Hypocrisy or Indoctrination: The Choice is Yours

These kinds of lawsuits have become very common and are symptomatic of the insanity that is now overtaking the West:

• Citizens represented by the group American Atheists are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their appeal of a lawsuit challenging a Kentucky law that credits Almighty God with homeland security. 

• At issue is legislation passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. A 2002 “legislative finding” said the “safety and security of the commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.”

Does the First Amendment to our Constitution prohibit the use of such words or this expression of faith in the “Almighty God?”

Hardly! The “separation clause” merely reads:

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Does this clause - Almighty God - represent the “establishment of religion?” According to the American Atheists, it does:

• “This new legislation should not be swept under the ceremonial deism rug, especially as it ostracizes atheists from politics,” wrote Kagin, the national legal director for American Atheists, in his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. He was referring to the legal doctrine that a passing reference to God in official statements does not amount to a religious endorsement.

However, if this clause represents a violation of the First Amendment, so too does every single one of our 50 State constitutions, all of which mention God. For instance, the New Jersey 1844, Preamble to their constitution reads:

• We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

However, on a deeper more important level, the position that the American Atheists are taking is incoherent. Almost every politician and even those who have brought this suit mention their source of trust. They mention this trust in a variety of ways, but it all comes down to an alternative faith:

1. “I trust in the character and will of the American people.”
2. “We need to trust in ourselves.”
3. “Trust in science.”
4.  “Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly modify our behavior, alter the course of human evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life.” (The Humanist Manifesto II)

These are no less religious statements that statements that recommend a trust in God. If this is the case – and it clearly is – then the admonishment to trust in self is no less religious than the admonishment to trust in God. Therefore, if it is illegitimate to say “trust in God,” then it is also illegitimate to say, “trust in yourself” or “trust in science and humanity.” In other words, “We can express our faith, but your expression of faith is forbidden.”

We need to inquire why it is now OK to deify self or science, while it’s not OK to deify the Deity Himself. Is this hypocrisy or the product of a calculated strategy to close down both voice and mind of the opposition? The choice is yours.