Posted on 03/16/2004 9:46:07 AM PST by presidio9
federal judge ruled that the New York City Department of Education could continue to ban the display of the Christian Nativity during Christmas. Remarkably, the judge found that the display of the Jewish Menorah during Hanukkah and the Islamic Star and Crescent during Ramadan were allowable since these symbols are “secular.” Ostensibly, state-sponsored discrimination against Christians is permissible because it provides “parity” for other religions.
Not to be outdone, another federal judge in Kansas ruled that Washburn University has every right to display a sculpture mocking the Catholic faith. The oxymoronic Campus Beautification Committee selected the display, entitled “Holier than Thou,” portraying a Catholic bishop with a morbid facial expression wearing a miter resembling a penis. The judge did not find hostility toward Catholics, but rather a display that will “increase the intellectual capacities of Washburn’s students.”
The Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest law firm, brought suit in the aforementioned cases. Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “Unfortunately, this and several other recent decisions by federal judges have demonstrated that there is a double standard when it comes to applying the Establishment Clause. The Ten Commandments and the Christian Nativity scene are out, but an anti-Catholic display of a bishop wearing a miter that resembles a phallus is permissible because it allegedly enhances aesthetics. Apparently, the religion clauses protect atheists but afford no comparable protection for Christians.”
Catholic Charities is one of America’s largest social service organizations providing assistance to people regardless of religious affiliation. Catholic Charities is an arm of the Roman Catholic Church, but the California Supreme Court does not seem to agree with this assessment. The organization did not meet the narrowly defined religious employer exemption in a law requiring California employers to provide birth control coverage in health plans. Thus, the court ruled that Catholic Charities must ignore its moral opposition to contraception. This is a great example of how government-mandated health insurance works when it becomes a “right.”
The case represents the ultimate paradox: the very fact that the Catholic Church’s inclusive policy of hiring and helping people regardless of faith is the reasoning used by the court to declare the purpose of Catholic Charities is, in fact, secular. No, it’s called being a good Catholic. I’m selling oceanfront property in North Dakota if you really believe that Catholic Charities is a secular organization.
While appeasing the ACLU and other secular humanists, the California court has insulted Roman Catholics around the world. Regardless of personal opinion on the matter of birth control, even among Catholics, this benchmark case is not about contraception. It’s about whether or not the government should interfere with liberty and the free exercise of religion. The only dissenter on the court was Justice Janice Rogers Brown, who wrote, “Here we are dealing with an intentional, purposeful intrusion into a religious organization’s expression of its religious tenets and sense of mission.”
State-sponsored discrimination and hostility toward Christians is reaching epidemic proportions in a country rooted in Judeo-Christian principles. Our Founders could never have envisioned how far we would travel off the beaten path. This disturbing trend is no anomaly. It’s a highly organized and well-financed campaign by secular humanists and atheists who have found sympathetic legislators and jurists. The agenda is simple -- drive organized religion underground in order for nihilism and moral relativism to metastasize.
French historian and American observer Alexis de Tocqueville opined, “liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.” Americans of all faiths must stand together with the understanding that no religion is safe when even one comes under attack. Josef Stalin disclosed an ominous plot many years ago: “America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.” We’ve stood by as Christianity takes a beating in the town square. It’s high time we turn the tide. Our very liberty depends on it.
Well, you are right about some self-proclaimed Christians who bash other Christians who don't practice what they think is orthodox Christianity--especially in the religion forum. They are most un Christ-like in their comments. The logcal flaws in their arguments are so apparent, yet they refuse to see the beam in their own eyes while screaming about the motes is the "cultist's" eyes. For that reason, and the ultimate futility of trying to convince them of their errors--I won't go in there anymore. I'll save my pearls for someone willing to listen.
Very true, and sometimes God uses the wicked to punish the wicked. For example, why can't the islamofascists take out the abortion industry or hollywood with their next attacks? Unfortunately, those wicked maggots will prey on the innocent and avoid the abortion mills and hollywood probably out of professional courtesy.
Certainly. However, there is no way to prove this, one way or the other.
"Either God exists or He doesn't."---(formerDem)
"Certainly. However, there is no way to prove this, one way or the other."---(Modernman)
First, I'd have to find out how you define proof.
I think that my response had to do with whether one's belief or disbelief had anything to do with whether God exists or not. I don't think proof or lack of proof would have any bearing on whether or not He exists, but obviously if someone demands a certain type of proof and doesn't get that proof, he may draw the conclusion that God does not exist. I'm just saying that if God exists, belief or unbelief, proof or no proof has no impact on His existence.
The following quote from G. K. Chesterton (while not 'spot on'), is along the same lines (assuming the man in question has no 'proof' that tigers exist).
I'm wondering about the balance (imbalance?) between proof and faith. I've tried reading Thomas Aquinas, but most of what he says goes way over my head!
Cheers,
Deborah
There is no way for humans to prove factually whether or not God exists. All we can do is speculate. So, the existence of God is a different question than whether the Earth is round. Simply stating that God exists does not prove that hypothesis.
OK gotcha, It's not OK for Christians to attack other Christians but it's OK for Christians to attack non belivers.
And you wonder why so many people are hostile towards Christianity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.