DO THESE THINGS MAKE SENSE?

THANK THE SUPREME COURT! AMEN!: The Supreme Court has kindly given God a temporary reprieve (Monday, the 14th of June), at least as far as the legality of honorable mention in the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is concerned. The high court didn't rule thus out of any particular convictions on the matter, however. In fact, the court, in all its regal splendor, appears to have a definite anti-God bias (undoubtedly because it doesn't like the idea of recognizing any Law above its own jurisdiction). It seems to have let the mention of God in the Pledge slide merely because the atheist who brought the case before the court on behalf of his ten year old daughter only has custody of her for a mere ten days a month -- not enough to legitimize his authority to represent her in such an important case. Another, unstated, reason may be because "God and country right or wrong" is the key to a lot of good old-fashioned American patriotic support for our current war in Iraq. The court didn't want to deal with it in a serious manner at this time. It's simply a bad time to officially repudiate God when the administration is invoking His divine guidance in prosecuting our various sundry military adventures.

Ironically, the legitimacy of the Constitution itself, which even the Supreme Court and ACLU acknowledge as the uncontested Supreme Law of the Land, is predicated upon the binding legitimacy and continuing validity of the Declaration of Independence. Without that, the Constitution becomes a dead letter, and the case could be made in any court of law that the Constitution is null and void and we, the American people, are technically still subjects of the British Crown.

The men who adopted and signed the Declaration of Independence on behalf of the people of the several colonies, invoked the Divine Guidance of "Nature's God" -- proclaiming that men had a God-given right to declare independence from the mother country and establish a new government. The Declaration further states that the people were endowed by their Creator with the "unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." God is referenced four times in the Declaration, and was clearly understood to be the Authority "Under which" the nation was born. Upon this document rests the validity of all subsequent bodies of law under which the nation operates -- the first and foremost of which, of course, being the Constitution itself.

If this is not a nation "Under God," and if the existence of God is to be denied official recognition in the public forum, and expunged from further association with the nation, then the Declaration of Independence has effectively been declared null and void, and both the Declaration and Constitution "exposed" as fraudulent documents. Furthermore, it would effectively establish that there is no such thing as "God-given rights." Do you suppose the high powered legal minds that sit on the various levels of the federal court system, Supreme Court, and churn at the ACLU, have overlooked the legal ramifications of this small detail? Pridger doesn't think so -- but Pridger is just a conspiracy theorist.

Acknowledging a Higher Law tends to diminish the stature of Supreme Court justices, and limit the potential authority of government itself. Official acknowledgment of God effectively constitutes an untouchable additional "separation of powers," severely limiting, for example, the government's "right" to take away or license the rights and liberties presently guaranteed to the people by the Constitution (based, as it is, on the Higher Authority invoked by the Declaration of Independence).

PRIDGER'S ARROGANCE: Such speculation may sound a little arrogant, coming, as it does, from an ignorant hillbilly. But Pridger can't help himself, and offers his unseemly opinions in all modesty and humility. (There's little pretension in Pridger's claim to be a "One man think bucket" and "hip pocket philosopher.") Things just don't seem right in America these days in his view. But don't take his word for anything -- just look around! And look around again, for the political landscape is changing quickly!

The natural metabolism of government, as our wise founders fully realized and sought to forestall, is to grow ever-larger, and more and more powerful and authoritarian. Finally, left to its own devices, government would usurp the high position our founders reserved to God alone. Ah! If government itself could become the official replacement for God -- the nearest thing to a heavenly father the people can look to -- like, say, a very Big Brother. Pridger doesn't think this is a good idea. Nor does he believe it an oversight on the part of our rulers (whoever they may really be) -- but rather a case of fully informed self-interest, with tyranny knowingly on the wing! But who cares in this day and age when we can get everything we need at Wal-Mart and the vast majority of Americans are still over-fed, over-entertained, and under-educated in every important field?

