NewsWithViews on Pinterest NewsWithViews on Google+

Additional Titles









The Leipzig

Sept. 11: Hold Government

An Economic Assault on
African-Americans and Others in The US


More Cuddy









By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
November 11, 2013

The author of the Supreme Court's Abington v. Schempp decision (1963) outlawing school prayer wrote that "the state may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus 'preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.'" Unfortunately, however, this is exactly what has happened in the United States---the establishment of the "religion of secularism."

After the Supreme Court's Abington v. Schempp decision, the High Court in 1965 allowed to stand an Appeals Court's Stein v. Oshinsky ruling which indicated the state does not even have to permit student-initiated (voluntary) school prayer. This was followed by the Burger Court's 3-pronged test regarding the Establishment Clause in our Constitution, one of which was that there must be "a secular legislative purpose." However, this seems to have evolved into the interpretation that the "secular purpose" should be the "only purpose" of any law or action.

For example, some years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Nazis had the "freedom of expression" to march in largely Jewish, Skokie, Illinois, despite the obvious provocative nature of this "free speech." In 1992, though, the Court held that Rabbi Leslie Gutterman did not have the freedom of speech to say "Thank You, God" at a high school graduation ceremony. The Court went to great pains to rationalize that these were students (though technically they were not, given that they had fulfilled their graduation requirements prior to the ceremony), and had they not been students, the Court would have looked at the matter differently. The Justices' disingenuousness can be seen here by noting that the same day they handed down this decision (Lee v. Weisman), they also allowed to stand an Appeals Court ruling in favor of the Civil Liberties Union indicating that a judge could not begin his session with non-sectarian prayer, even though the Supreme Court had noted in its earlier Marsh v.Chambers ruling that most courts (including the High Court itself) begin with the invocation "God save the United States and this honorable court."

Since these decisions by the Supreme Court offer all the precedent needed to remove "In God We Trust" from our coins and outlaw any reference to God in our "National Anthem," it must be apparent to almost everyone that we now have the "religion of secularism" as our national religion. Indeed, for quite some years now, secular humanist principles such as situation ethics have been indoctrinated into public school students via values clarification techniques, and the courts have not taken action to remove these "religious" teachings. The Supreme Court said prayer had to be removed from the public schools because that was government promotion of religion, but the High Court has not seen fit to remove non-morally-based sex education or death education from the schools even though they promote non-moral sexual activity or suicide. As a founder of the 4-million member International Humanist and Ethical Union, H.J. Blackham wrote in THE HUMANIST (September-October 1981), that if schools teach dependence upon oneself (students would be autonomous moral decisionmakers), "they are more revolutionary than any conspiracy to overthrow the government."

The question now is where are the leading conservatives today when this "religion of secularism" has been approved by the courts? Oh, to be sure, these conservative/religious leaders have spoken and written their opinions about it, but where were the "Marches on Washington" after the Lee v. Weisman (1992) ruling? Did they meet with President George H.W. Bush and demand that he make a campaign issue out of the passage of a voluntary school prayer amendment? Did they at every "Clinton for President" campaign speech demand to know whether he would support such an amendment, thus making this a constant major issue before the voters in the 1992 presidential campaign?

Unfortunately, this establishment of the "religion of secularism" has not been made a major campaign issue for those running for the presidency or Congress from 1992 to the present. This will inevitably lead to this "religion" becoming the one adopted as the "one-world religion" of the future, along with the planned one-world government.

To see how rapidly the "religion of secularism" is becomiing established, and how it will tolerate no competing religion, note the following example from the current newsletter of Rev. David Barnhart: "Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin are Christians who own Elaine's Photography. When they refused to take wedding photographs for a same-sex couple in 2006, the two lesbians filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission of New Mexico.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

The Commission said the Huguenins were guilty of discrimination and must pay the same-sex couple over $7000. Their case was appealed, but the ruling was upheld. In August 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision, saying religious principles must be set aside by those operating a public business. One justice said the Huguenins 'were compelled by law to compromise the religious beliefs that inspire thier lives.' The justice wrote: 'Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering. It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.' One justice said that forcing Christians to act contrary to their religious faith is 'the price of citizenship'." The justice should have more candidly said, "...the price of world citizenship in the New World Order's world government with its 'Religion of Secularism'."

� 2013 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved

Click here for part -----> 1, 2,

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.

Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.

E-Mail: Not Available










For example, some years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Nazis had the "freedom of expression" to march in largely Jewish, Skokie, Illinois, despite the obvious provocative nature of this "free speech."