Tag Archive | "In God We Trust"

Beyond the Casey Anthony Case

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

During World War II, there was a cliché used by servicemen wishing to resolve problems or disputes.  That phrase was, “Tell it to the Chaplain.”  In other words, get it off your chest and then move on with your life.  As a result, the Chaplain became the confidential keeper of secrets who would, according to God’s laws, advise the confessor as to the proper course of action.

This, however, is America.  And as per Constitutional Law, we “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”  In so doing, we have crafted a legal system considered to be the finest (read: most just) in all the world.  Its basic tenets are:

1.       Presumption of innocence until proven guilty

2.       The right for an accused to be judged by a jury of his or her peers

3.       The right to appeal a sentence

4.       Executive Order (a.k.a., a Presidential Pardon)

Despite the simplicity and apparent clarity of these tenets, our legal system is actually quite complex as well as expensive.  It costs to hire an attorney skilled in plying legal jargon, if not actual evidence, to prove innocence or guilt. (In this particular case, money does buy happiness and God help the poor!)  Rich or poor, during the past decade, America has witnessed crimes committed by notable and soon-to-be notable individuals: perpetrators who have received variable judgments, based upon the nature of their crimes, in an effort to protect our society against such persons.

I remember the Watergate trial, astounded not only as to how it was unfolding, but how it was unfolding before my very eyes: live, through the magic of television!  I suppose that Watergate set the precedent for mass media to be invited into our courtrooms as a means of keeping the public informed.  Thus, we the people had remote, live access to the O.J. Simpson trial and other notorious trials.  More and more, however, the media continued its carefully plotted intrusion into these cases.

Before mass media had intervened in such a manner, court cases were tried within the confines of a courtroom, in the jurisdiction of the locale in which the alleged crime was committed.  But, thanks to technology, the Court of Public Opinion has adulterated our legal system.  Complete with all the trappings of a media sideshow (is anyone else disturbed by the antics of Nancy Grace and Jane Velez-Mitchell?), it  includes public panel discussions in which the pros and cons of as yet unresolved legal cases are bandied about. Personal opinions of the newscasters and their guests are tossed in to liven things up and increase viewership or readership of the media vehicles.  In the old days, these types of proceedings would have been known as “lynch mobs.”

Extensive media coverage of an ongoing trial does nothing to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused  party.   But that is not its purpose.  Its true intent is to improve media ratings and line the pockets of the media moguls and their investors.  Whether we’re watching or listening to the media, reading newspapers, Twittering opinions, or surfing the Internet for coverage, it all comes down to money.

If you doubt this, consider this all too prevalent scenario.  Have you ever watched or listened to a Presidential speech, a sporting event, or even a natural disaster unfolding on the news?  If so, did you notice that there was always a follow-up panel, sometimes on a separate, yet dovetailed program, to explain to you what you just witnessed — as if you’d lacked the common sense to interpret the information presented to you?  And if you have tuned in to these programs, what did you see and hear?  Answer: you saw and heard the news tainted by the personal opinions of the media and their guest speakers.

In days of old, when knights were bold, as the old saying goes, news reporters were constrained to report local and national events via specific criteria, which were:

1.       Where?

2.       Why?

3.       Who?

4.       When?

5.       What?

Reporters were not to stray from the bonds of these standards.  Reporters were told to keep their personal opinions to themselves; they were charged with a now-antiquated concept called “objective reporting.”

With this in mind, aside from the rich and the poor, there are, in my estimation, three classes of people:

1.       The religious

2.       The non-religious

3.       The hypocrites

Religious people tend to believe in and follow the commandants of God.  Non-religious people tend to adhere to manmade legal systems (civil and criminal legislation).  And hypocrites tend to bend both God’s Law and manmade laws to suit their own purposes.

Pressing ever forward into this new millennium, it’s strange how manmade laws are swiftly replacing God’s laws — even though our currency still bears the motto, “In God We Trust.”  However, when we are visited by war and strife, man turns to God for assistance, even if he does not truly believe in a being greater than himself.

