Posted on 03/12/2005 4:10:33 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
There was a time when "fear of God" meant piety, or at least conscience. Today, it more accurately describes the worldview of secular liberals who get itchy and twitchy at any reminder of our religious roots as a nation.
Thus, we are currently treated to the spectacle of the American Civil Liberties Union dragging the state of Texas into court for the offense of displaying the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the state capitol in Austin. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide in June whether a display of the Decalogue violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. This gives "God fearing" a whole new meaning.
"At the very seat of Texas government," thunders the ACLU brief, "between the Texas State Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court, is large monument quoting a famous passage of religious scripture taken, almost verbatim, from the King James Bible." Question: Is there any kind of scripture that is not religious?
The state of Texas argues that the monument isn't so important really. It stands at the back door of the capitol, not the front. It is smaller than several of the other 16 monuments dotting the campus of the capitol. And it contains many symbols found elsewhere in American public life -- such as the pyramid with the eye at the top and an eagle with outstretched wings clutching the stars and stripes -- both of which are also found on the dollar bill. Hard by the Ten Commandments monument are statues and plaques honoring or memorializing the Boy Scouts of America (under fire from the left, as well), Korean War Veterans, World War I veterans, Pearl Harbor, Texas children, the National Guard and pioneer women.
But no religious acknowledgment is too small to escape the attention of the zealous modern God-fearers. The petitioners complain that the monument "expresses an unequivocal religious message: There is a God, and God has proclaimed rules for behavior." We can't have that. Just you wait, the dollar bill -- which proclaims in broad daylight "In God We Trust" is not safe.
The God-fearers are not engaged in a fool's errand. They have good reason to suppose that their protest may be well-received. Over the past several decades, the court's establishment clause jurisprudence has been, well, peculiar. The court has held that a creche could be displayed at Christmastime only if it was accompanied by a requisite number of candy canes, Santas and other non-religious symbols. The court has also ruled that states may constitutionally provide maps (and, in a later decision, computers) for parochial schools, but not books.
The court has held that student-led prayers in a football huddle constitute an establishment of religion. Ditto an invocation offered by a rabbi at a public high school graduation. There, Justice Kennedy explained that asking non-believers to stand and "maintain a respectful silence" was unconstitutional. Respectful silence just isn't the spirit of the age.
The state of Texas urges the Court to adopt the reasonable person standard for evaluating the Ten Commandments monument. Would a reasonable person, seeing this granite slab, assume that Texas meant to enforce a ban on graven images or to force neighbors to refrain from covetousness? The brief did jocularly offer that "no one would reasonably think that the state has adopted a position, one way or the other, on whether the Dallas Cowboys should continue playing professional football on Sundays or whether the Texas Longhorns should continue playing college football on Saturdays (notwithstanding the seriousness, and even religious fervor, with which Texans approach their football ...)."
The real point is that we've lost our grip on any common-sense definition of establishment. The Founders did not want to favor one church over another at the federal level (when the Constitution was ratified, several states did have established churches). By forbidding one national church pre-eminence, freedom of worship would be more reliably protected. The notion that this country, founded firmly in the Judeo-Christian tradition, could not even mention God in public without fearing a subpoena is simply ludicrous.
If the Supreme Court hands down a ruling that the Texas monument violates the Constitution, it will do so in the literal shadow of a frieze on the Supreme Court's chamber depicting none other than Moses holding the tablets in his hands.
..and, in a 'reaching down your throat and pulling your heart out fashion', US taxpayers help fund this ACLU outfit
We need to get this abhoration straightened out. It isnt bad enough the ACLU exists, our tax money is paying for this atrocity.
Thanks for making my blood boil so early in the morning, s_f! I hate those bastards and all that they stand for.
Now they are teaching Islam in the California schools. The ACLU sees nothing wrong with this. They are aligned with the Muslim terrorist.
Yes its strange the ACLU attacks God and allows Allah.
WorldNetDaily.com
The American Civil Liberties Union is engaged in a long-term, relentless and well-funded campaign to remove every vestige of Christian expression from America's government, schools and public property.
But that much you already know.
What you probably don't know is that the ACLU is using your money to do it – such as when it received close to half a million taxpayer dollars after successfully suing to have the 10 Commandments removed from Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's courthouse.
That's the stunning, in-depth, investigative story told for the first time in the December edition of WorldNetDaily's monthly Whistleblower magazine, titled "EXTORTION: How the ACLU is destroying America using your money."
Articles featured in Whistle Blower Magazine,
http://worldnetdaily.com
"ACLU founder: 'Communism is the goal,'" by Joseph Farah, revealing the group's shocking roots. ACLU founder Roger Baldwin, who zealously sought to recreate America in the Soviet image, once said: "I have continued directing the unpopular fight for the rights of agitation, as director of the American Civil Liberties Union. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
"ACLU fulfilling communist agenda," by Devvy Kidd, showing how, to this day, the controversial organization is fulfilling specific goals of subversion.
"Buying the 'big lie' of church-state separation" by David Kupelian. How did ACLU radicals and activist judges manage to convert Christianity – the original basis of America's laws, culture and institutions – into a forbidden behavior? This in-depth examination shows exactly how, when and why Americans "bought into" the unconstitutional myth of "the separation of church and state."
"700 lawyers ready to fight ACLU lawsuits," profiling how one legal group has mobilized hundreds of attorneys to protect the nation's schools from the ACLU "grinch" during this Christmas season.
"Apartheid humanism" by Joseph Farah, an insightful look at what separation of "church" and "state" really means for America.
"There is a solution. Sue the ACLU into bankruptcy and nonexistence. I will make a large contribution to the attorneys or public interest group that takes this on."
The ACLU from its initiation in the 1920's has always been the Communist Party. The problem is there has been no loud activism exposing the truth about the ACLU's communist agenda because its ad hominem warfare tactics are effective. Most Americans cow in fear of being called a "McCarthyite."
The false logic:
He opposes Communism, ergo he is a "McCarthyite."
In other words, it's worse to be called a "McCarthyite" than
to oppose communism. My thinking is, who would rise the "spectre" of McCarthyism as a defensive ploy other than a communist? Jos. McCarthy was a member of the investigative Congressional UnAmerican Activities committee (or commission?) That was during the time when communism advocates, spies and operators, and communist subversion infiltrated in the U.S. State Department. Communism clearly is/was identified as unAmerican and a threat, and the Communist Party was outlawed for awhile (I believe.) Communists now use euphemisms and deceptive rhetoric like "democratic socialism" to describe their socio-political ideology.
Both the Nazi party and the Soviet/Bolschevik communist party originated on "socialist" (leftist activist)platforms. Nazi (National Socialist...) Germany and Soviet Russia were allies before becoming competing imperialistic invaders. France lies down and opens its, er, portals to any foreign invasion - whether ideological or militaristic.
Americans know more about Jaylo, Michael Jackson and Brad Pitt than they know about political history and the perils of pervasive communism.
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.