Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

American forefathers identified Good Law in the first paragraph of The Declaration of Independence when addressing the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” These laws are intractable inasmuch as a tree is a tree, a man is a man and a woman is a woman – that’s nature’s law based upon God’s eternal laws of the universe.  It is figuratively written in stone that a tree cannot become a man, a man cannot become a woman, and a woman cannot become a tree. No matter how contorted the human mind becomes in their effort to disrupt the laws of nature and of nature’s God, “these Truths are self-evident” (to borrow another phrase from the Declaration of Independence).

Since that declaration of Good Law, the written word has been used by man continuously and consistently to make Bad Law, and the only reason this continues unabated is that for years, decades and now centuries, We the People have allowed it to happen.

To that I say, “Shame on us; let’s fix it before it’s too late (if it isn’t already too late); and remember, whenever something needs fixing, the best place to start is at the beginning.”

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to iPatriot updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: I Will Not Comply

Enshrined in the Bill of Rights, attached to the other famous American founding document, the Constitution, is one of the people’s most important freedoms, the Freedom of Religion.  Our forefathers used sixteen words to declare religious liberty for all posterity.  Those words read as follows:  “Congress shall make NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  That’s really quite straightforward; understandable at an elementary level; concrete, clear and concise.

And what have we allowed our historical judicial tyrants to do with it? Slowly, serendipitously, stealthily obfuscate our rights so thoroughly that we now live in a country where “the courts” decide which bathroom we can use, or whether a private citizen of faith, in his privately held small business, can decide whether to bake a cake that includes a message that is fundamentally opposed to his religious convictions.  And why has this happened? I believe it is because we have allowed the sworn enemies of Liberty to distort the very meaning of our God-given, constitutionally protected Rights.

For example, if in fact there is to be separation of church and state, the Bill of Rights puts this concept in the context of a “one-way street.”  Congress shall make NO LAW.  Nowhere in the constitution does it say anything to the effect that religious people shall not influence Congress, and furthermore, if there is to be a healthy “separation” of church and state, a good understanding of the mutually respectful separation can be read in a commentary written in 1888 that includes the following paragraph: “Destroy our churches, close our Sunday-schools, abolish the Lord’s Day, and our republic would become an empty shell, and our people would tend to heathenism and barbarism. Christianity is the most powerful factor in our society and the pillar of our institutions. It regulates the family; it enjoins private and public virtue; it builds up moral character; it teaches us to love God supremely, and our neighbor as ourselves; it makes good men and useful citizens; it denounces every vice; it encourages every virtue; it promotes and serves the public welfare; it upholds peace and order. Christianity is the only possible religion for the American people, and with Christianity are bound up all our hopes for the future.”

 See: “The American Idea of Religious Freedom”, by Philip Schaff.

http://www.xmission.com/~gastown/revival/religfre.txt

It’s no wonder the statists want to deny our children a proper understanding of American history.

For example, an early challenge to religious liberty was brought to the United States Supreme Court in 1878 in Reynolds v United States involving the right of a Mormon to have more than one wife.

See: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/98/145/case.html

Now, to be clear, I believe in traditional marriage between one man and one woman, and I agree with Mr. Philip Schaff when he states that “Christianity is the only possible religion for the American people” (see italicized paragraph above).

That said, in my humble opinion, this case should never have been allowed (by We the People) to have been adjudicated at the federal level.  This was a State issue and should have been finalized in Utah, where “the people” have “the right” to determine “the structure” of “their society” in “their State.”  That’s federalism; that would have been in accordance with our constitution.

However, maybe because Americans were too busy building railroads in 1878, they failed to demand judicial adherence to their constitution, and the Supreme court was allowed to insert their opinion that the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action.

I don’t remember seeing caveats to NO LAW that differentiated between opinion and action; do you?  My opinion is that the Supreme court of 1878 should have cited the First and Tenth amendments to the constitution, declined to hear the case and remanded it back to the State of Utah where it should have been adjudicated in accordance with the will of the people.  Instead, the Supreme Court’s handling of this decision seems to have been the proverbial camel’s nose under the proverbial tent.

Our religious liberty has, since then, continuously and consistently been eroded at the federal level to the point where, in the 1960’s, the Supreme court required governments to “refrain from limiting religious freedom, unless they have a compelling societal reason for doing so.” See Section I, Paragraph 3:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/374/398/case.html#406

And, of course the socialist Representative from New York Charles Schumer and the infamous deceased Senator from Massachusetts Edward Kennedy were only too happy to enshrine the governments “compelling interest” restriction on our First Amendment Rights in 1993 under the deceitful guise of the Restoration of Freedom of Religion Act.

See: https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/1308/text.

I ask you: Do you really believe that Rep. Chuck Schumer or Sen. Ted Kennedy ever intended to protect your religious freedom?  I rest my case.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by iPatriot.com.

Janice Daniels

Natural Born Conservative, Lover of Limited Government, Low Taxes, Personal Responsibility and the Power of the Pen

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

CONTACT US

Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Sending

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account

Send this to a friend