Pluralism to Trump Ten Commandments in June

Christian Constitutionalist
Return to Story

Pluralism to Trump Ten Commandments in June
By: Reed R. Heustis, Jr.
March 7, AD 2005

The ignorance and hypocrisy of the Pluralist Left when it comes to morality and religion is astounding. Unfortunately however, it is exactly this ignorant belief system that will emerge victorious with the Supreme Court's decision on the Ten Commandments cases, no matter which party wins.

A recent Associated Press (AP) news item, "High Court to Hear Ten Commandments Cases", penned by Hope Yen, discusses two current controversial "Ten Commandments" cases, Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU, which will be decided by the Court this June. The Court will rule as to whether Ten Commandments displays on government property are constitutional.

It is interesting to note that two of the issues to be analyzed by the Court is (1) whether there is a "secular or religious purpose"; and (2) whether there is an "endorsement" of religion.

Although there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids any government from having a "religious purpose" or "endorsing religion," the Court will partly decide the cases on these dubious grounds.

The Court's "test" of Secularism-versus-Religion is a deception that has cursed our High Court and its recent decisions on religion in public.

Unbeknownst to most Americans, Secularism is actually Secular Humanism, a worldview that sets forth the premise that "all religions" are "equally valid" and that no single religion is more "moral" than another.

Over the last 50 years when the Court meandered from the first 150 years of American history, not including the three centuries of its rich Christian heritage before the signing of the Constitution, the Court has repeatedly shown a willingness "to allow" religious displays, but only so long as the government was not endorsing any single "religion" over another. Thus, Christian nativity displays depicting the baby Christ are now only "acceptable" if they are displayed alongside other religious non-Christian displays.

This is Pluralism.

And with the Court's recent holdings, the Court has endorsed Pluralism, which is actually the embodiment of Secular Humanism.

Most importantly however, Secular Humanism is a religion!

Thus, the Court actually does endorse religion.

Christian principles therefore, according to the Court's self-tailored constitutional "test", are never acceptable to be promoted by government since to do so would be "to endorse" a religion.

However, the very rationale upon which the Court's analysis rests is the religion of Secular Humanism. In other words, it is totally "unconstitutional" for a government to endorse a particular religion - JUST SO LONG AS IT IS NOT SECULAR HUMANISM!

If the government endorses Secular Humanism, then it is "okay", but if it endorses Christianity then it is somehow "unconstitutional".

In the AP news article by Yen, David Condo, an anti-Christian Maryland resident, proclaimed, ""I don't think government should be in the business of morality." Condo's statement reveals his own ignorance.

It is impossible for government NOT to be in the business of morality! Every single law, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, is based upon some sort of morality. Whether it is a law establishing speed limits on local streets, or a law banning homosexual sodomy, the fact remains that the law is based upon morality no matter what.

Therefore, it is not a question of Whether morality will be promoted by government; but rather, Which morality?

It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court's decision on the Ten Commandments cases will be decided upon a faulty Pluralist premise from the outset. Even if Christians emerge "victorious" with a decision that upholds Ten Commandments displays on public property, it is Secular Humanism that will carry the day - unless, of course, the Pluralist Supreme Court overturns its recent modern Pluralist decisions.

Don't bet on it.

This site hosted by Host4Profit.