In 1963 the Supreme Court redefined the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. In an 8-1 decision it ruled that the government “shall allow no religious activity” in publicly funded activity, also prohibiting free exercise of religion in that public life. Against the will of 80 percent of the American people, the Supreme Court removed the Bible and prayer from public schools.
Lone dissenting Justice Potter Steward wrote that the Court’s decision, “led not to true neutrality with respect to religion, but to the establishment of a religion of secularism.”
Since 1963 Christian symbols have been increasingly disallowed on government property, ironically including the Ten Commandments, which were paramount to establishing the America legal system. The Supreme Court trivialized God by removing references to God and the Bible in ethical and moral discussions—even though it continues to rule on religious matters.
The Court’s ruling to disallow religious activity in government institutions and public life essentially created a false religion of secularism and a secular state. Justice Potter Stewart continued in his dissent:
“If religious exercises are held to be an impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed in an artificial and state created disadvantage…. And a refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism, or at least, as governmental support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in private.”
As Dr. Bruce K. Waltke points out in Proverbs and Politics, the Supreme Court “dismembered its people from their roots.” Waltke points out that “forgetting” in Hebrew has a deeper meaning than experiencing a mental lapse. The opposite of “to re-member” in Hebrew does not mean “to forget” but “to dismember.” Waltke argues the Supreme Court effectually dismembered future generations of Americans from their heritage, causing not just a national mental lapse but a life altering “moral lapse.”
If the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were not derived from the Bible, from where did they originate? If the concept of “self-evident truths, all men being created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” didn’t originate from Biblical principles where did it originate?
Why would the Court reject the very principles that ensure both understanding and application of individual liberties and freedoms exist in America unlike in any other country in the world?
Consider the countries whose governments are rooted in different principled soil. In India, Hinduism enforces a caste system teaching its people their fate is tied to birth. No one can improve or change the social class into which they were born, which determines their occupation and whom they marry, if they marry at all. One caste will always be poor, another wealthy.
In China and Russia indescribable brutality has ruled by strictly enforcing no faith, no religion, no God. Dictators like Mao and Stalin killed approximately one third of their own people, nearly 100 million dead because their leaders proclaimed “no God.” In Muslim majority countries, Islam legalizes the sale of women and children as property; Shari’a law institutionalizes slavery, violence, and genocide of non-Muslims.
Yet, the Founders and the Constitution’s framers deliberately acknowledged God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible when they wrote the foundation of American law.