Theism, the Founders, and Abuse of the Justice System (by ContraSuggest)

Contrary to the contention of many atheists, reason and theism are totally compatible with one another.  The accurate application of reason by the ancient Greek philosophers led to the same conclusion that Judeo-Christian theistic belief eventually led.  For instance, Pythagoras and his followers believed that the universe was ordered in a mathematically calculable fashion, and so, was an intelligible, fathomable puzzle.  Likewise, according to the Bible, God has imposed an order on the natural world, and man is able to predict things accurately, based on the observed regularity in nature.  This concept was uniquely conducive to the scientific method.  Under God, the world is rational and orderly; “God has ordered all things by measure, number and weight” (Book of Wisdom 11:12).  The historian of philosophy, W.T. Jones, wrote that, “This idea taken up by Plato and passed on to Christian Theology, is one of the great heritages of the modern mind.”  The ancient Greek philosophical belief (although not part of the Judeo-Christian tradition) that there is an underlying order which transcends and informs the real world, is decidedly theistic in nature.  Yet atheists continually abandon history and reason in claiming that theism is inconsistent with reason. 

Evident in the Socratic dialogues with the Sophists is the conception of the Natural Law, albeit in its embryonic form.  Socrates rejected the notion that moral and ethical relativism, and the dominance of the stronger over the weaker, did or should rule the societies of men.  When confronted with this argument, Socrates responded that the accepted laws in a democratic society could be reduced to basic moral conceptions arrived at through the application of reason.  His belief that there was a universal truth (or higher law) beyond the opinions of men was, like Pythagoras, theistic in nature.  This concept was alluded to by other Greek figures; the character Antigone, in Sophocles’ play of the same name, defends herself against the charge of violating an unjust law, by citing higher law:

“… Justice, enacted not these human laws. 

Nor did I deem that thou, a mortal man,

Could’st by a breath annul and override,

The immutable unwritten laws of Heaven.” 

This concept was later embraced and expounded upon by philosophers like Thomas Aquinas, and became the philosophical cornerstone of the Church, as well as a chief founding principle applied by the Founders of the United States government.  There are those that argue that there is no Natural Law and that man can know moral order and unalienable rights as the result of his own reasoning without the aid of God.  That, however, was not the view of the Founders, because the notion violated their religious faith and their reason.  Since the vast majority of them were believing, passionate, practicing Christians, their faith in God informed everything they did, as voluminously illustrated in their writings and actions.  They believed in science and reason, but worshipped neither. 

This notion that Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists has not loomed large in the Supreme Court’s reasoning is simply ridiculous.  Beginning in 1947, when Justice Hugo Black cited the “wall of separation” in Everson v. Board of Education, he overturned the long-standing balance between government and religion that had lasted for a 150 years.  He also declared that the religion clauses of the First Amendment, only designed to limit the federal government, now also applied to the states, something that the framers never intended.  After that, the phrase “wall of separation” would apply to every case or argument arising under the religion clauses, and has seeped into the American zeitgeist to the degree that many people believe the actual phrase to be in the Constitution.  As recently as 2002, Justice John Paul Stevens warned that our Democracy is threatened, “[w]henever we remove a brick from the wall that was designed to separate religion and government.”      

Many Supreme Court Justices are admitted social crusaders concerned not with the constitutional framers’ intent, or accurate interpretation of the law, but with legislating from the bench.  When Associate justice Thurgood Marshall was asked what his judicial philosophy was, he responded, “You do what you think is right, and let the law catch up.”  Associate justice Arthur Goldberg responded to a similar question by stating that his goal was to determine “what is the just result.”  Do these sound like men who gave a damn about what the Constitution said or what the framers’ intended?  Come off it.  Radical individualism, radical egalitarianism, and radical feminism have had more to do with the last 50 years’ worth of Supreme Court decisions than actual interpretation of the Constitution.  Left-wing, chowder-brained social engineering has been the guiding principle of the Juristocracy, as the court has continued to usurp more than its constitutionally granted share of power.  The folly of the court has been greatly magnified as it continues to rule on new cases based upon the many faulty precedents of the past.  Legislative acts and plebiscites consistent with state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution are continually stalled, vilified, and overturned by these activist hippies in black robes.  It’s not just judges that are to blame; unscrupulous, radical lawyers share in this disgrace.      

