Trump and the U.S. Secular State: Potential Impacts
Nov. 21, 2024
Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer
Guest: David New
Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 11/21/24. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.
Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate transcription, the following is a representation of a mechanical transcription and as such, may not be a word for word transcript. Please listen to the audio version for any questions concerning the following dialogue.
Sam Rohrer: Well, hello and welcome to this Thursday edition of Stand In the Gap Today and it’s our bimonthly emphasis as well on the Constitution and US history with constitutional attorney, author and public speaker David New. Now as we embark on this program today, the entire world seems as truly racing toward World War at breakneck speed with, I’m going to say potential accompanying events able to disrupt the very foundations of predictable life and learning. In other words, things could be turned upside down overnight. Now, yesterday on this program, JR McGee and I addressed the irresponsible actions of Joe Biden or his handlers in regarding the permission of the Ukraine to use and launch US attack missiles and put them into Russia. And we talked about Russia’s likely response. Well, not only were our comments and analysis totally correct yesterday and ahead of most news commentary in regard to war with Russia and what things would look like, but events concerning Israel are also developing as we discussed yesterday.
Sam Rohrer: Now here just to note before we get into today’s program, since yesterday, Russia launched a four warhead ICBM missile into Ukraine, which has the potential of carrying nuclear warheads. Each one of those warheads can do that. What’s notable is that this is the first time in history of an nation to use an ICBM in wartime. It’s very significant. In addition, Russia has doubled down on destroying all electricity and energy producing facilities in Ukraine. Yet the United States and the UK seem bent on embroiling the world in war to either tie the hands of Trump and his new administration or even as some are saying, to create a circumstance whereby the January inauguration could be delayed. Think about that, and with undersea communication, cables being cut on Monday in the Baltic, which severs Sweden to Germany, that was one line, the Finland to Lithuania, that was another one.
Sam Rohrer: The specter of cables of all type communication cables being cut with a purpose to collapse. International communications has now risen to a high level. We talked about that yesterday. It is now out there publicly as something that is being watched carefully, and this is just a small portion of what’s occurred in the last 24 hours. The point is that what we stated yesterday is that change and transition is occurring globally with greater instability on the way, not predictable, greater stability. So for the believer, we must observe carefully all things in light of scripture, but trust more intentionally than ever in the Lord alone. The fact is that political leaders around the world are having their foolish hearts moved by the Lord to accomplish not just what they think, but in a larger great extent to what God wants. Proverbs 21, 1 says this, the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord and like rivers of water, he God moves those hearts of the kings and their actions wherever God wants important to keep in mind.
Sam Rohrer: But that being said, the election of Donald Trump means change of all types that can be expected here, driven by a mandate of votes to produce change. However, it’s clear that the election mandate message cannot be interpreted as that all people are in agreement on those changes. Even though a mandate was given more, it is thought that there was more of a mandate rejection of the direction of the left in the deep state herein though remains the certainty of change of some type, but the uncertainty of what type of change or response to the people to those changes will actually happen. So to narrow our focus in our conversation today, I’ve chosen the title of this Trump and the US secular state, and we’ll explain why that the potential impacts David New. Thank you for being a part here. Again, I know you’re wet out there on the west coast, but I’m glad that you’re dry and you’re with us.
David New: Yes, it is very wet. So nice to be with you and if anybody needs to be baptized, give me a call.
Sam Rohrer: Well, you could do that, I know with all that water in the air, the big express they call it. But here David, let’s get right into it. Our discussion today and a theme that you’d like to build out is in regard to a concept referred to as the secular state. But before we step into defining that term in its mirror opposite, maybe the theistic state perhaps could be the mirror opposite. Let’s talk about conditions for change generally that can be expected with this election of Donald Trump in general’s perspective, what are some of the significant areas that you are expecting change to occur and why as a result of the election of Donald Trump, and assuming of course the confirmation of his cabinet positions that he’s announced so far,
David New: I believe what we’re entering now is the United States. According to the Supreme Court as a secular state, we are entering a new definition of the secular state, which I call secular state 2.0 and it’s going to be different. In other words, I don’t believe the United States is a secular state, but I’m just talking about how the Supreme Court sees it. Basically what’s going to happen is you’re going to see a different attitude towards religion and you’re going to feel it in many, many different ways. You’re going to find it in public events. Religion will be more welcome, more open, you’ll find it in your workplace, in your job. Religion will not be discriminated against. You’ll probably be allowed to have Bible studies, you’ll be allowed to have prayer meetings and things like that on the job. You’re probably going to see religion more in public schools.