Another World War II cliché was, “There are no atheists in foxholes.”  This more or less says it all about the media injecting its own personal views into evolving legal cases, for the sole intent of stirring up controversy and pumping up their profits.  “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord”, but “Cold hard cash is mine,” says an irresponsible and anything but objective media.

The moral of this story is, before you pass judgment on any person, a judgment based solely upon the media’s slanted coverage, consider these words found in the Bible:

“Let ye who are without sin, cast the first stone.”  And then move on with your life. 

Rewriting History

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The Constitution of the United States of America was composed after much consideration and strife with our mother country, England.   It was written to elucidate and safeguard the truths our founding fathers deemed self-evident; these were the rights granted to every man, woman, and child by the grace of God. In creating the Constitution, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and their worthy colleagues sought to craft a document that would stand the passage of time.

Although the document emphasized centralization (federalization) of our new government, it included provisions to safeguard the rights of the individual States and for the separation of Church and State: a condition that guaranteed American citizens the right to practice their religion without fear of persecution.  This freedom distinguished our nation from others and became a beacon of hope to those experiencing religious oppression in their own countries.

From the moment of our nation’s birth, George Washington and every successive leader has made reference to God in governing and protecting our land.  Religious symbols and terminology were always invoked in swearing parties into public office and demanding that witnesses speak the truth in courts of law.  Every denomination of our currency carries the words, “In God We Trust.”   These things echoed the underlying tenets of the Constitution:  that every citizen and lawmaker is held to a higher authority.

The Constitution was designed to be shaped, interpreted, and modified to protect our citizens against threats both within and without our borders.  Yet, our Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the magnitude of change we have experienced as a nation evolving over more than two hundred years.  Now, interpretation of the Constitution is left to the best or perhaps the most powerful (i.e., moneyed) legal minds in the nation, also known as the Supreme Court.  Their decisions are final.  The phrase “Who died and made you God?” is particularly apt, for God has ceased being the Higher Authority in this nation.  Indeed, He has ceased to be, because right or wrong, We the People have to live with the decisions handed down by the Supreme Court. 

Did our Founding Fathers gaze into a crystal ball when crafting the Constitution?  Could they have envisioned the issue of abortion when they sought to separate Church from State?  Did they prophesize the tug of war fought to display/not display religious symbols on public property?  Or, did they mean to simply guarantee religious freedom to our citizens?  You do not have to be a Supreme Court Judge to answer these questions.

In defending our country from its enemies, we find God being written out of our history. Although engraved onto the World War II National Memorial, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Pearl Harbor Day speech has been politically corrected.  Many current references to this speech eliminate FDR’s heartfelt words, “So help us God.”

Christ has been removed from Christmas, for Christmas has been amended to The Holiday Season, Happy Holidays, or Winter Break.  Religious symbols are verboten in governmental structures; prayer was banned in public schools in the early 1960’s.  All of this was done under the guise of separating Church from State.  So, how does religious freedom fit in a Godless country that still professes to be the greatest democracy in the world?

The Bible states that God set forth a set of laws by which man was compelled to live.  The Ten Commandments were handed down to Moses on two stone tablets.  Containing not a single amendment, they serve as the basis of our own laws (“Thou shalt not steal,” “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor,” etc.).  Whereas our legal system is convoluted and often confusing, God managed to cover all the bases with but Ten Commandments.  I guess that’s why we call Him God!

Do you want to continue to write God out of our history and ensure that he is omitted for future generations?  If not, contact your Congressman or Congresswoman to demand that God is re-instituted.  While you’re at it, say a prayer.  Ask God’s help to give our leaders the wisdom they need to lead us properly through a society that worships The Almighty Dollar instead of a truly Higher Authority. 

Site Sponsors

Site Sponsors

Site Sponsors

RSSLoading Feed...

Live Traffic Feed

RSSLoading Feed...