Lawyers’ efforts to utilize our legal system to dismantle America’s cultural traditions are starkly illustrated in the reprehensible actions of the so-called American Civil Liberties Union.  The principals in that disgusting organization have made careers out of using the letter of the law to circumvent the spirit of the law, in order to further the legal interests of cop killers, rapists, pedophiles, pornographers, abortionists, Christian-haters, anti-Semites, and other assorted types of thugs, criminals and low-lives.  Once in a while, of course, they’ll actually take up cases in which someone’s Constitutional rights have been legitimately violated, in an effort to provide their sleazy defenders a cheap talking point, but the OTPE has got their number.  Their prime target has always been so-called First Amendment violations of separation between church and state.  They know that the surest way to dismantle America and remake it in their twisted image is to strike at the root, by stifling public religious expression.  Founded by self-admitted communists and atheists, the ACLU, for more than 60 years, has been very vocal about their agenda; the organization has been unabashed in their public statements, internal and external memoranda, amicus briefs, and press releases, regarding their nutty, anti-religious, anti-American, counter-traditional, left-wing crusade.  The ACLU’s actions in this regard, and the cooperation they’ve received from activist lawyers and judges, are a matter of public record, and more than validate my “diatribe.”    

One of the major differences between leftist ideology and conservative principles is that conservatives, though hindered by deep personal flaws, acknowledge those flaws, while continuing to shoot for a higher standard; leftists share deep personal flaws as well, but they justify them and rejoice in every warped, perverted human foible.  Leave it to the ACLU, for instance, to jump to the legal defense of the inconceivably evil North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), when the parents of an abducted, raped, and murdered 8 year old boy, attempted to bring suit against NAMBLA, after it was revealed that their son’s murderers had taken comfort in material that they read on NAMBLA’s website.  This material included detailed instruction in how pedophiles could lure young boys away from the safety of their parents.  Not to worry if you’re a self-respecting homosexual pedophile, here comes the ACLU to the rescue!  While at the same time, and consistently over the years, ACLU has been at the throats of Judeo-Christian religious expression.  They regularly provide pro bono defense for the dregs of humanity, while simultaneously attempting to erase the evil Ten Commandments from public view anywhere they are displayed.  Only the hopelessly self-deluded would fail to recognize the explicit connection between the ACLU’s simultaneous efforts to neuter religious expression and to protect and defend morally bereft animals like the sleazebags at NAMBLA.  And they win more cases than they lose. 

The ACLU has used its vast resources to employ an Orwellian public relations campaign which has elevated them to the status of sainthood in the eyes of the public.  It has always concerned itself with obfuscating the meaning of the Constitution, and of law in general, while their ideological brethren have applied the same precepts in the field of politics.  Too many Americans wander through life in a socio-political stupor; the mass hypnosis of Statist thinking has kept the public doped-up on union wages and handouts from myriad government programs.  In this mental state, Americans behave like sheep to be herded into voting booths to pull the lever for the Statists of both political parties, snoozing their way through the erosion of their liberties.  This is the type of thing that the OTPE was created to fight against, by calling attention to the man behind the curtain.  Today we’re being told what foods we may or may not eat while dining in privately owned restaurants, or that we have to crap into an eyedropper full of water in our bathroom toilet bowls (having to flush three times to clear it), or what kinds of light bulbs we must purchase to illuminate our own living rooms, what kind of cars we may drive and when we should purchase them, what kind of health insurance we may have, and what doctors we can and cannot see.  Statists try to convince us that our objections (diatribes) are all a lot of to-do over nothing.  But make no mistake, these government edicts are the mark of a soft tyranny, an attempt at controlling the minutia of individuals’ lives to a degree never before seen in America.  If we continue on this trajectory, soft tyranny will eventually give way to hard tyranny; it’s only a matter of time.  Unscrupulous lawyers and judges twisting and misrepresenting the meaning of the Constitution is a huge part of the problem.  As the public learns more and more about their shameless skullduggery, it will eventually lead to a reckoning.  I only hope that by the time they wake up it is not too late.