Constitution probably is contrary to the teachings of the Church. it also has elements the Church never taught. Good. I like the vote.