VOL. 14, NO. 8
Dec. 28, 2012
No Higher Power: The Fundamental Myth of “Separation of Church State,” III
America’s culture and Constitution are in crisis — a fundamental reason being the fierce Humanistic/Reconstructionist effort to establish the basic idea that there is No Higher Power than the government to which we must pay attention and allegiance. This point is forcefully made in the new book of this title by Phyllis Schlafly and George Neumayr. In recent Court Watch briefings we have articulated and attacked the “Treacherous Trio of Myths” spawned by the basic “Separation” notion — relativism, diversity/pluralism, and tolerance. In this issue, we attack the “separation” myth itself.
A total separation of church and state, in the sense of separating religious/theological/moral views and values from civil law and government is impossible and deadly. The worldview in which the Constitution is moored is the Judeo-Christian worldview. Therefore, the ultimate foundation of the Constitution consists of Judeo-Christian religious/theological/philosophical values and views, revolving around a theistic God. Our constitutional republic will increasingly malfunction and eventually collapse if it is severed from its Judeo-Christian foundation. This truth is demonstrated in several ways.
- Commentators: Objective experts on American culture and law recognize the Constitution’s Judeo-Christian sources.
- Courts: The U. S. Supreme Court, until the relatively recent Humanistic invasion, acknowledged America’s Christian foundations. In 1931, the Court declared that “[w]e are a Christian people, according to one another the equal right of religious freedom and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God” (Macintosh v. U.S.).
- Connections: There are numerous symbiotic connections between Judeo-Christian philosophy/theology and the U. S. Constitution.
- Consequences: The deadly consequences of Humanistic/Reconstructionist judges’ attempts to rip the Constitution off its Judeo-Christian foundation are incalculable.
Declares Phi Beta Kappa historian, Dr. C. Gregg Singer:
A Christian world and life view furnished the basis for [the] early political thought which guided the American people for nearly two centuries and whose crowning glory lay in the writing of the Constitution of 1787. This Christian theism had so permeated the colonial mind that it continued to guide even those who had come to regard the Gospel with indifference or even hostility.
President John Adams had sounded the same note 150 years earlier:
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.
This view was not new to the Court. In an 1892 decision, the Court cited a lengthy list of examples of America’s Christian roots. The Court then concluded: “These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation” (Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S.).
Three facts illustrate this truth: (1) Proper constitutional interpretation must proceed from the truth that the Constitution has a fixed meaning. The Judeo-Christian worldview also is based on fixity — on absolutes. The Humanistic worldview is not. (2) The Constitution is based on absolute moral values and principles, as is the Judeo-Christian worldview. The Humanistic worldview denies absolutes. (3) The Judeo-Christian worldview adequately explains why civil law/government are both necessary and possible. Law is necessary because of man’s depravity and limitations. But law is also possible because man, created in the image of God, is capable of exercising the reason and sense of justice which law requires. Humanism, depending on which branch is involved, asserts that man is perfectible (why, therefore is law needed?) or that man is totally depraved (how then are human law and government possible?).
There are consequences for the Constitution and consequences for the culture. John Adams wrote at the Constitution’s launching that “Our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious [ample evidence demonstrates that this means “Christian”] people. It is wholly inadequate for the governance of any other.” The Constitution is in crisis today because Humanists/Reconstructionists’ efforts to rewrite it have annihilated the three C’s necessary to constitutional and cultural stability and health. For example, when today’s Supreme Court prohibits any abortion regulations which impose “an undue burden” on a woman’s right to have an abortion, the Court has eliminated certainty (what does “undue burden” mean?), consistency (different and even conflicting definitions of “undue burden” exist among the cases we have today), and continuity (the “undue burden” test is totally out of line with the original Roe case which created the right to an abortion, and cases between Roe and today follow no continuous line of definition of acceptable v. unacceptable limits on abortions).
The culture is also in crisis today, thanks to Reconstructionist assaults on the Judeo-Christian sources of our Constitution. For example, America has experienced a “Humpty Dumpty” phenomenon in defining what is “deviant” v. “normal” in our society. Homosexual conduct was once deviant, and official public displays of the Ten Commandments were normal and even applauded. Today the opposite is true. Homosexual conduct is “normal,” and Ten Commandments displays reflect a defiantly “intolerant, anti-diverse, close-minded” view.
Thus, from a variety of sources comes the inescapable conclusion that “separation of church and state” as properly defined cannot exist in America. Indeed, these Humanistic/Reconstructionist myths have created an America in which the courts are in crisis, the Constitution is in chaos, and the culture is in collapse. Never before has our beleaguered nation so desperately needed to believe and affirm the words of the “pledge of Allegiance” that we are indeed “One nation under God.” May this be our battle cry as we enter the year 2013!!!
NOTE: TEEN EAGLES: Dallas Eagle Elizabeth Biesel is spearheading an effort to form a Teen Eagles chapter in the Dallas area. A highly qualified and passionate young Eagle, Elizabeth, working with Dr. Armstrong, invites you to contact her for more information: Elizabeth Biesel firstname.lastname@example.org