David New: Those of you who live in the state of Louisiana and Oklahoma, our listeners listening, God bless you for the leadership that you’re providing at this moment in that area. So you’re going to see more religion in public schools and maybe the 10 Commandments, even Bible studies and prayer as part of the public school curriculum are not excluded. So it is open-ended. It’s going to be a new kind of secular state than the one that we’ve had. So when you go to a political event and you say, Jesus is Lord, you’re not going to have the presidential candidate say you’re in the wrong convention. You’re going to see a very different attitude towards religion and it will be noticeable.
Sam Rohrer: Alright, David? So that’s the general thing. So even I would say you part of that to support that would be for instance, old transgender movement and the decision yesterday by Speaker Johnson in the house in Congress to disallow the new transgender member from using who’s a, let me see, what is that? A male to female whatever from using the female bathroom is that’s an example of what you’re talking about.
David New: Yes, that definitely is going to be President Trump or elect Trump has already spoken out on this. He is not interested in seeing girls competing against men in sports. Even if we assume that the science behind transgenderism and things like that is valid, that this is a woman in a man’s body. Even if we assume scientifically that is correct, that does not necessarily mean he should be in sports competing against women.
Sam Rohrer: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, so that’s just the idea. Our theme today that I’ve just selected is this Trump and the US secular state potential impacts. We’ll explain more of that, come back with definitions in the next segment. Well David, in an earlier message to me as we get back on this theme, secular state and influence that the election of Donald Trump and the team that he’s assembling may impact, you stated this in an earlier message. You believe that President Trump you said is going to change the secular state in America now. Is that correct? Is that what you said? And if so, how do you think that may happen? Now in this segment, I don’t want to get into what we have or what we don’t have. I’d just like to stay on defining our terms right now because you even in the last segment said secular according to the Constitution, but you don’t think we have one, just build the framework a little bit here because a lot of this is not understood. Well, what do you mean that President Trump is going to change the secular state in America?
David New: Well, he’s already done it during his first term having six members on the US Supreme Court that exist now are going to do that. They’re going to change the secular state. It’s going to be secular state 2.0. It’s not going to be the old kind of secular state that we had starting in the sixties where we started taking God out of the public square. The secular state of the sixties and the seventies and the eighties was still respectful of religion, but nevertheless, religion was being subtly removed out of the public domain. The secular state from the year 2000 onward is a very different kind of secular state, very hostile and very intolerant for religion. It changed now with the election reelection of Donald Trump, he is going to now change all of that. So religion is not going to be a bad word. Christianity is not going to be an offensive term. So he’s going to change the attitude of America towards religion for the better.
Sam Rohrer: Okay, that’s a good general thing. Now let’s define it again, people listening would say, all right, secular state, I want you to define it. What do you mean by the secular state? You’ve used that phrase secular state and that saying being more religion friendly. Sorry, you’ve established that under a new Trump administration and you’ve said we’ll modify the United States into a new secular state 2.0, you’ve said that. So when you say secular state, I like you to define it. What is a secular state as compared to what we’re talking about in America? What is that?
David New: The United States, according to our secular neighbors, became a secular state in 1787 with the Constitution. They claim that the reason the word God was left out of the Constitution was specifically to establish a secular state that is incorrect. The secular state in the United States does not really begin until 150 plus years later. The real origin of the secular state, a secular state is a government that does not look to religion for public policy. It is a government that’s basically not necessarily atheistic. They’re not saying that God doesn’t exist, but what they’re saying is whether God exists or not doesn’t matter for the government that is a secular state and the one who imposed the secular state on the United States was not the framers of the Constitution, it was the US Supreme Court.
Sam Rohrer: Okay, now David,
David New: They established the secular state in this country.
