O'Donnell teaches

The Plague
(by R.P.Edwards)

Tittering, they make their claim
Noses skyward, great disdain
Aloof in mind, the royal nod
Above the rabble, not far…from God
Yes these, with diapers barely shed
With pap and poison plenteous fed
The spawn of towers, sick and tall
They come to rule
Lord help us…all

“Where in the constitution is ‘Separation of Church and State?’” A question by Delaware Senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell to her opponent, Chris Coons, during a recent debate at Widener Law School.  The context: The subject on display was “creationism” or “Intelligent Design” being taught in public school when the local populace desires it.  Mr Coons stated his opposition, citing the Constitutional bedrock of… “Separation of Church and State.”  Ms O’Donnell’s subsequent question (above) immediately produced gasps, snickers, and outright laughter from the learned audience of students and professors.  And, in the media--liberal and non--the consensus is that the lady is…oh so ignorant.

Well, a little research was necessary, so I went to Fox, C-Span, and finally got an un-editorialized viewing (except for the caption) of that portion of the debate on…youtube.  Hearing a little more than the headline, my suspicions were confirmed.  You see,  Mr Coons' view is, in my opinion, that the “Constitution” as interpreted by Justices in recent years…is how it is.  Ms O’Donnell’s view--again, my opinion--seems to mirror the thought that the founders may have had something else in mind.  Thus, her question, “Where in the Constitution is ‘Separation of Church and State?’” is valid, because, frankly…the phrase is NOT IN THERE! 

Here’s some thoughts:
On the subject of government and religion, consider: The following is taken from the Northwest Ordinance, a document drafted by the Second Continental Congress to establish government and steps leading to statehood for the recently acquired Western territories.

Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

Question:  Would the congress that drafted this document, and signed the U.S. Constitution two months later, and then added the Bill of Rights (including the first amendment) in 1789 (ratified by the states in 1791), would these have changed their minds concerning Art 3 of the Northwest Ordinance?  That is:  “Religion…morality…knowledge…schools” ?

Consider: The following is taken from the Massachusetts constitution, 1780:

And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship and of public teachers aforesaid shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be paid toward the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised.

Question: Would the representatives of Massachusetts, who endorsed not only “religion” in school, but the funding thereof; would these agree to a first amendment that would eventually be used to expel God and religion from said institutions?

Here’s an excerpt from “The New England Primer,” used widely at the time of the Ratification of the U.S. Constitution to teach the young their letters.

A In ADAM's Fall   We sinned all. B Thy Life to mend   This Book attend. C The Cat doth play,   And after stay. D The Deluge Drown'd   The Earth around. E ELIJAH hid   By Ravens fed. F The Judgement made  FELIX afraid.

Question: would the drafters of the first amendment imagine, in their wildest dreams, that this amendment, which was included in the founding document to protect us “from” an overreaching central government; could they possibly have imagined that it would be twisted to eliminate such teaching materials as The New England Primer from public school?

The following is a quote from Justice Rehnquist’s dissent in Wallace v Jaffree, a case involving a minute of prayer/meditation in Alabama Public schools, 1985.

It would come as much of a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights as it will to a large number of thoughtful Americans today to learn that the Constitution, as construed by the majority, prohibits the Alabama Legislature from "endorsing" prayer. George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of "public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God." History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.

Here's my first point: Ms O’Donnell was criticized because she challenged the very bedrock of secular academia. And, since she is, apparently, unschooled in the “obvious,” she must be somehow…less of brain.  However, methinks it displays the opposite.  Yes, rather than following in mindless submission to the redefiners; she is a part of the new-breed that will question the legitimacy of “their” conclusions and not settle for the parental admonition, “Because we said so!”

Second:  My revulsion in regards to the hotbeds of liberalism (Secular Universities) …grows.  They take our children, mold them in their own godless image, and then loose them into positions of prominence. If I had my way I would drastically defund these institutions. Teach what you will...but not on my dime!

