RALPH BAILEY: 'In God We Trust' has been asked and answered
| Friday, Jan 14 2011 08:24 PM
Last Updated Friday, Jan 14 2011 08:24 PM
God, or more accurately the phrase "In God We Trust," has reared its head in local news again, this time in the Kern County Board of Supervisors chambers thanks to recently elected Supervisor Zack Scrivner.
In truth, you can't laud or bash Scrivner. God hater Michael Newdow has stolen his thunder and risen again resurrecting his atheist attempt to remove God completely from our society.
And while the courts have clearly ruled on IGWT, your support for the phrase speaks more about your politics than it does about your religion.
That's the only thing we have to debate for the courts even in the whakadoo Ninth Circuit kangaroo court paved the way for Scrivner and his national motto.
In 1970, the liberal Ninth declared the phrase has no relationship with establishing a religion. It ruled that our founding fathers presupposed a high supreme being and to humble ourselves in recognizing that is not a marriage between church and state.
Even the Supreme Court, which could have ended the entire debate, yet punted on Newdow, stated by rote and repetition the IGWT slogan has lost all correlation with religion.
However, Scrivner has hit a political nerve.
What liberals have never been able to concede is denying the presence of a supreme something is the utmost arrogance that allows man wiggle-room morally. By denying the existence of some kind of God implies that we gain our unalienable rights from man.
It is the ultimate advocacy of universal big government.
Even the founding fathers who cast a dubious eye upon established religion remained unanimous that this complicated relationship we have with the earth, sea and one another is not one huge coincidence.
All those larger philosophical issues aside, I'm hoping Scrivner's proposal doesn't tempt local liberals to start up a fight that's already been asked and answered. This is our national motto and can be put in public places. Period.
The Newdow issue, however, remains completely separate. For Newdow is a God hater who believes it's blasphemy to handle money because the phrase is on our currency.
There is a grave distinction between those who hate God and want it removed and those who are sincere about keeping the Constitution intact and recognizing the necessary separation between church and state.
Newdow and his ilk not only want God out of the Pledge of Allegiance and IGWT off our currency, but also don't want the president or any other elected official to end their oath with "...so help me God."
Even the Supreme Court in 1984 recognized our founding fathers presupposed a supreme being and stated it is not a violation of the Constitution to recognize that supreme being through the word God.
No one's saying which God. It just stands for a higher presence.
When you embrace the idea that your rights don't come from man but from a supreme being, you are then forced to embrace the idea that man is not the ultimate savior.
The biggest philosophical differences between the left and the right is the left's idea that somehow government can do better than you.
But I ask you: When has that ever been the case? When has government ever been able to outdo the private sector?
I'm willing to concede the phrase was introduced as a way to prove we were not a heathen nation, the courts, even the wacky Ninth, have established this phrase is a symbol of national pride and an acknowledgement of man's limitations.
Ralph Bailey, who hosts a talk show on AM 1560 KNZR, is one of four conservative community columnists whose work appears here every Saturday. These are the opinions of Bailey, not necessarily The Californian. You can e-mail him at rbailey@bakersfield. com. Next week: Heather Ijames.
