Removal of God from Government will Destroy Liberty
“To those who cite the First Amendment as reason for excluding God from more and more of our institutions every day, I say: The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny.” –Ronald Reagan
The Liberal’s attack on the Bill of Rights, and specifically the first Amendment to the Constitution, has done major damage to the people’s understanding of the founders intentions to the role of God in Government. The term ‘Separation of Church and State’ is used repeatedly to remove every aspect of our Creator from the halls and corners of government. The liberals are consistently making every attempt to remove even the inference of God, and if possible they would remove His name from the founding documents themselves. The major error these attack dogs make, is that the intentions of the founders was to prevent the Government from establishing a government run religion, not abolish the virtue of God from government entirely. You may be surprised to find that ‘Separation of Church and State’ is not found in the Constitution, but was actually from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote during his presidency. (You must read the entire letter to understand he’s meaning) The 1st Amendment reads…
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…
The goal of the founders was to prevent the tyranny of Government from corrupting religion and worship, and keep religious groups free to operate without government oppression. They realized the damage done from the government run religion in England and Europe, and added this amendment to prevent the same tyranny in the United States. But they also realized, that there is indeed a God and his presence, principles, wisdom, holiness, and wrath must be acknowledged. (If you don’t believe me, you obviously haven’t read any works of our founding fathers, and you’re basing you view on our state-run liberal educational system)
Removing God from Government is an attack on Liberty
You may ask, how do I know this was their intent…. The reason is because I read their writings and documents, but even more so, is because of their love for liberty. Our liberty is a gift from God to men, not from bureaucrats to men. It is a divine right, that the people must always remember. Without this simple understanding, it then becomes a right from men which opens the door to tyranny. In fact, tyranny will immerge as people’s thinking is corrupted into believing that their rights of liberty and freedom come from men in government. What immerges is the replacement of God with government, and the eventual end to our freedoms. This attack on God, is an attack on His principles, which is also an attack on liberty.
Cheers Thinking Patriots,
Jason
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
~ Declaration of Independence
Jason,
I agree that some have misunderstood or misused separation of church and state to push religion out of various aspects of public life, which is something quite different than the constraint intended by the founders on government taking steps toward establishing religion. The best response to that, I think, is to educate people about the nature and scope of the Constitutional principles (which I recognize may entail as much debate, discussion, and persuasion as lecturing) and correct the mistakes as they arise.
On the question whether government acknowledgement of a god is necessary to maintain liberty and the rule of law, I think we may differ. The existence and inalienability of certain rights, for instance, are considered by many to be an inherent aspect of a human being–part of the nature of being human. Whether one thinks humans were created by a god or resulted from some natural process, one can recognize and appreciate that these rights are part of their very nature–like a rock’s hardness is part of its nature (regardless of whether its origins are natural or supernatural).
If I read you correctly, I agree with you as well that separation of church and state does not call for us to somehow push away the religious aspects of our history, nor does it call for government to be hostile to religion. Government may find it tricky sometimes to walk the line between properly acknowledging religion’s part in our history and tradition and improperly promoting religion. Part of the difficulty is that people are quite “touchy” about these matters. To some, nearly any mention of god or religion by a government official or on government property strikes them as government promotion of religion, contrary to the constraints of the First Amendment. To others, government actions aiming for neutrality appear more like hostility, contrary to the way things have been in the past and should remain in the future.
As the nation works through these issues–generation after generation–good faith, good cheer, and good information can only help.
Doug,
Great follow up comments, hope to see you here often.
Cheers,
Jason
Doug,
Thank you for your thought out post…
I agree with many of your points, and am not arguing against separation of church and state. I agree with you that they are good sound principles that should be nurtured and defended and not attacked. My point is that many have used ’separation of church and state’ to the extreme in order to remove every aspect, principle, and virtue of God (for me this is the Christian God) from government. I do not believe this was the intent of the founders & the 1st Amendment, nor do I believe it is wise. I believe that Liberty and even Rule of Law is a principle of our Creator, and if we remove the virtues and acknowledgement of God from government we under-mind our core principles. With no acknowledgement of God or Creator, their is no reason for the first part of the Declaration of Independence, “The right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ” (inalienable rights) Essentially they don’t exist as inalienable, if they are not given from a higher power. If we remove all aspects of that higher power, then we can logically remove our rights entirely and give them over to men in government.
Essentially, I believe there can be a ’separation of church and state’ without the removal of God and his principles from Government, and any transformation into a government-religion partnership. I believe that is exactly what we had from the birthing of our nation until recently. Now we are seeing the intent to remove God’s principles entirely, and I believe we must resist this as much as resisting a form of government-religion state.
Cheers Fellow Patriot,
Jason
Having read many of the writings of founders, you must have observed considerable diversity in their views on religion and on separation of religion and government, a diversity that is hardly captured in the slogan voiced by Reagan. That slogan, moreover, mischaracterizes the principle of separation of church and state (in any of its perceived forms) and offers but a straw man to be ridiculed. No one–no one–seriously contends that the First Amendment was written “to protect the people of this country from religious values.” This is merely political rhetoric–red meat for the political base–and not a basis for serious discussion.
In any event, if as you say “[t]he goal of the founders was to prevent the tyranny of Government from corrupting religion and worship, and keep religious groups free to operate without government oppression,” that goal is well served by the separation of church and state. By keeping the government out of the business of promoting or otherwise taking steps to establish religion, the founders assured that each individual would be free to practice and promote his or her religion without fear that the government would weigh in and promote the religious views of others. The corollary, of course, is that each individual also cannot expect the government to endorse or promote his or her religious views.
Nor is the principle of separation of church and state inconsistent with the view that individuals are endowed by their Creator with rights. (Note by the way that the terms, e.g., Creator, used by the founders in various writings do not expressly or necessarily refer to the God envisioned by Christians.) Whatever the perceived source of these rights, the founders decided that they could best be preserved by separating church and state. Time has confirmed their wisdom.
Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how the principles embodied in the First Amendment should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to transform our secular government into some form of government-religion partnership should be resisted by every patriot.