Sam Rohrer: Okay, well now we’re going to go ladies and gentlemen into some of the history of that in the next segment. So you’ll see these connected here. But David, let me just for the sake of giving definition to secular, all of our listeners know I love to go back to the Webster’s 1829 dictionary, which was in force and represented the culture and the thinking of our nation and the world at large at that point in time, back in the early 18 hundreds, late 17 hundreds, the formative times of our country. And you could say when you look at that dictionary put together by Noah Webster, because it has so many Bible verses that are used as references within the definitions, it is probably the closest to a biblical worldview dictionary that you can possibly find. But here is the definition of secular. It’s from the Latin word secularists or from culm or the world or an age.
Sam Rohrer: Now this is specifically, it’s a long definition. I’m not going to read it all, but the first definition of business pertaining to the present world or to things not spiritual or holy pertaining to the present world or to things not spiritual or holy. And then it says secular power is that which super intends and governs the temporal affairs of men government, what we’re talking about civil government in it says the civil or political power and it is contra distinguished from spiritual or ecclesiastical power. So David, I just cite that to support what you were just saying. It’s not that it is atheistic, a secular government or secular is just focused on the immediate, the temporal meaning not the eternal and not that which is spiritual or thinking about the future world. It’s basically confined to just the here and now. That was basically the definition as Webster. You okay with that?
David New: Yeah, that is excellent. I read that definition and I like it because it’s absolutely accurate. A secular state is not saying that God doesn’t exist. It’s saying that we don’t care whether God exists or not. We will not factor in religious values in our public policy in the United States. Now the only problem is you’ve got 39 signers of the Constitution. You have 55 people who attended the constitutional convention at one point or another. None of them said the Constitution was seconder. The word they used at the time to describe the Constitution was that it was a civil government and a civil government and a secular government are not the same thing.
Sam Rohrer: Okay,
David New: Now the United States government, it is a civil government. It is not a religious government.
Sam Rohrer: Okay, David, let me ask you this then compare contrast, if not a secular government with just a focus on the here and now with no consideration for God. That’s what we just find secular. If it’s not that, what is the alternative? I mean you’re saying it’s the civil government, but you’ve also used the word theistic. Define civil. Then if you’re going to use that as the opposite of secular or is it theistic? Put that together in the definition of that.
David New: The United States is not a secular state. The United States is not a secular government. It is a civil government, but it also is a theistic state. Our government, our federal government is not a religious government, but it is a theistic state. What does that mean? It means that the United States government acknowledges the sovereignty of God. That’s what a theistic state does. It says God exists. We know he exists and therefore we acknowledge God’s sovereignty. All of the people who attended the constitutional convention to a person was a creationist, every one of them. Therefore, government was the center of gravity for everything including government, education, politics and everything. Now a theistic state, an example of proof of that was done in 1956 when the United States made in God we trust as the national model of the United States of America. That is theism, pure theism. It says the United States government trust in God. Secular states do not trust in God. That’s the whole point of being secular.
Sam Rohrer: Alright David, and with that ladies and gentlemen, let me take and read to you, I read to you the definition of secular from Webster’s 1829, which says it pertains to the moment temporary with no consideration for a higher being God. Okay, but here is theistic. Theistic means of theism. So here’s the definition of theism from the same book. Theism comes from the Greek God. It says the belief or acknowledgement of the existence of a God doesn’t necessarily mean the God of the Bible. It means a God a higher being. It says as opposed to atheism and it says theism differs from deism for, although deism implies a belief in the existence of a God, yet deism signifies in modern usage a denial of revelation basically, that God has anything to do with what we are doing. Deism says God created and he walked away. Theism says that God is still involved in that’s pure definition of the word.
Sam Rohrer: Theism does not necessarily mean the God of the Bible. It means a higher being. Howbeit. Our founders knew that and believe that God was the God of the Bible, right? Does that make sense? So there it is. So you’ve got secular, you’ve got civil as David described it, but you have, it really is more theistic where there’s a God in place. Now the question is where are we today? Now I’m going to come back, I’m going to ask David, we’re going to look in this next segment and a little of a history here. Okay, what is America from this regard? Secular theistic, what was or actually what was and what is? And then we’ll go with what might be in the last second. Alright, David, excuse me, ladies and gentlemen, my voice is still not totally better so I don’t sound like this all the time.
