Not being a Christian myself - being, rather, a 'trutharian', if there is such a word (well, there is now. Much as the Christian religion itself got made up) - I was about to give the latest 'begging bowl' for funds proffered by a Christian-oriented organization short shrift - this one specifically dedicated to trying to reverse and fight off legal challenges by the ACLU to "America's core values..." embedded in "its Judeo-Christian moorings" - when some of its points, regarding education, caught my eye, and I decided to tarry a bit in the pages of the covering letter. For, another Christian-oriented such missive recently, in the form of a petition, had caused me to reply to one of its high-dudgeon questions on the same subject, that I marked 'Not sure' (rather than 'Yes' or 'No') because I just didn't know how the federal government had gotten involved in matters of 'education' in the first place.
I think I understand how the Constitution got turned on its head, from being a constraint on the federal government to being a constraint from the federal government on the States. It apparently happened with a bit of judicial legerdemain called (you know how lawyers are; they've got a fancy name for almost anything they can think of) 'incorporation,' whereby some wording in the 14th Amendment was used - manipulated - to 'pass' another amendment to the Constitution hidden amongst the folds of its cloak; one that says that "the powers formerly reserved to the States respectively or to the people shall now reside in the federal government". The 14th Amendment itself, of course, said no such thing; but it got interpreted that way, and the Bill of Rights 'incorporated' wholesale into the federal government's jurisdiction, by - as I say - judicial skullduggery. And then it became 'settled law,' and judicial types let it go, because they are, well, judicial types; believe in judicial proceedings like 'precedent' and so forth.
Let me run the relevant sections of the 14th Amendment by you, and see what you think they say, said, meant, and mean. Quote:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" - the so-called 'Due Process' and 'Equal Protection' clauses of the amendment. It is these clauses that no less a constitutional authority than Judge Robert Bork explained got the whole Bill of Rights 'incorporated' into their meaning, and thus turning the Constitution, as I say, on its head. But what do these clauses actually mean??
Permit me a common-sense reading of these passages; and in relation to/understanding their context. This amendment was passed in the wake of the Civil War, and was designed to make the newly-enfranchised slaves equal citizens in the commonweal. They were not to be dealt with arbitrarily by any State, had the same rights, lived under the same laws, as other citizens. 'Due process of law' applied to them, too - and equally so. To say, in effect, the law must be color blind; applying equally to blacks and whites alike.
As it turned out, the Southern states got around the spirit of the amendment/law by applying the letter of the law, in the matter of education: i.e., they said they would provide 'equal' education to their blacks, just 'separate'. And thus, segregation was born. But it could, really, not stand, for that was not the spirit of the law. And so, in our time - 1954, if my memory serves me correctly - in Brown v. Board of Education, the striking down by the Supreme Court of segregation occurred - and justly so. If the law is going to mean anything, it must mean something.
But nothing, that I have ever been able to find, was meant by the crafters of this amendment to the Constitution to mean that they were turning said Constitution on its head in toto. That came about from some daemon whispering in the ear of a crafty lawyer, who wanted a strong central government in the American form of government, in order to change things, to his socio-econo-political liking, more easily, 'Psst. I can get it for you wholesale.' I jest. But barely.
And so we come down to the matter specifically of education. Where did the federal government ever get the power to tell the individual States - much less the individual education authorities within those jurisdictions - what they could do or could not do in their schools?? In regards to saluting the flag, and saying within that pledge, "under God," or in regards to teaching about the Judeo-Christian 'core values' of the nation, or anything else??? The 14th Amendment only said that a State could not exclude blacks - or any individual or 'class' of persons - from the 'equal protection' of its laws; that so-called de jure segregation - i.e., segregation by law - was, on its face, discriminating between persons; having the law apply unequally. Nothing, note, was said, in that ruling, about de facto segregation, i.e., the workings-out of the ordinary facts of life in the populace, who people choose to associate with and where live and so forth. That's their business. The law is the business of the law. Period.
And thus, why there was such a hue and cry in the populace regarding forced busing - which was rightly resisted (in my spiritually-oriented opinion). It was no business of the federal government's what The People chose to get up to in their day-to-day lives. 'The law' in the form of subsequent decisions tried to clarify the distinction between policies put in place to help overcome the direct results of de jure segregation in the nation's schools, and 'social engineering' for its own sake. But just so, did the gap in the nation between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' start to widen decidedly, with 'liberals' wanting the government to take more and more of a role in the lives of The People - in forcing others to do what they wanted them to do, in various areas of life ('Oh come on; it's good for kids to go to school together;' 'Oh come on; we need to engage in a little 'reverse discrimination,' as you so snidely call it. It's only fair') - and 'conservatives' resisting the trend towards statism; also as it appeared in other nations in the world. (Indeed, one of the sources that the Warren Supreme Court used in its determinations in the Brown case was a book by a Swedish socialists scholar, Gunnar Myrdal; in which he wrote, "In the battle between liberty and equality, equality is slowly winning.") So the schools issue was becoming a major battleground for a sea change in the political life of the country; from its roots in small government and big opportunity - in relation to 'Judeo-Christian core values,' and of personal responsibility, and so forth - to big government and 'equal opportunity,' with a decided intent of carrying the latter to a socialistic 'equal outcome'.
For, if there is no God - as the Left holds - then the state becomes potentially all-powerful; making individuals behave the way that the liberals want them to, on the one hand - be 'nicer' people ('But stay out of my bedroom!') - and making everybody 'equal' on the other, economically. And thus will crime cease. Not because there is a God watching you (and what a silly notion that has been, historically; and so needs to go, in the Age of Enlightenment, and 'reason', say those on the Left). But because everybody has the same amount of income.
Nothing to do with what is in a person's heart; to be dealt with on that inner, qualitative level. But everything to do simply with 'the environment'.
No soul. Just automaton. Slave to the state. Obey Big Brother. Or else...
Not to get too carried away, herein, into the human arena, and what all it has to work out, before we move on, out of that 'arena', the matrix that we have been embedded in for aeons of time, and further into our higher potential, as 'spiritual beings having a human experience'. Wherein such qualities as love and compassion and joy have a meaning far beyond those conveyed in strictly material-level terms, and especially as 'experienced' - orchestrated - in service to the state. I just wanted to address the issue of 'core values'.
The Christians, and conservatives in general, are right. And they are wrong.
The Leftists, and anti-religionists in general, are right. And they are wrong.
Come, let us reason together.
If only because it's time to.
And almost past time to. To be successful at it.
Before we stumble into the mire, yet once again, of our making.
And have to extricate ourselves from the consequences of our actions all over bloody the hell again.
Have enough of that scenario.
And join the movement - of the consciousness of souls - Up.
Collectively. As we have been gifted, out of Grace, by our Creator.
Those, at least, who choose to accept the gift.
This gift, beyond the gift of Life itself. Which, then, has meaning, beyond just in and for itself only.
And which an awful lot of souls seem to be taking rather for granted.
But that's free will for you.
For you. And you. And you.
Separately, as sparks of the Divine. And time, after time, after time, as souls stuck in the matrix.
Trying - beneath all the sturm und drang of the physical life experiences - to get it right.
I can get it for you wholesale.
Just a little bit further.........
P.S. From 2012: What's the 'Real' Truth; post titled 'James Gilliland: 5D, The End of the Matrix And the Ego, Time for Choosing' - Apr. 10: