One Nation Under God - 2

"One nation under God..."  we  proudly  repeat  in  the pledge  of allegiance.  But is this really "One nation under God"?  Do we continue to uphold the  principles  which  have made America what it is today?
Thank  you  for joining us in the second of a series of discussions dealing with the present situation in our  great country.
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers,   John  Jay, the first chief justice, proposed, "and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest  of  a Christian nation to select and prefer Christian rulers."
"Our  laws  and  our  institutions  must necessarily be based upon and embody  the  teachings  of  the  Redeemer  of mankind,"  the Supreme Court ruled in an 1892 decision.  "It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."
"This is a religious people," the same ruling stated.
"This  is  historically  true.   From  the discovery of this continent to the present  hour,  there  is  a  single  voice making this affirmation."
"These, and many other matters which might be noticed," the   justices   stated,    "add   a   volume  of  unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterance that this is a Christian nation.
But something has changed along the way.
"It is arrogant to pretend that from our vantage we can gauge accurately the intent of the framers on application of principle  to  specific,  contemporary  questions,"  Justice William  Brennan  replied  when Attorney General Edwin Meese requested a return to original intent.  "We current justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can:  as  20th century  Americans,"  Brennan added.  "The ultimate question must be what do the words of the text mean in our time."
"Original intent  is  the  only  legitimate  basis  for constitutional  decision," Robert Bork proposed.  Of course, it was decided that Bork was not qualified  to  sit  on  the Supreme  Court.   But, looking at history, who is right?  Is it Brennan or Bork?
Could it be, we must  wonder,  if  "We  cannot  do  it" really  means   "We  don't  want  to do it."  Our country did amazingly well for nearly  200  years  while  we  sought  to follow the original intent of the founding fathers.  America has  been  going  steadily  downhill since the Supreme Court adopted its new viewpoint.
On June 25, 1962 the Supreme Court  ruled  that  school prayer was unconstitutional.  During the following 12 months reading of the Bible was also banned from the classroom.
Since  1963  pregnancies have increased 533 percent for girls between the ages of 10 and 14.  There has been  a  160 percent rise  in  the  number  of  single-parent  families.
Violent crime has gone up 544 percent.  Scholastic  Aptitude Test scores have  steadily declined.
No, one  is  not  necessarily the result of the other.  But is it unreasonable to think that both might  be  related to  a  single  cause?   Both  seem  to have developed from a break-down in moral principles.
"I believe history shows that every great  civilization that  has  ended  up  in  history's  dustbin  did  so  after forsaking its god or gods," Ronald Reagan observed.  "I also believe,  however,  that  the  God  of  Moses  and  his  Son admonished us  to  go into the world and spread their word.  But those who hear must decide  for  themselves  whether  to accept that word."
Isaac  Asimov, who reproduced this quote if, a letter he circulated in 1986 as president  of  the  American  Humanist Association,  took  exception with President Reagan.  Who is right?
"Congress shall  make  no  law,"  the  First  Amendment simply  states, "respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
There is little  doubt  among  honest  minds  that  the intent   of  the  very  first  amendment  is  to  avoid  the establishment of a single state-sponsored  church.   As  the amendment  clearly  specifies,  the purpose is to assure the free exercise of religion and certainly not to limit it.
"Religion, morality and knowledge  being  necessary  to good  government  and  the  happiness  of mankind," Congress declared  in  1789  with  the  passage  of   the   Northwest Ordinance, "schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
There is no doubt that those closest to the founding of our  country  did  not intend for religion to be banned from the schools.
In Norman, Oklahoma, a  fifth-grade  girl  met  with  a friend at  recess  to  read  the  Bible  and  discuss  it.  Eventually, they were joined by four  others.   No  one  was forced to participate.  They gathered under a tree away from other  students.   As  soon  as  the  school heard about the discussions, however, the children were  told  that  it  was illegal  to  discuss religion on school property.  Who knows more about constitutional liberties, the 11-year-old girl or the school officials?
A 10-year research project  by  the  Political  Science Department of the University of Houston identified the three men  most  quoted by the founders of America.  The Bible was quoted 16  times  more  often  than  these  three.   It  was calculated  that  34  percent  of  all  quotes  used  by the founders were taken directly from the Bible.  An  additional 60  percent  of the quotes were simply taken from others who were quoting the Bible.  In all, 94 percent  of  the  quotes were directly or indirectly from the Bible.
Two  concepts  that  have  contributed  strongly to the survival of our country are the separation of powers and the related division of government into  three  branches.   Both ideas were taken from the Bible.
Yes,  there is an orchestrated effort to remove God and the Bible from this country.  But it  is  time  for  honesty from  those who propose this.  The founding fathers , as well as national leaders for nearly  200  years  following  them, intended for this to be "One nation under God"!
There  is  a  civil  war underway.  Some are seeking to rewrite the Constitution without a single ballot being cast. We are being  mislead  into  accepting  the  idea  that  the Constitution  says  exactly  the  opposite of what it really intends.