Sam Rohrer: Hopefully it’ll be improved here shortly. But David, we’ve looked at all this context and program today under the election of Donald Trump, the appointment of new cabinet members. You’re saying that there will be a change. Already has been a change. You’re drawing the connection to a change in the secular state. We’ve tried to define secular and its contrast, you said civil, but really theistic civil where there’s a consideration of God in government and you’ve made some references and done some explanation as to how we got where we are. I want to go back and have on this segment, tap into your historical knowledge of which you are a real expert on history in regard. And let’s look at this if you don’t mind and consider this first, go back, repeat some of what you’ve said, but put it into further context. At the beginning of our nation, very clearly provide the evidence.
Sam Rohrer: Our organic documents of law are obviously the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence later the US Constitution. Then after that, but then some before and some after. Were all of the state constitutions which are quite similar. We’ve talked about that many times in the past. But here’s my first question. Were we established a secular state? Again, you’ve already staged some of this, but put it in birth of context and were we ever considered a secular state? Why or why not? And within that, well then we’ll just stay there and then we’ll go to where we are right now. Put that in context, what we were generally viewed and what we were not at the beginning.
David New: Well let’s go there because that’s a good question. Before I hit that, I want to talk about the word theocracy. Theocracy people will accuse me of believing in a theocracy. No, I believe in a theistic state, not a theocratic state. They are similar and important ways, but they’re extremely different in important ways. In a atheistic state and in a theocracy, both of those systems of government believe that the state is subject to the authority of almighty God. There they are similar, but they differ. Once you go beyond that in a theocracy, the clergy run the government. Iran is a theocracy because the clergy control Iran, not the president of Iran, it’s the AYAs in a theistic state, it’s not that way. The clergy do not run the government. We the people run the government and that is how a theistic state and a theocracy are not the same.
David New: That’s a very important distinction. We don’t want a theocracy. We have never been a theocracy and we’re not going to be a theocracy. Now, when the constitution was written, nobody was going around calling the constitution the secular state. Nobody I’d give anything if our secular neighbors could find somebody who said The constitution we wrote was secular. It is not. They never said it was and it isn’t. Now, one of the ways you can know that we’re not a secular state is by who could not go to the constitutional convention. There was one group of people who could not attend it and could not sign the Constitution and that was atheist. We have atheists today who believe that they have a kindred spirit and connection to the US Constitution because the word God does not appear in the text. They sort of feel that it’s their document. This is the attitude of many popular atheists today. How little do they know? An atheist could not even get in the front door. Well, David, was there a resolution to pass to say atheists did not apply that atheists cannot come to the convention or sign the Constitution? No, there’s no resolution that says that they didn’t need to.
David New: And the reason is because the states at this time had very definite religious tests. Now, for example, the one for Delaware, which was written by the first president of Delaware who wrote the first constitution of the state of Delaware and who also attended the constitutional convention, he wrote the religious test from members of the Delaware government. I do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ’s only son and in the Holy Ghost that he wrote that religious test. But it not only applied to the governor and all of those members of the Delaware government, but in article 22 of Delaware’s first constitution, it says this statement, every person who shall be chosen, a member of either house or appointed to any office or place of public trust, do you know what that means? That means if you’re going to be a delegate to represent the state of Delaware in Philadelphia in 1787, you have to take this test. What does that do? That excludes atheists immediately. Not welcome.
Sam Rohrer: Okay, and David now
David New: For states who didn’t have a very strong religious test, they were kept out by cultural pressure. They were not allowed. Today atheism and being an atheist is almost fashionable. It’s cool because it’s so different. People feel they’re enlightened when they become an atheist. In 1787 America atheists were social lepers. They were despised, they were not light and nobody wanted them around.
Sam Rohrer: Alright David, and you’ve made that case very well and that’s really important ladies and gentlemen to understand that is without a doubt what was, it’s so clear and obvious and David just gave a couple of references right there. But David, that does move us to where I want to go right now. And that is in reality, what you described then is not what we see now, as you said, to become an atheist almost as fashionable today because it’s different. But David, in addition to that, people would look and say, all right, well are we a God-fearing civil theistic as we described it, government culture today? Or are we really secular meaning change? Because no matter how one looks at it in these last generation and a half though we even have in God we trust still on our coins, do we do it? No. What have we done in regard to God’s law? We’ve turned it upside down. We are not where we were. So according to the definitions that we’ve established, what is, regardless of what we’d like to say or not, what is functionally the United States today? Why or why not?