If the people don't take care to keep their government under the thumb of God and a Higher Law, then they will eventually awaken to find themselves under the tyrannical thumb of an unlimited, omnipotent, government. Perhaps we're already there. Ironically, however, today the administration seems to think it is doing God's will in the world, even as the courts attempt to banish the word from the Pledge and national identity. Soon, however, our rulers will no longer even require lip service to being "Under God." In the guise of building an impenetrable brick and mortar wall of separation between church and state, we will have come under the jurisdiction of a new de facto state religion -- with government itself as G.O.D. (Government Omnipotent and Deified!).

GOD AND COUNTRY AND CHRISTIAN IDENTITY: In spite of the separation of church and state, the United States was founded a Christian nation -- by virtue of the religion of the founders. That Christian identity had nothing to do with fundamentalism, religious dogma, or any formally organized church. It had everything to do with our national standards of morals and ethics -- our behavior as a nation and a people -- and what became the "American Creed," a culture that most Americans shared. The Christian notions of brotherly love, tolerance and understanding, and a liberal degree of righteous at the foundation of the justice system, were earmarks of that national creed. We were a nation and government (the very first such government in the history of mankind), that aspired to be an example of a nation that followed the Golden Rule in both domestic and foreign policy.

Of course, we never got it completely right, and our national transgressions have been many, but the founding intentions were nonetheless apparent for all to see. But increasing numbers of people no longer want to hear any of this. They declare that America was never intended to be a Christian nation, and that the First Amendment of the Constitution proves it. We are told that official acknowledgement of the existence of God and a national Christian identity are tantamount to the establishment of an official state religion, and thus discriminatory and unconstitutional. Prayer and mention of God in the public arena are acutely offensive to some people -- and we must consider the sensitivities of all such minorities. We hear repeatedly that Christianity stands for narrow-mindedness, bigotry, and intolerance -- that Christians are endemically and hopelessly anti-Semitic, and have been throughout their history (look at the Holy Roman Empire and the Spanish Inquisition, etc.) -- we are continually reminded that Nazi Germany was a nation steeped in its Christian identity and look what it did.

As John Fonte writes in his book review of Samuel P. Huntington's "Who Are We?: The Challenges to America's National Identity" (National Review, May 31, 2004), "...since the 1960's, powerful forces among American elites have launched a sustained effort -- one that is, 'quite possibly, without precedent in human history' -- to 'deconstruct' American national identity. This 'deconstruction coalition' operates like the 'imperial and colonial' regimes of old, which promoted subnational identities in order to 'enhance the government's ability to divide and conquer.' Besides support for the subnational, the 'denationalized elites' embrace the transnational -- and denigrate affection for and loyalty to the American nation." Huntington also quotes the president of the University of Pennsylvania, that it is 'repugnant' for American students to learn that they are 'above all citizens of the United States' (as opposed to having 'primary allegiance' to democratic humanism')."

It's particularly good to hear this concern from somebody with Samuel Huntington's literary and academic credentials (Harvard), for they place him squarely among the nation's elite. Reviewer, John Fonte, called him, "perhaps America's foremost political scientist." It's heartening to know that there is a loyal, highly respected (and un-denationalized member of the elite), in opposition to those elite powers who have been trying (all too successfully), to deconstruct America's national identity. Having authored the famous Foreign Affairs article, "The Clash of Civilizations," which gave us timely warning as to the theater of our present wars, Huntington's book is bound to be read by an wide cross-section of the people that matter.

As for Pridger's own Christian identity, he'll have to admit that he isn't exactly a pious example of Christian fundamentalism. He's a born sinner and habitually strays from the straight and narrow. He drinks, plays cards and pool, and has been known (at least during his younger days), to mess around with loose women. In fact, fundamentalists would probably consider Pridger an outright heathen. He's never been assaulted with holy water or baptized in any sort of cleansing brine. None of his sins have ever been washed away -- they continue to stick like glue and trouble his conscience from time to time. He hasn't been born again, nor does he expect to be during this lifetime. He hasn't seen the inside of a church more than a dozen times in half a century, and then only for the unavoidable wedding or funeral service. He neither worships nor prays to God for special favors (except in times of serious person peril). Still, Pridger tries to be Christian in the manner in which he relates to his fellow beings and would wish that his country were truly a Christian nation.

