Estes Park town trustee David Habecker was facing a recall election for his refusal to participate in the pledge of allegiance, that is, until a Federal judge stripped that authority from the citizens in Estes Park. The decision to recall or retain Mr. Habecker should have been a judgment reserved for the citizens in Estes Park alone.

How the judge squares his decision with state and Federal law is beyond me. CRS 1-12-103, says: "...the electors...shall be the sole and exclusive judges of the legality, reasonableness, and sufficiency of the ground or grounds assigned for the recall. The ground or grounds shall not be open to review." In addition, the final words of the First Amendment guarantee our right as citizens to "petition the government for a redress of grievances".

However, regardless of the final resolution of the recall election in Estes Park, Mr. Habecker's actions hinge on a much larger issue. He has said he ascribes to a separation between religion and government. This is a discussion concerning the constitutional basis for the separation of church and state and what the acknowledgment of God has to do with church and state separation.

The first Amendment begins with the words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The meaning is clear. Our government is prohibited from controlling or limiting the religious activities of citizens.

The tragic irony we have is that court rulings have given us the opposite result. Religious expression in public settings is now heavily regulated or at times even banned. Our constitutional freedom of religion is becoming a government forced shunning of religion, and the irony does not stop there.

Religion is not just actions, it is a fundamental set of values: a source of morality and meaning. If we remove religion from any discussion or application of values, a new source of morality and meaning will of necessity replace it. When government policy removes religious values from public discussion and actions there inevitably follows an irreligious worldview on morality and meaning. This government-established worldview becomes the government-forced irreligion, instituted by the government to prevent us from having any hint of violating the First Amendment.

The essence of this government irreligion is the absence of God. Call it humanism, call it enlightened, call it progressive, call it anything but God, for that would be construed to be religious and that would be said to violate the Constitution.

Which brings us to the next logical question. Was the First Amendment ever intended to remove or even restrict public acknowledgment of God?

There is no evidence whatsoever that the founding fathers had even the slightest intention to limit or restrict public acknowledgment of the authority of the Creator in the affairs of men.

The Declaration of Independence holds as its main premise that: "..all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...". If God were removed from the Declaration of Independence the document would ring hollow, stripped of its principle authority to challenge the might and authority of the King of England.

Thomas Jefferson was the first to use the term "separation of church and state." He was writing to explain how he, as president, would not do anything which might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion. Yet he includes a clear acknowledgment of God in the closing of that very letter: "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man...". For President Jefferson the acknowledgment of the Creator was not at all associated with the establishment of religion.

The notion that the First Amendment prohibits public acknowledgment of God or his authority has been building for several decades. It is an idea completely inconsistent with the original intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but nonetheless, many today hold that opinion and they are becoming increasingly aggressive in forcing their irreligious worldview into public policy.

We must, as a nation, understand this dilemma and choose our course. We cannot go both directions at once.

Will we renew our adherence to the foundational principle of God's authority in the affairs of men and continue to rely on His blessing as we have for so many generations? Or will we abandon this rich heritage and strength for the irreligious worldview of the secular humanist?

Our nation, in a myriad of choices, must face this fundamental question: whose direction and authority do we accept? God, or man?

We cannot have it both ways.


Representative Kevin Lundberg
Colorado House District 49