David New: Well, even though, as I say my opinion, the United States legally is a theistic state. And that was made official in 1956. But as JFK said in God we trust was always our national motto. He said that at a breakfast dinner shortly after becoming President with Billy Graham. Now what about now today, even though I don’t believe the United States legally is a secular state, defacto it is and therein lies the problem. But remember this, it was the Supreme Court that introduced secularism. There’s one key ingredient. You need to have a secular state. There’s one key ingredient you need to what? A secular state. And his name is Charles Darwin. He is the father of the secular state. He is the father of the US Constitution. From the point of view of groups like the ACL U, it’s not James Madison, it’s not Benjamin Franklin, it is Charles Darwin.
David New: He gave birth to the secular state and the Supreme Court started pushing Charles Darwin in the sixties and so forth. But you’re right de facto, we are a secular state. But remember ladies and gentlemen, all this ungodly behavior with the men, Bobby and Chucky getting married and all that nonsense that was imposed, that was not the voice of the people speaking that was imposed by the Supreme Court, the issue of evolution and baptizing this whole nation in blood that wasn’t the choice by the people that was in imposed, that was imposed. So make the distinction between the people and the instruments of government itself.
Sam Rohrer: Alright? And David, that’s an important point, but I’m going to say challenge because we do. We go back and forth together on this program that is true from a structural perspective. Government, the institutions of our government, the Supreme Court definitely have said, no, God, we don’t want prayer. No God, we don’t want your moral law tent commandments, it’s gone. We don’t want God what you say about marriage man and a woman and we don’t want what you say about male and female. So yes, but unfortunately it’s not just the Supreme Court, it’s the legislatures of our country with 14 of the 16 states since Ro Wade, the people have said, we want to kill our babies. And that presents a real difficult challenge, ladies and gentlemen and David, because then you would have to say, is it structural only or is it in fact the people themselves, secular, civil, theistic, God there, do we fear God?
Sam Rohrer: This is the real issue. We’re going to come back, we’re going to conclude with some thoughts on alright, where we were, where we are, and then conclude with in regard to this where we can be. Alright David, as we go into this final segment here, now we’re going to try and wrap up some of these things and ladies and gentlemen, again, just a reminder, thank you to all who are listening to me now. We’re doing this program live. When you listen to it, most of you around the country listen to this program in a delayed fashion. So you’re listening later, but thank you for doing that. Thank you Also for those who write to us, very important, it means a great, great deal to hear from you where you are, what you think about the program, those kinds of things that help edify encourage, maybe raise questions that you would like to have some further response about.
Sam Rohrer: All of those things. Very important. And then thirdly, for those of you who are regular listeners, I encourage you, if you are not already doing so, pray for us. Very, very important, so many things to pray about in these days. Pray for wisdom for us that what we talk about and the things that we emphasize, what we say is true and true. Only pray for health of all of us. It’s like my voice right now, things like that. Our entire team makes a big difference. If somebody’s unable to do the work that’s before them and then fourthly, pray and then do consider participating and partnering with us financially. It costs money and all of us are just so weighed down it seems like by so many bills and prices of things going up, it’s very easy to say, well, I don’t need this program to eat, therefore I’m going to pay for my food first.
Sam Rohrer: Obviously I would do that too. But if you are being benefited by this program in any way, consider part of your diet, part of your necessity for living and factor us in even a small amount would be very, very important. You can do all of this online, stand in the gap radio.com or on our app. I haven’t downloaded that. Please do stand in the gap and then you can do all of that. All of our past programs archive form, listen to this program, live there on that you can give to us, you can write to us all of those things. Very, very convenient. I encourage you to do that. Alright, now with moving in on the program today, we’ve emphasized a consideration of America and the potential changes that could arise from a Trump administration that’s been a previous part of the program. Some changes from Trump, as an example, have been telegraphed ahead of time.