Pridger believes that if this were a Christian nation, in the sense that the founders undoubtedly intended, the death toll in the various wars during the twentieth century would have been lowered by the tens of millions, and there would have been no 9/11 attack, and no war in Iraq today. There would never have been any reason for Moslems or anybody else to consider us the Great Satan. We are tragically swapping the remnants of our Christian identity for a regression to open advocacy of the Judaic Law of the Old Testament, while (ironically), at the same time moving toward official repudiation of even the existence of God.

GOD FOR ATHEISTS -- REPENT!: Atheists and agnostics seem to have trouble with the very notion of God. The word itself tends to stick in their craw and cause either mirth or embarrassment. Public prayer and the faith of others is sometimes considered downright repugnant. Yet where would freedom and liberty be without the notion that we have God-given unalienable rights? If our rights are not God-given, then how do we come by them? By the leave and pleasure of the almighty Government? Perhaps, but to meekly accept such a proposition, as many federal court justices and lawyers at the ACLU would have us do, is a dangerous thing indeed!

Like Voltaire, Pridger believes that if there were no God, we'd have to invent Him -- for without acknowledgement of a Higher Power and Higher Law, we're all the subjects of government capriciousness. In the final analysis, governments tend to descend toward raw power, and if that power becomes absolute, its inevitable companion is absolute corruption and despotism. If government isn't held to be "under God" (and rigorously kept subject to that notion by the people), then it has free reign to consider itself "over and above everything" -- a Utopia for tyrants.

But, of course, there is a God. The Atheist or agnostic may not be able to live with the Christian notion of a "personal, caring, God" but they ought to at least consider adopting Plato's or Socrates' definition: "God is Truth, and light his shadow," or Pridger's own "God is the Universal Living Truth" (Church of the Universal Living Truth -- C.U.L.T., Pridger's own church) Even most atheists believe in truth -- at least to the extent that they believe it to be true. Atheists can, of course, believe in "nature" and natural laws, i.e., the laws of physics, etc., but what are these but mere statutes of God's Law? Disbelievers would perhaps refer to the self-evident "Universal Intelligence" simply as "nature," but what is this but a matter of simple, but important, semantics? For the sake of freedom and liberty, and the protection of our God-given rights, let's keep government both "under God," and subservient to "We the People."

CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP: With the increasingly micro-regulated status of the corporate citizen (those still lucky enough to be employed in corporate America), combined with all nature of "get tough on this or that kind of behavior laws" in both federal and state justice systems, and the increasingly draconian security regulations coming down from the Department of Homeland Security in the name of national security and the War on Terror, a totally new culture is being imposed upon the American people. It is called a "Culture of Compliance." A culture of compliance is being demanded of us not only by state and federal regulatory and police authorities, but by international regulations emanating from the various regulatory agencies of the United Nations as well. This culture of compliance is supposedly "voluntary," thus not evidence of tyranny on the march. But it is voluntary like filing and paying federal income taxes is voluntary. Once you comply (and you're told that you must, regardless of its "voluntary" nature), you are stuck. In other words, tyranny is here and growing like a cancer, but the government calls it freedom and democracy. This is hardly the culture of freedom and liberty we once took for granted in what was once billed as the "land of the free and home of the brave."

To quote Ezra Pound, "With the falsification of the word everything else is betrayed." (E.P., "Impact") Orwell called it Newspeak or Doublespeak. Pridger wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the Defense Department renamed the "Ministry of Peace."

John Q. Pridger