VOL. 14, NO. 7
Nov. 20, 2012
No Higher Power: The Treacherous Trio of Myths Spawned
by “Separation of Church and State,” II
By Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D., National Chairman
With their victories in the 2012 elections, Reconstructionists (Liberals/Humanists) may be expected to intensify their attacks on America’s Judeo-Christian foundations and our Judeo-Christian Constitution. The recent elections therefore make it even more imperative (if possible) that we Constitutionalists understand, and are prepared to repel, a group of the Reconstructionists’ most potent weapons – the “treacherous Trio of Myths” – which we introduced in our last “Court Watch Briefing.”
Spawned by the mythical idea of “separation of church and state,” this “Treacherous Trio” includes the following: (1) There are no absolutes and therefore no inevitable, fixed relationships between different worldviews; (2) America must be a “pluralistic” (i.e., “diverse”) nation – a culture embracing all different views and values concerning worldviews; (3) given propositions (1) and (2), we must be tolerant of the “diversity” in America. “Relativism” is a belief; “pluralism” is a condition; and “tolerance” is an attitude.
In our last “Briefing,” we demolished Myth #1 with Constitutionalist arguments supporting the “Absolutism of Relativism.” In this “Briefing,” we tackle Reconstructionists’ propositions #2 and #3. First, we consider the “Dogma of Diversity” (i.e., “pluralism”). Reconstructionists profess an undying loyalty to “pluralism” or “diversity” which they purport to define as the peaceful coexistence in America of views and values which are disparate and sometimes polemically opposed to one another.
But Reconstructionists’ “pluralism” is a radical pluralism. And radical pluralism, like relativism, is oxymoronic. When pluralism is placed by Humanists at the top of the list of values in America, non-pluralistic views (e.g., those of the Judeo-Christian worldview) are subjugated to an inferior position. Ranking values as superior and inferior is non-pluralistic. Experience abundantly proves that Humanistic “pluralists” are among the most dogmatic (non-pluralistic) to be found anywhere. America’s Humanistic “pluralists” actually foment non-pluralistic, anti-diversity dogmatism wherever they have influence in law and government.
As law professor Carl Esbeck pointed out in the later Twentieth Century, as the Culture War was first surfacing:
The extent to which a government can be neutral and equally tolerant of all deeply held values, including religious beliefs, has very definite limits. At some point the multiple views become so disintegrated that the extension of new civil rights to some will necessarily result in the constriction of the rights of others. Increasingly, government will be compelled to make choices between conflicting values, including religious values. (“A Primer on Religious Liberty and the First Amendment,” CLS Quarterly, Christian Legal Society, Summer 1982)
In early Twenty-First Century America, Esbeck’s prophecy has come true. As British scholar E. R. Norman asserts, “Pluralism is a term society uses as it moves from one orthodoxy to another” (i.e., “An indefinitely elastic pluralism is not possible,” explains historian James Hitchcock). But Reconstructionists’ 2012 election victories can be expected to only increase their shrill clamor for “pluralism/diversity” (i.e., the eradication of Judeo-Christian legal and Constitutional principles in every way possible).
The same is true of the last member of the “Treacherous Trio” – Reconstructionists’ cries for “tolerance” – but radical tolerance, which we Constitutionalists recognize more accurately as the “intolerance of tolerance.” Humanists/Reconstructionists’ illogical logic concerning “diversity/pluralism” is repeated in its use of the “tolerance” weapon. When “tolerance” is given first place in the scale of human values, any viewpoint that does not profess tolerance toward different views is “intolerant.” And intolerance is, by definition, “bad.” Scorn, and even hostility, inevitably result from radical tolerance and actually lead to true intolerance. Pro-Pledge of Allegiance judges on the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rightly discerned the true nature of arguments by the atheist plaintiff Michael Newdow in his fevered effort to eliminate recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance from his daughter’s school day at Elk Grove [CA] Unified School District:
In affording Michael Newdow the right to impose his views on others [under the guise of “tolerance” toward his views], Newdow II [an anti-Pledge set of decisions by the Ninth Circuit majority] affords him a right to be fastidiously intolerant and self-indulgent. In granting him this supposed right [to be intolerant of others’ views], moreover, the two-judge panel majority, has not eliminated feelings of discomfort and isolation [and intolerance], it has simply shifted them from one group to another. (Opinion of Judge O’Scannlain dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, Feb. 28, 2003)
The dilemma of Newdow, and of Reconstructionist “tolerance” in general, is captured cogently by Dr. Erwin Lutzer: “America has become tolerant of tolerance but not of truth.”
The “absolutism of relativism,” “dogma of diversity/pluralism,” and intolerance of tolerance” – how will we Constitutionalists react to these deceptive and deadly myths in post 2012 America? Shall we capitulate to the cries for movement toward the “middle-of-the-road politics and law,” or shall we follow the “straight-and-narrow” road mapped out by Charles Krauthammer in a column penned shortly after the elections? Principled victory lies only along Krauthammer’s road: “No whimpering. No whining. NO reinvention when none is needed. Do conservatism, but do it better.”
MAY WE INDEED DO IT BETTER IN 2013 AND BEYOND!
NOTE: TEEN EAGLES: Dallas Eagle Elizabeth Biesel is spearheading an effort to form a Teen Eagles chapter in the 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