'In God We Trust' prevails: Supreme Court rejects efforts by leftist atheist activists
During this Fourth of July week, we have some good news about the strength of the foundation of this nation, despite leftist atheist activists engaging in constant efforts to remove references to faith or God from the public square.
This isn’t a new development. Atheists are not immune to leftist politics, the impact and damage of narcissism, and becoming mired in identity politics. Fixated on a sliver of the identity — their lack of a belief in God informs their efforts and are a classic narcissistic endeavor.
Keep in mind, narcissism isn’t the belief that you’re the greatest person in the room; it’s the belief that everything that happens, happens because of you or is about you.
It’s as if someone slips into that parking space you wanted. The narcissist believes that was a deliberate personal act against them. The non-afflicted person realizes it was about the parking space. Not them.
The narcissist’s very identity relies on reinforcing everything being about them. This is why identity politics holds such sway over some people — because it feeds into a belief that everything must reflect them and their worldview. In this case, for leftist atheists this means anything appearing to be about faith must go, and their world, devoid of God, must be confirmed in all public spaces.
We’ve seen many examples of this over the years.
Remember the atheist group that fought (and failed) to get the words “Under God” taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance, recited by millions of school kids across America every morning? The U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected taking up another case — argued by the same activist lawyer who wanted to change the pledge — to remove “In God We Trust” off all coins and bills.
The group attempted to argue that the phrase is a government endorsement of religions and a violation of the First Amendment. But that’s sloppy and just not true. The separation of church and state was an admonition by the Founders to make sure the nation did not become a theocracy, or establish an “official” national religion; it was not a wholesale banning of references to faith or religion in the public (or even political) square.
In the Old World, the sovereign was the king or queen, granted all rights by God. Here, we turned that on its head — we, the people, are the sovereign, with all rights granted by God to us. That is the point the Founders were reinforcing.
Our country was founded on this idea of the people being free, sovereign citizens. But now there’s a burning leftist political desire to outlaw expressions of religion because many relying on and enjoying the status quo of massive, all-powerful government — much like how the collapsed Soviet Union operated — is fearful of its citizens looking to anything but the government for answers.
Here’s the issue in front of us now: Identity politics is no longer limited to just physical attributes, but psychological ones as well. How better to create a multitude of warring tribes than to weaponize every aspect of our personal sense of self?
The Democrats’ effort to drive wedges between Americans became openly apparent in 2016 when leaked Democratic National Committee emails showed a top staffer suggesting that the organization use Sen. Bernie Sanders’ religious beliefs against him.
The staffer wrote, “It might may (sic) no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a god. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”
Then-candidate Donald Trump responded to the email with disgust. “… It was about the things that were said in those e-mails. They were terrible things, talking about Jewish, talking about race, talking about atheist, trying to pin labels on people — what was said was a disgrace. …”
It’s imperative that national leaders reject this attempt to weaponize our very identities. Mr. Trump’s blunt condemnation of it is an example of why the system loathes him.
In the meantime, we do have good news on this front. In addition to multiple assaults on the pledge over the years being rejected at various court levels, the Supreme Court also recently ruled that a 40-foot-tall World War I memorial cross can continue to stand on public land in Maryland.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in a conservative majority opinion that “When time’s passage imbues a religiously expressive monument, symbol or practice with this kind of familiarly and historical significance, removing it may no longer appear neutral. … A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the Divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was in the minority and in her dissent said, “The principal symbol of Christianity around the world should not loom over public thoroughfares, suggesting official recognition of that religion’s paramountcy.”
Here’s a newsflash for Justice Ginsburg — a suggestion does not reality make. Perhaps she thinks the Supreme Court should decide constitutionality based on the feelings of people? But she would be wrong. We know it is the meaning of the U.S. Constitution — as informed by the intent of the Founders — that matters. And if we, as the sovereign, remain engaged in defending this nation and her Constitution, it always will.