It  has  been  correctly observed that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.  As  we  consider the forces of secular humanism that are attempting to remove God  and  the  Bible  from  every facet of American life, we can't help but wonder whether or not  this  has  been  tried before.
Of course, it comes as no surprise to discover that, as Solomon  observed  in Ecclesiastes 1:9, there is nothing new under the sun.  The thing that is surprising is  that  there are  those who are pushing secular humanism when it has been adopted by a major world power in  this  very  century;  and with  terrible results.  For most of this century the Soviet Union has been ruled by a  system  of  government  based  on secular humanism.  If communism works, then secular humanism works.  If secular humanism works, then communism works.  If one does not work, then the other one does riot, either.
Regardless   of   religious   considerations,   secular humanism does not work as the primary  force  in  society.
Regardless  of  political considerations, communism does not work as a political system.
The Soviet Union was probably at its strongest from the 1950s through the 1970s.  Toward the end of this period,  in
1979,   communist   party  leader  Brezhnev  made  a  speech comparing the United States with what he  considered  to  be great  progress  in the Soviet Union.  Following the speech, newspaper columnist Henry  J.  Taylor  analyzed  the  actual situation and came up with the following data.
More  than  half  of  Moscow's  90,000  apartments were shared by two or more families.  An additional  1.6  million apartments  would  have  been  required  to provide unshared housing.  The United States would have  had  to  destroy  60 percent of its houses to "catch up" with the Russians.
Moscow did  not have a publicly issued telephone book. To be like the Russians we would have needed to  destroy  90 percent of our telephones.
There  was  one  major highway in the Soviet Union.  We had 3.5 million miles, equal to about 135 times  around  the globe.  Russia had fewer miles of paved roads than the state of Florida.
They  had  one  major  automobile outlet with a waiting list of about 60,000 would-be car owners.  It was illegal to own two cars.  It took more than a year to complete the  red tape  after  applying  for  an  automobile.   The  procedure included investigation by the KGB.   It  was  prohibited  to sell  the  car for within three years.  We would have needed to destroy 90 percent of our automobiles to be even.
We would have had to destroy two-thirds of our railroad mileage, returning us to the 1917  level .   To  be  even  we would  have  needed  to destroy 95 percent of our electrical motor output, 90 percent of our natural gas  and  commercial airlines  60  percent  of our steel mills, and two-thirds of our hydroelectric plants and coal production.
To be even we would have been forced to close  half  of our  120,000 schools and almost all of our church buildings. We would have needed to destroy 70 million television  sets. In  addition,  we  would  have  needed  a 51-hour work week, including six hours on Saturdays.  Strikes would  have  been outlawed.   We  would have needed two million more people in our military.  The pay for a lieutenant,  by  the  way,  was about  100  times greater than that for a private.  We would have needed 250,000 agents in our secret police, and borders sealed with 200,000 guards to keep  the  citizens  in.   The death penalty would have been lowered to 14.
Meanwhile,  what  we  actually  had  were  the  world's highest wages and the shortest  working  hours.   Our  gross national product was twice that of the Soviet Union.
This  was twelve years ago.  This was the United States built on nearly 200 years of looking to God for  guidance.
What  is  the situation today?  The Soviet Union, along with the countries of Eastern Europe, are struggling to  get  rid of secular humanism like a nightmare.  They are finding that it  is  not  easy  to  undo  the  damage of more than half a century.  And what about us?
Here are the figures from the  Bureau  of  the  Census, covering the period from 1950 to 1988
Our  population had increased 65 percent.  Homicide had gone up 243 percent.  The  annual  number  of  suicides  had doubled.   Abortion  had  increased 800 percent, including a 760 percent rise in the number of abortions under age 20.
Births out of  wedlock  were  up  426  percent.   Rape, including correction for unreported cases, had increased 230 percent.  Divorce had risen 212 percent.  There were no AIDS victims  in 1950.  There were 35,000 in 1988.  The number of euthanized patients grew by 1,200 percent.  And  the  number of child abuse cases had risen 2,317 percent!
No  money  is recorded for aid to dependent children in 1950.  The amount in 1988 was $21,500,000,000.
For nearly 20 years our government spent more than $2.2 billion under Title  X  in  an  attempt  to  reduce  teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.  Unfortunately, much  of this spending was guided by the wrong people, those who did not want to promote what they saw to be  restrictive religious  values.   What  were the results between 1970 and 1988?
The number of sexually active teenagers increased  from 31.7  percent  in  1971  to 52.6 percent in 1988.  Some 65.3 percent of the births to  teenagers  in  1988  were  out  of wedlock,   compared  to  29.5  percent  in  1970.   In  1988 one-third of the 1.5 million  abortions  were  performed  on teenagers.   There  were, by the way, five venereal diseases in 1950.  Now we have 50.
Can we still proudly claim  to  be  "One  nation  under God"?  We are surrounded with false statements about what we want and need.  But only the truth will keep us free.

Unless otherwise noted, "Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE(R), (C) Copyright The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977. Used by permission."