Duty Explained

“I will not look with approval on anything that is vile. I hate what faithless people do; I will have no part in it.” (Psalms 101:3) In the drafting of our nations foundations the framers were skilled and had the blessing and favor of God upon their efforts as they submitted themselves to Him in this endeavor. They knew history of tyranny at rulers hands and established clear limits and boundaries to protect the People from one another and government which should serve the People. A common misnomer is they formed an independent secular Federal government, but such a twisted conclusion serves to set the stage for tyranny. Nowhere is there a hint of secularism in the founding documents, but there are actual references to God. While freedom is given to religion and its public practice, not a word protects agnosticism, atheism or their embodying humanism. Just as it is impossible to prove a negative, these negative beliefs are neither acknowledged nor protected. Clearly, there were many scoundrels, rubes, idiots, perverts, criminals, liars, thieves, fools and shisters in Colonial society, but their ways and practices were not protected nor promoted. With this understanding the first amendment was written, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Establishing religion is not the equivalent of showing tolerance, favor or recognition to those who practice it. When parents of multiple children express praise or approval to one child it is not considered disapproval or rejection of the others, nor is it establishing a hierarchy of the selected child over the others. Such an edict would require much more than approval or recognition shown to a particular child, it would be necessary to document a single child’s power over and higher authority with respect to the other siblings. This simple analogy illustrates the fallacy and diabolical lie inherent in a secular Government, essentially communist, atheist, agnostic and tyrannical as proven in history. Moreover, “Abraham Lincoln recognized the value of religion as a stabilizing force in the Union army, and did all within his power to provide for organized spiritual guidance to soldiers. On May 4, 1861, he ordered all regimental commanders to appoint chaplains for their units.” This is prima facia evidence that supporting religious faith is not establishing a religion. 

History rebuts any concept the founders envisioned a secular Government, isolated and hostile to religious faith. Thomas Jefferson’s personal opinion of a “wall of separation between government and religion” makes sense only where legislation compels a particular religious faith or practice. Only in recent decades have humanists used the Courts to misinterpret “establishing religion” apart from Congressional legislation and coincidentally establishing one that subjects the people to a secular humanist tyranny, prohibiting religious expression from schools, public discourse, work places, and public display. This is wrong and it proceeds from a distortion of the individual’s rights over the People’s rights. Though a society will have scoundrels, perverts, or hellions who commit shameful detestable acts privately, there is no basis to recognize such behavior as acceptable, allowable, proper or legal simply because it is conducted. If the people’s Legislators pass laws permitting such behavior, then there would be a basis, but the Courts abused their authority and made laws, rather than ruled upon facts under the law. This promoted “the Individual” above “the People”, such that we see all sorts of groups hopping upon the bandwagon of “protected classes”.  It’s actually as simple as the constitution itself, “abortion” is not in the Constitution therefore, it is not protected and is under the jurisdiction of the Legislatures. In the same way, the Government is not secular, atheist, agnostic, or meant to be hostile to religious faith. 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s