Most Americans Know The Answers – Question Is What Will They Do?

The reason in large part for America’s descent into the abyss of moral decadence lies not in the answers to the following questions, but rather what brave, constitutionally sound Americans propose to do in response to those answers.

Question: If God is so bad for public schools; if God is so intrusive; if the separation of church and state is as clear as some (insert lawyers and socialists) would have us believe – why did it take an atheist and a lawyer until 1962 to figure it out?

Question: If saying the Lord’s Prayer and /or observing moments of silence is so destructive to the psyche of school children and tantamount to sanctioning religion – why does the U.S. Congress employ a taxpayer-paid chaplain, i.e., preacher, to begin every session of Congress with prayer? (Note: This has continued uninterrupted since 1777.)

Question: If the Ten Commandments are so offensively discomforting so as to traumatize atheists, Muslims and the protectors of separation of church and state; if the U.S. Supreme Court has routinely ruled in support of said separation – why is there a mural atop the High Court building of the world’s lawgivers, facing Moses as he is holding the Ten Commandments?

Question: If the courts were just and fair in rendering rulings that forced the removal of all plaques engraved with said Commandments from government and municipal property – why does the door leading to the U.S. Supreme Court courtroom have the Ten Commandments engraved on each? Why are the Ten Commandments displayed directly behind where the Supreme Court justices sit?

Question: If the separation of church and state, as the haters of God would have us believe, is so clearly defined – why is our entire system of jurisprudence based upon the Holy Bible, i.e., the Ten Commandments?

Question: If the “One nation under God” clause in the Pledge of Allegiance is a violation; if as has been suggested atheists will seek to have “In God we trust” removed from all legal currency – how long before we can reasonably expect that system of laws that all modern governments are based on (save those of the autocrats) to be changed? And allowing that actually happens or is even suggested – what can we possibly base equitable law /jurisprudence upon, save the very “Word of God” that atheists, activist courts and lawyers claim government must be separated from?

Question: If the framers of the Constitution actually intended, as the minions of evil argue, there be a separation of church and state as defined today – why does the Constitution acknowledge God, invoking the Person and Presence of God in protection, guidance, gratitude, favor and as Ruler of the universe over said governance?

Question: How could the framers of the U.S. Constitution and 50 state constitutions be so wrong in their verbiage that today the courts and learned lawyers (sarcasm intended) must correctly interpret what the framers knowingly wrote?

The visceral cacophony of the learned (sarcasm intended) dismiss the fact that Thomas Jefferson, our third president, wrote of building a wall of “separation between the church and state” in a letter of response to the Danbury Baptist Association, Jan. 1, 1802. His explanation being that if the government was prohibited from establishing a state religion and prohibited from ruling which religions were permissible, there would be a wall, if you will, “between church and state.”

While there exists disagreement as to the validity of our fourth president, James Madison, having said, “We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God,” no such argument exists pursuant to the Supreme Court in 1892 interpreting the First Amendment and the exception of Sundays in Article 1, Section 7 as evidence of America’s pervasive faith: “They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation.”

Jefferson wisely understood that, “To consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [was] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the deception of an oligarchy.”

Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., in quoting the 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, said: “If the policy of the government … is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court … the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”

Am I alone in questioning why it is perfectly permissible and the right of the immoral to murder their unborn children (aka their choice), but considered a heinous offense by religious zealots and the hardcore right to invoke the name of Him whom all shall stand before (believe it or not) one day?

The threat to our children’s future is not the insolvency of Social Security, health care or the environment – it is the systematic atheitizing of America. There still exists a choice: You can whine, sigh and complain while doing nothing, or you can start “Taking back America.”

Our forefathers threw tea overboard for less.