from Toogood Reports

G-d And Liberty; Liberals And Lies

Paul E. Scates
November 16, 2001

The awareness of G-d as the source of our liberty, in turn, hampers the efforts of liberals/socialists who need to change the founding documents, in interpretation and even in fact, in order to implement their big government agenda.


It is interesting to observe how those opposed to the individual liberties guaranteed by the Constitution use that very document to justify their anti-G-d agenda. What has G-d to do with individual liberty? That the question even occurs demonstrates the effectiveness of the liberal assault on our founding principles. Remember what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

“…they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

That remarkable document clearly states that our freedom and rights come not from men—as the liberal/socialists would have us believe, thus making them subject to change with circumstances, ergo the 'Constitution as a living document' claptrap—but from our Creator, from G-d. And as long as there is an awareness of G-d in the public sphere, be it through school prayer or Bible studies, religious displays in public buildings, parks and so on, we are reminded of that fact.

The awareness of G-d as the source of our liberty, in turn, hampers the efforts of liberals/socialists who need to change the founding documents, in interpretation and even in fact, in order to implement their big government agenda. As long as the protections of liberty in the Constitution are acknowledged to be inviolable (i.e., 'unalienable', which means 'G-d-given,' and that man has no rightful authority to either violate or change them), the leftists are stymied. But if they can make us forget about G-d, we'll be more susceptible to their restrictions on individual liberty and property and their expansion of government authority.

Oh, they won't openly admit what they're doing, of course, always claiming the necessity of some good cause for their changes ('for the children' being a favorite ploy, of late). And they'll corrupt language itself in service of their aims, considering 'truth' to be just another weapon when useful, and irrelevant otherwise. An avowed socialist, and Palestinian, college professor of mine was amused at my reaction to his frank revelation of such tactics, and delighted in poking fun at my 'na´ve' attachment to truth and objective facts.

In the past thirty years we've allowed the leftists to successfully use such methods, their reasonable lies and deconstruction of our founding documents and principles, in order to weaken the protections of liberty that have served so well for over two hundred years. Recently, a controversy in my hometown provided a good example: In the week following the terrorist attacks, some county commissioners proposed placing a plaque of the Ten Commandments in the county courthouse. Their stated aim was patriotic, to acknowledge the nation's foundation and its continuing source of strength, inspired no doubt by the scenes of people from all walks of life and all across this nation bowing their heads in prayer and calling upon G-d to comfort and strengthen us.

The response from the left, of course, was predictable: liberals were aghast at the 'intolerance' of it (not everyone believes in 'that G-d', you know), and the ACLU vowed to take the battle to the courts. The local newspaper printed an editorial siding with the anti-G-d crowd, concluding that the plaque violated the “separation of church and state clearly upheld by the Supreme Court,” and condemning the act as a willful violation of the law.

Now 'the law' to which that editorial refers is the civil and criminal law of the United States, the foundation of which is the Constitution. Those laws are traceable back through English common law straight to the very Ten Commandments that the editor believes should be banned from the court through which 'the law' is administered! Though the Supreme Court has ruled that such displays are unconstitutional…they've also ruled that murdering infants is constitutional, and that proven criminals are often due more rights than their victims, among other shameful acts. But the Declaration of Independence clearly states:

“…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them (i.e., citizens) under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government….”

In other words, the Supreme Court and the Congress—through rulings and legislation—have clearly been destructive of our unalienable right to life and of the First Amendment right to free expression of religion (among others) and should, by authority of those foundational documents and principles, be defied, returning to the people their G-d-given rights. So, through the ballot box or other means if necessary, it is our duty to restore the fundamental rights that liberals have taken from us by lies and guile. Thus says Jefferson, Madison, Adams and the rest of the Founding Fathers.

But, as I mentioned, liberals will lie to keep G-d out of our consciousness. They do so because individual rights just won't work under socialism, where the government controls everything. For example, one of their bold and common lies is about the First Amendment: Rather than stopping with the establishment clause, though, as liberals always do (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”), reason requires we also read the very next clause, “…or prohibit the free exercise thereof…”. What did Madison mean by that? In his Proposal for a Bill of Rights, written in June of 1789, he writes:

“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”

Even as he expresses the reason for the establishment clause (a ban on a national religion or state church), Madison makes clear that such a ban should not extend to the expression of faith by individuals! Yet leftists and their friends in the Court would have us believe, I suppose, that Madison only meant part of this phrase?

The 'wall of separation' of which Jefferson wrote is another principle that is so misused by liberals. The phrase comes from his response to a letter from the Danbury Baptists, who in a letter claimed their inalienable right to free expression of religion was being treated “as an issue subject to legislation by the government,” which they rightly claimed was inconsistent with the Declaration and Constitution. To this Jefferson agreed, adding that the government's authority extends not to opinions, nor to interference with the free exercise of man's natural rights. In other words, government shouldn't make legislation for or against religion, but leave it to men's consciences. But leftists reveal their hypocrisy by accepting legislation that removes school prayer or religious symbols, while touting the 'inviolable wall of separation' in opposing pro-religious measures. It seems the 'wall' is violable after all, but in only one direction.

The editorial predictably talked about 'tolerance' and 'the community's increasingly diverse religious base,' and went on to say that strengthening our trust in G-d and our national pride 'promote exclusion and intolerance of other faiths'—horse apples! No one in this nation is prevented from worshiping his own G-d, but it is the Christian G-d that the Founders referred to…not Allah, or Buddha, or some other. And I'd argue that most immigrants recognize and accept that, and would never think of demanding we give them up. Immigrants know they're welcomed here; it's the liberals who have their panties in a wad over 'differences.' Somebody should tell them that's what 'diversity' actually means, and not lockstep group-think!

Who decreed, besides the self-hating schizophrenics on the left, that this nation has no right to our heritage? Is there any other nation on earth—except perhaps Great Britain—that is willing to commit cultural suicide for the sake of newcomers or minorities, just to please simpering handwringers worried that somebody, somewhere, 'might' be offended? If liberals want a nation that recognizes no past history, no cultural or traditional values or standards, no religious beliefs and practices, they should go start one…and good riddance! But like every other nation, America has all those things, and based on most of the world's desire to come here, we should be proud of them.

Liberals, like the author of that editorial, have surreptitiously dismantled the moral, ethical, educational and political structure of this nation for the past thirty years, and for that they're guilty of something very close to treason, and all for a foolish and false ideology, historically proven to be bankrupt and murderous.

No, a plaque with the Ten Commandments on it won't make people live holier lives, any more than it will somehow harm those who believe in other G-ds, or none at all. But it will acknowledge and remind us that the true foundation of this nation is the G-d that Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration. And that's why leftists can't allow such public expressions of faith…lest we remember that G-d is the source of our liberty, not career bureaucrats and lying politicians.


Toogood Reports contributor Paul Scates is a Constitutional Conservative and a Christian who offers his commentary to 'we, the people,' who bear the ultimate responsibility for the actions of our elected representatives, and for preserving our Constitutional liberties. Paul served as a Marine in Vietnam, his interests include history, government and cultural issues. You may e-mail Paul at pescates@earthlink.net.
Copyright 1999, 2000 by Toogood Reports. All rights reserved.

BACK Constitutional Issues

TYSK eagle

News Depts Articles Library
Lite Stuff Links Credits Home

 

 

17 nov 2001