Paul J. Epley: Nothing wrong with righteousness |

Paul J. Epley: Nothing wrong with righteousness

Liberals seem to find it difficult to recognize moral absolutes. Liberals also seem unable to differentiate between “righteous and self-righteous” as they have determined man’s laws to be equivalent, if not superior, to God’s laws.

Need examples?

Five of nine Supreme Court Judges determined that killing an unborn child can be justified for the convenience of the mother by redefining birth as the post-natal event as opposed to conception, thereby circumventing the Sixth Commandment (do you vaguely remember the one about killing?). And one of my favorites, a covenant made between a man and a woman “in the presence of God,” in His house and where His blessing was publicly solicited, e.g. marriage, is negated by a District Judge whose only authority was vested in him by the state.

We pledge allegiance to “One nation under God,” we place “In God We Trust” on our currency, we sing “God Bless America” and “God Bless the U.S.A.,” we celebrate as federal holidays Christ’s birthday and His resurrection and yet we shamelessly cower to the demands of the American Civil Liberties Union and other liberal atheist front groups under the bogus assertion that we are violating the “separation of church and state provision of the U.S. Constitution” when, in fact, there is no such provision.

Conservatives believe the powers of the federal government specifically enumerated in the Constitution are to be narrowly interpreted and the words and intent of the 10th Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”) are clear and unambiguous. Conservatives are particularly outraged when activist judges usurp power in the name of advancing “a social good” or remedying some perceived injustice.

I quote Ronald Reagan, “The Constitution was never meant to prevent people from praying; its declared purpose was to protect their freedom to pray.” This seems to me a fairly honest and realistic interpretation of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Recommended Stories For You

Even strict constructionists believe the Supreme Court may look to relevant documents to try and establish the intent of the framers in order to clarify ambiguities. However, it took an unbelievable leap of logic to misread Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists to require a “wall of separation” between church and state. As a result, the Supreme Court has effectively abolished your right to profess your Christian beliefs in public while offering special protection and preferred status to persons openly seeking to kill us in the name of Allah.

As a Ph.D. biologist, I learned that nature also is very conservative and one of life’s axioms is “use it or lose it!” As a citizen, I have seen a steady erosion of our civil and religious rights because someone else’s rights have been, without argument or open discussion, deemed to be superior.

The United States is approaching a point similar to that observed by Elijah (I Kings 18:21) when he said to the people gathered on Mount Carmel, “How long halt ye between two opinions?” For too long, we who have perfunctorily represented ourselves to be a “Nation under God” have dissed Him by our silence and inaction. We have collectively stood by, and only occasionally expressed our indignation, as our courts and legislatures have made a mockery of the very core spiritual beliefs upon which this nation was founded, the core beliefs that our forefathers shared, and the core beliefs that made this Nation great.

Righteousness requires action.

Paul Epley is a longtime Routt County conservative activist and is a director of the Conservative Leadership Council of Northwest Colorado.