Finally: The wisdom of the founders as expressed in the Northwest Ordinance…“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged,” was the recipe for our early success and rise to a place of prominence.  But, since modern “minds” reject the key ingredients of “religion” and “morality” …are we then surprised that our current conditions tend towards  “bad” government...and “unhappiness?”

Following are some links you might be interested in. Rehnquist's dissent (well worth a look!)

A portion of the O'Donnell, Coon debate






****

Tired of Kings

Tired of tyrants
(by R.P.Edwards)

Tired of Kings
Gavels in hand
Tired of rulings
Shifting as sand
Tired of babies
Having their way
Propped up by bullies
With money to pay
Tired of truth
Bowing to lies
Tired revisions
Exalted on high
But till we’re “all” tired
The errors will stay
Till “all” find their voices
The tyrants…will play

“To conclude, your honor, we find the venue…offensive.  Though subtle, it is unquestionably an endorsement of religion.  And, your honor, as has been established, it is unconstitutional for the state to hold one belief higher than another.” His dissertation done, the plaintiff’s hired legal-eagle turned, slowly walked to his seat and sat down even as the middle-aged jurist leaned back and, with eyes closing till closed, rocked ever so slightly as he weighed the value and merit…of each argument.  Without recess (this judge was known for speed) after a two minute pause, he spoke:  “Having weighed the arguments of both sides and viewing them through the lens of legal precedent, I find the plaintiffs complaint that using the local VFW hall for a high school graduation is indeed a violation of ’Church and State.’”  [at the words, murmurs of surprise and protest waft in from the gallery until gaveled away by the now standing jurist]  “As I was saying,” he continued, “since the hall in question is, by its very nature, a gathering place for those who have a common belief in justifiable homicide; this ‘faith’ falls under the broad umbrella of religion.  Therefore…no graduation!”

My absurd example (above) is only slightly more ludicrous than the reasoning of a Connecticut judge who has forbidden two local high schools from “renting” a large church auditorium for their common graduation ceremony.  Why did they want to rent it?  Because it was big enough, and the price was right.  Why was there a complaint?  Because it was a church and a few sensitive souls couldn‘t stand the thought that this venue, even if an effort was made to cover religious symbolism, might be perceived as favoring one religion over another, thereby violating the “not in the document” separation of Church and State.

I ask you; aren’t we sick of this kind of thing? Aren’t we tired of the endless twisting of our sacred foundational scroll to satisfy the whims of the godless elite?  It continues to amaze me how words that were meant to restrict the Federal Government; the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!, have been worried, and worn, and weaseled to find their slithering way down to little Joan and Johnnies ear, lest they somehow be taught that there is meaning behind the phrase found in the Declaration of Independence… “the Supreme Judge of the World.”

So, the solution.  Again, vouchers.  Give parents a choice which belief or non-belief they want their child exposed to.  And, maybe, when it comes to practical things like “renting a hall,” maybe we shouldn’t be so thin-skinned. 

That’s what I think.  How about you?  Click comments below…and say.

No! Mr. Newdow

 

 

Meaningless?
(by R.P.Edwards)

Michael Newdow
Don’t despair
Though the court says
They don’t care
If “God” remains upon our pay
And in the pledge?
That’s A-O-K
For they say “He”
Is just a word
When spoken thus
No reverence heard
Yes
Empty sounds
No substance due
Like “good”
And “evil”
“Lie”
And “true”

