I’m Told Public Prayer Is At Stake! — Really? Why Is That?

November 8, 2013 by
Filed under: Uncategorized 

At times I have to ponder how someone like David Barton can be so brilliant –yet sadly off-base on a seemingly obvious matter. (The same applies to many Conservatives who unknowingly favor governmental custom over Natural rights, and end up not being able to see the forest for the trees.)  He’s been sending out e-mails for a while now about the “big day” coming up and yesterday finally one that “this is the day” for a major Supreme Court case to be heard.  And to quote him directly: “Today is a crucial day in American history — the continuance of public prayer and the public acknowledgment of God is in jeopardy…Alliance Defending Freedom [is] arguing…Town of Greece v. Galloway before the U. S. Supreme Court [which] will then decide whether or not public prayer will be allowed to continue in America…the Court Justices will vote and reach their decision as to whether or not to continue permitting public prayer…or whether it will now be officially prohibited…So please pray…as the fate of the 400-year-old tradition of public prayer in America literally hangs in the balance.

 

For someone so educated, so historically astute, so brilliant in every way – how can he be so ignorant as to the CONCEPT of true Liberty; best articulated in the Declaration of Independence?

 

Friends, the Declaration isn’t an agreement or a contract we study for intent and meaning like we do the Constitution, it’s simply a statement of logically assessed truths predicated on an immense understanding of the study and knowledge of the origins of civil society, and therefore the inherent Natural rights of man.  It wasn’t a plan or a form of government; it wasn’t debated, reformed, explained to the public, and then approved by a majority vote: it was a statement of common sense principles crafted by Thomas Jefferson, edited slightly by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, and universally understood and unanimously agreed upon by those in the Continental Congress.  Even the average citizens of the day who didn’t favor separation from Great Britain understood its principles.

 

So if the government we create for the purpose of securing our inalienable rights instead becomes the suppressor or usurper of those rights, some believe we have no recourse; we “have to” as a people abide by that which we detest?  And then if one of the branches therein, i.e. “the Court,” decides we have to be a publicly godless society, we’re required to be obedient? We have no recourse??  We have no inherent Natural right to “ALTER (or abolish)” our government, “laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as shall seem most likely to effect our Safety and Happiness” when we find it to be contrary to its very foundation; to secure our unalienable rights?  Is that not the very definition of tyranny?  And I must ask: “what in the hell is this assumption based upon?”

 

I agree emphatically that, “prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.”  But that said; “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce [us to a godless society]… it is [our] right, it is [our] DUTY, to [ALTER] such Government, and to provide new Guards for our future security.”

 

And personally, I can’t think of a single act more important to the preservation of what’s left of our Republic and the desire within many of us to return it to what it was, than ensuring with the utmost urgency that the right to worship our Creator – privately OR publicly – is preserved, and in fact encouraged!!

 

And this is where I find some of my best, brightest, and most Conservative Friends to be inherently naïve – if not altogether ignorant – in the mere concept of Natural rights.  I’m honestly not name-calling, I’m simply perplexed. (After all, who am I to question David Barton’s intellect? – the man has forgotten more than I’ll ever know!!)  I’ll never know what makes some people think that we are forced to be governed in a manner displeasing to the majority – let alone the VAST majority.  Again I ask: is that not the very definition of tyranny?  (The same can be asked of the way Congress keeps passing law after law, and creating agency after agency which opposes the will of the people – and we do nothing; in fact some oppose logical attempts to curb that: nullification, amending the Constitution, etc.)

 

At what point do common sense, gumption and self-preservation couple themselves with fortitude, wherewithal, education and virtue somewhere deep within us, and give us cause as a populace to organize and reclaim our government?  When do we finally reinstitute our government in a form that meets the demands for which it was intended – “instituted among Men, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, to secure rights, among them (not limited to, but amongst) Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  I’m sorry, but I’m forced to ask of some of my Conservative Friends: “when will their complacency end – as well meaning as it may be, while fighting for “change” by simply trying to elect a conservative here-and-there to Washington, where the concentration of power renders those seeking to disband it useless – and their resolve begin?

 

The beauty of the “Declaration” is the depth of though, the inherent logic, and the intertwining of individual Liberty and collective societal adhesion that it represents.  It doesn’t say “WE DON’T NEED GOVERNMENT!!” – it states in-depth reasoning for the very origin of government, as it emanates from man’s nature in regard to his desire to live partially free yet partially communally.  It doesn’t say “Hey England; hey King George: GO TO HELL!!” – it states that we’d rather remain friends, but not under such abuse and subjugation, and that our desire for peace shouldn’t be confused with complacency.

 

To state it plainly in my own words: government exists for the preservation of Natural rights, and for the betterment of our communal society: it’s broken into various levels for various purposes; no one level is more important than the other, they simply have differing purposes.  If any level of government intrudes unjustly upon another, or impedes the Liberty and will of the constituency, then it needs to be adjusted and corrected.  It really is not much more complicated than that.

 

If I were to ask the extreme question – “if the federal government (or federal courts) determines a ‘one child’ policy, and that any children after that shall die, are we forced to follow it?” – the responses would vary greatly.  They’d range from “that’s an illogical question” to “it’ll never happen” to “no one would follow it” to “it would be overturned” (misplacing once again the roll of the courts in such a matter…) to “it wouldn’t be enforced” etc.  But it’s a valid question and a valid point: it would never be followed, because it’s such a gross violation of something that’s important to us: US!! Our focus anymore is always “us”; our desires to have as many kids as we want, our desire to live our lives in a way which pleases us, our desire to do what we want: us, us, us; me, me, me.

 

And that brings me to the second point in this matter…

 

The truth may be this: perhaps, even as Conservatives, we’re so engrained already in a godless society, and we’ve so disregarded our Heavenly Creator that we’ve in fact let His very presence escape our hearts – which in turn pushed Him out of our society.  Is it possible that the REAL reason we get upset when people take away our “God Bless America” or “Merry Christmas” as a society is because that’s the only place we still see God – we don’t see His reflection inside us when we look in the mirror, and when we look at others we only see a body, clothes, hair-do and physique, but no reflection of our Creator?  And could that possibly play into why we’re waiting with bated breath for permission to publicly pray?

 

If God were as important to us as we seem to think He is, then it would never be a consideration to let the government we created in part to protect our right to worship Him force us to do the opposite.  This whole issue, sadly, I believe reveals two glaring weaknesses of our society:

1.)    We don’t really understand what Natural rights are, what it means to actually self-govern, and what the true purpose of government is; and

2.)    That God really isn’t as important to us as we’ve convinced ourselves that He is – individually OR collectively.

 

Because sadly, if we understood Natural rights and if we valued our Creator, we wouldn’t have the best and brightest among us telling us to hold our breath, cross our fingers, pray…and waiting for nine men who supposedly represent us and the document created to ensure the continued protection of our rights to give us our ultimatum as to whether or not we can still honor our Creator once we enter the public domain…

Comments

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!





Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

order antabuse online