Attacking America at its Foundation

From its very opening statement, the suit against President Obama (representing the United States of America) is filled with partial truths, innuendo, and deceit.

Take a look: http://www.wiwd.uscourts.gov/assets/pdf/FFRF_v_Obama_Order.pdf

The opening statement gives rise to a letter from John Adams written to his wife Abigail in 1774. I want you to pay close attention to how this opening presents its argument:

It begins with associating the argument as one related to prayer “in the public life,” and that this public life problem has “been a matter of intense debate in this country since its founding.” And as verification of this elongated “public” squabble, the suit cites the above noted letter from President Adams. The suit makes an opening gesture, attempting to set the “public” stage for this suit as one that is concerned about the use of prayer generally in the public venue. And with this self-indulging context, set by using a partial sentence gutted of its context, the suit attempts to deceive the Court by misusing the words of Adams to collaborate with the idea that prayer generally has been controversial. Here is the entire sentence(s) in context:

“When the Congress first met, Mr. Cushing made a Motion, that it should be opened with Prayer. It was opposed by Mr. Jay of N. York and Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina, because we were so divided in religious Sentiments, some Episcopalians, some Quakers, some Aanabaptists, some Presbyterians and some Congregationalists, so that We could not join in the same Act of Worship.”

Here you can read the letter in its entirety: www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/74/Letter_from_John_Adams_to_Abigail_Adams_1.html

Clearly the problem in 1774 had nothing to do with prayer, but with who was praying and what their specific Christian affiliation was. No one – not one of the representatives—objected to prayer. Their concern was only in relation to each member staying true to his specific form of Christianity. And, interestingly, Sam Adams came to the rescue. Sam was a staunch Congregationalist, one of the least tolerant sects of Christianity. But Sam Adams was a believer in the public unity “come together” teachings of Pastor George Whitefield. He was a fervent protector of his chosen belief and wanted to keep his religious beliefs pure within his private/religious life, but he had no problem with joining hands with other folks from other religions in the public arena. John Adams, Jefferson, and others often talked of “the religion of America,” which was an understanding that for public (political) purposes, there was a singular set of rules that do and should bring all of Christian America (98% of everyone) together (this was the one issue that prompted Jefferson to create the Jefferson Bible, for “public” use). The fight then was not about prayer in public, but about who should do the praying, SUPPORTING public prayer in official, representative meetings!

And the suit goes on, pointing out that there was no prayer at the first Convention; another self-serving bit of misinformation. Pointing this tidbit out in context with the formal use of the Chambers suggests the Convention was under the same pretenses of formality. The first Convention was a secret informal meeting with much trepidation and even fear in the air. To heck with formalities- they had to get down to business knowing of the urgency and the need for secrecy and timeliness of their meeting. Some of the representors were there on their own accord, not in any official capacity, and even in fear of being discovered.

I could go on and on through this suit pointing out many places in which Gaylor and Company try to make their case based on partial truths, innuendo, and deceit. If we had neutral, informed, patriotic judges, this suit would be tossed out simply because it is riddled with attempts to deceive the Court.
Will it work? Who knows. But just how hard do you think Obama’s government lawyers will work to defend him? How ironic this is.

I’m just an old out of work truck driver— no one special in the vein of intellectualism and politics. But I see this plain as day. How about you?

PS- I highly recommend you read the book, “The 5000 Year Leap.”