Sam Rohrer: What he’s going to do, some changes will develop in the natural course of having new people in positions of public policy throughout the cabinet. That’s just going to happen. Change is going to naturally occur, but changes will be presently unknown. We don’t know exactly what form these changes are going to be. And many times a new administration, all things being equal are going to find that they’ll do some things proactively, but they’re going to end up doing a lot of things reactively because there’ll be outside things thrust upon them. Current and new government leaders, our current government leaders and the new Trump folks who come in, not by any of their doing, but things that they don’t directly control. Like some way I started the program with war that is in the air. It could dramatically change anything that the Trump administration would like to do.
Sam Rohrer: Pandemic, there are two of those floating around right now. They’ve raised that to higher level. That is a big deal. Monetary and financial resets, those are there. All of those things, leadership voids around the world get my point. Then in addition to that, prophetical changes as God brings about. That’s why we spend time on Israel in the Middle East. There are things of a much bigger consequence, not bigger consequence, but of bigger issues that involve the entire world that the scripture talks about, of which much of what we see fits in and together. So we have to think of these things and therefore important to do that. David, while I do not believe that a new Trump administration will be able to operate as independently as past administrations because of some of the reasons I’ve just cited, but assuming a world in relative peace and not impacted by major unforeseen global events, all of that being equal, what do you see as potential, again, what might be changes to the current secular state under Trump administration? You’ve cited some, repeat some of those and then we’ll go to another question before we close.
David New: I don’t think there’s any question that these cases coming from Oklahoma and Louisiana and perhaps others in the immediate future are going to go before the Supreme Court. I’m hoping there will be at least five votes to uphold the Bible and the public schools. The display of the 10 Commandments in the public schools, a complete reversal of Stove Graham of 1980. I’m also hoping that we will have prayer being permitted back in the classroom if it’s so chosen by the state or a local community. I don’t think it should be at every state or at every public school. Some people just aren’t interested. But I think the choice should be made available and I’m hoping the Supreme Court will do that.
Sam Rohrer: Alright David, and those are big things, but basically what you’re citing is just basically going back to which the Constitution has always permitted being driven out of the states. So changes such as getting rid of the Federal Department of Education would help and all of those things. But most of those things that have been talked about that I’ve heard anyways would be more of just simply bringing federal government back into alignment with what they were always allowed to do or not allowed to do according to the Constitution. Right?
David New: There is no question that school prayer is constitutional. The first Congress that wrote the First Amendment wrote a law that said religion, morality and knowledge are necessary to good government. People who believe in a secular state, don’t say things like that. People who believe in a theistic state do
Sam Rohrer: All right, and ladies and gentlemen, so there you have that. Now we’re a couple minutes left here, but I want to lay this broader concept again on it. I asked David that question, all things being equal, what can one logically expect? And David, you answered those perfectly all within the concept that religion would be in a general sense dealt with differently, and I think all listening would say, yep, we can certainly see that. But ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to leave with just by saying, let’s keep our minds in tune with the bigger things because change is what is happening. We don’t know what change will be. If not, just put this out here as a perspective. The President has said, day one, we’re going to begin eliminating and getting rid of all of the illegals we’re going to go after and arrest the gangs.
Sam Rohrer: And the cartels also made statements about eliminating the federal reserve and changing our currency. His son talked about eliminating the dominance of the military industrial complex, the heart of the deep state. With the announcement of RFK, it would be the undoing of the control by big pharma. Now I put that out there because from a realistic perspective to do any of those are going to require an extraordinary amount of support and continued agreement in the face of extraordinary opposition by those in departments of government, those operating illegally and all of those things. If you were to go and round up a million illegals and bring in the National Guard, all my saying is that in realistic terms to do all of those things, any of them will produce change and it will not happen overnight. Therefore, there will be a necessity of a lot of things happening, which some can be controlled and many cannot.
Sam Rohrer: So here is how I would like to leave our thinking. God fearing people. All of us need to pray for those in authority now and for the new team coming in. The things that David had mentioned that could take place would be wonderful, but it’s not going to happen without God-fearing people, praying and God’s direct intervention, those are the times in which we’re in dependent on the Lord is where we need to be. On our knees in prayer is where we must always be. With that, thank you for being with us today on the program. David New as always. Wonderful. Thank you for being here. Tremendous information, tremendous discussion and conversation. God bless you David. And ladies and gentlemen, Lord willing to see you back here tomorrow.
Recent Comments