Martha (a sensitive eight year old) couldn’t, for the life of her, figure out why Ms. Beasly (the principle) wanted to “talk” with her in the hall.  The start of the school day seemed normal enough (some chit chat, a call to stand and be silent, then a turning towards the flag…and then the Pledge of Allegiance).  Yes, normal enough; but right after the pledge Mr. Dower (their teacher), made a quick call on his cell phone, and now, a few minutes later…Ms. Beasly…was waiting.  “Martha,” said the rather large middle-aged matron, “do you know why I wanted to talk with you this morning?”  “No ma’am,” was the timid reply as the child’s tiny hands and fingers began to fidget amongst themselves at waist level.  “Martha,” said the elder reassuringly (squatting down to be at eye level and, at the same time, reaching over to take the young girl’s hands in her own).  “You were doing it again,” she continued (giving an over-the-glasses peek and a wink) and, with the words, a knowing expression came over the child’s face.  “Ohhh,” said the waif, pulling her right hand gently away and retrieving a small silver cross that dangled at the end of a nearly invisible chain that hung from the child’s neck and was usually tucked safely away behind the upper right quadrant of her azure blouse.  “I was holding it again, wasn’t I?” the girl continued, stroking the symbol lovingly as she brought it to the light.  “Yes, dear, you were stroking it,” the principle emphasized as she slowly stood and then offered the child her left hand for a soft turning back towards the classroom door.  “You simply can’t show any emotional attachment to such a religious symbol during the pledge of allegiance, or at any time during the school day.”  “But…but…why not?” whimpered the teary eyed lovely as she stopped just short of the doorway.  “I love Him so.”  “Yes, yes, dear.  We know you do.  But the Court has determined that the word “God,” in the pledge and on our money…is merely ceremonial.  It really doesn’t mean a Supreme Being that you pray to.  Do you understand?”  After a weak nod and agreement by the youngster, the child was gently pushed through the opening as all eyes within…turned upon her.  And, as the door slowly closed behind the wee one, the principle, as her hard soled shoes clacked against the tile as she made her way to the teachers lounge for a latte, could be heard to say… “Poor delusional child.  Poor delusional child.”

And so, famed atheist, Michael Newdow’s efforts to remove “God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, and from our currency has, for the moment, failed.  Unfortunately, instead of citing our Judeo Christian roots and beginnings, the courts says, in essence, the word “God” has no religious meaning.  Well then, it’s in good company.  Apparently  the word, “Truth” has little meaning…either.

That’s what I think.  How about you?  Click comments below…and say.

No Bibles Allowed

The Bible Effect
(by R.P.Edwards)

Revered and honored
Hated…to shreds
Open…for all
Hidden ‘neath beds
Sought…for destruction
Sought…for true life
Effects
Never neutral
One…peace
And one…
Strife

The third grader gently lifted the lid to her desk and pulled out the book.  It was quiet time and, since she was allowed to read, she thought bringing her favorite “real” book to school would fill the time nicely.  Sure, like most kids her age she enjoyed the fantasies and funnies that her other friends were consumed with; but this book, her bible, was much more than those other, transient tales.  Indeed, by observing how much mom and dad loved it, and how the minister on Sunday was always quoting from it, well, it seemed only natural to become better acquainted with the pages.  But the main reason, was that it told about Jesus.  And this little girl…loved him.  It was disturbing, therefore, when the teacher, someone the child respected and even liked, walked up to her and demanded that the wonderful book be put away…because it wasn’t “appropriate.” 

On this Thursday morn, as I assisted in the send off of my spouse, I saw on the news how yet another public school teacher sought to reinforce the secular mindset by “banning the book.”  Of course, this individual was out of line (so says the Supreme Court…whoopee!) but I tire so of the whole separation of church and state nonsense.  Again:  God is mentioned four times in the Declaration of Independence.  The Constitution ends with the phrase, “in the year of our Lord” and, a simple review of the era when the document was written reveals Biblical principles being a necessary part of the A B C’s.  The convoluted route, it seems to me, whereby the black robed class have concluded that we are to be, when it comes to education “anti-God” (what is “secular,” if not that?) is, at the very least, inane.  The solution?  Vouchers.  Give me my portion and I’ll send my kids to an institution that reflects my values.  A place that teaches radical ideas like; don’t murder, steal, lie, or cheat on your spouse.  Where marriage is uncomplicated and sexuality…is safe.  And how about the most revolutionary idea of all…honor your father and mother.

That's what I think.  How about you?  Click comments below...and say.