'China-level' Christian persecution coming: court's ruling in Houston Bible case 'breath-taking'

WorldNetDaily ^ | 17 Aug 06 | WND

[devolve]

I must have uploaded the pre-updated version

[MuddyWaters2006]

"The ruling from the Fifth Court of Appeals said the display of a Bible on public ground in Houston to honor the founder of a mission has to go, not because it was unconstitutional itself, but because it became unconstitutional when a Christian group rallied around it."



Whadda a buncha hogwash! I read the opinion. It a gross mischaraterizaton to say the Court found that the Bible display became unconstitutional when a Christian group rallied around it

[MuddyWaters2006]

"Have you seen these words: "Separation of Church and State" in the U.S. Constitution?"


I have seen the concept in the U.S. Constitution. Does that count?

[DelphiUser]

>>The pastor's group said that means any monument, building, or even feature of nature is an illegal "establishment of religion" if a church ceremony is held there.

Next up, Religious ceremonies to be held around Abortion clinics run by planned parenthood... Developing!

[xzins]

A few more court decisions like this week's over a display of a Bible in Houston and the United States will be approaching the "China-level" for Christian persecution, according to a leader in the midst of that battle. The ruling from the Fifth Court of Appeals said the display of a Bible on public ground in Houston to honor the founder of a mission has to go, not because it was unconstitutional itself, but because it became unconstitutional when a Christian group rallied around it. The pastor's group said that means any monument, building, or even feature of nature is an illegal "establishment of religion" if a church ceremony is held there.

Bad paragraphing on the part of the editor. It's obvious that it's saying that this is the pastor's group's interpretation.....probably based on their lawyer's viewpoints.

[xzins]

The constitution does not contain the words, "Separation of Church and State."

Do you agree that the above is a fact?

[P-Marlowe]

Well, that was a nasty little comment about my senior Pastor.

Greg is simply a very visible target. He's out there on the frontlines and taking the hits for those of us in the trenches.

Alex won't let me post to him, so thanks for coming to Greg's defense.

A Fellow Harvest Crusader.

[MuddyWaters2006]

What difference does it make if the Constitution does not contain the words, "Separation of Church and State." It doesn't say "the people can bury their dead." Does that mean there is no right to do it?

[P-Marlowe]

What difference does it make if the Constitution does not contain the words, "Separation of Church and State." It doesn't say "the people can bury their dead." Does that mean there is no right to do it?

Huh?

[MuddyWaters2006]

"I, too, wish I could see some kind of synopsis of the entire case. Nonetheless, I expect that this report is close to the truth."



The report ain't even close to what the opinion actually says.

Staley vs. Harris County Opinion at http://www.txs.uscourts.gov/notablecases/03cv3411_46.pdf

[ladyinred]

This is just wrong, and is getting way out of hand. What are we going to do about it. Unconstitutional alright, but against our freedom of religion. It seems only Islam is protected in our country these days. Something is very wrong here.

[xzins]

It matters because the subject has been treated by the media as if it were part of the constitution. Many are suprised to learn that the US Constitution does not contain the words "separation of Church and State." Nor did the Articles of Confederation.

There is no similarity at all with burial of the dead.

[xzins]

Hey, P-M, about the link to the court case in post #70 is there any legitimacy in the pastors' interpretation that part of this ruling had to do with a rally around the monument?

[xzins]

Free exercise means that my exercise cannot be impeded, curtailed, shortened, dictated, etc.

[P-Marlowe]

Hey, P-M, about the link to the court case in post #70 is there any legitimacy in the pastors' interpretation that part of this ruling had to do with a rally around the monument?

It was part of the judge's reasoning. Since Christians rallied to save the bible (after the ACLU and athiest liars and perjurers- who testified that they were "offended by it" - hogwash!!), it was seen as evidence of a religious purpose and thus a violation not of the constitution, but of the infamous and invisible Lemon Test clause.

The opinion states (quite correctly) that the Supreme Court has established the Lemon Test, but has given little if any guidance as to how to apply it.

Hopefully this will be appealed. The decision is clearly another badly reasoned decision which is based not on the constitution itself, but on the stupid Lemon Test, which apparently has become more a part of the constitution in judicial circles than the very words of the Constitution itself.

Hopefully (now that O'Connor is gone - good riddance) the SCOTUS will take up the Lemon Test and squeeze the life out of it.

[xzins]

Thanks, PM.

The Lemon Test must go.

It must be replaced with the constitutional test:

1. Did any governmental body establish a religion for an area under their jurisdiction.

2. Did any governmental body prohibit anyone's free, unimpeded exercise?

[Salem]

Thanks!

I really like your profile page.

Calvin and Hobbes rules!

[AnalogReigns]

ACLU delenda est.

AMEN!!!

[MuddyWaters2006]

"It matters because the subject has been treated by the media as if it were part of the constitution."

The U. S. Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves and their posterity. They have declared it the supreme law of the land. They have made it a limited government. They have defined its authority. They have restrained it to the exercise of certain powers enumerated in the document, and reserved all others to the states or to the people." They granted the federal government no power over religion.

No civil power over religion, or as James Madison put it the exemption of religion from the cognizance of the civil magistrate, came to be known as "the separation of church and state" long before it first appeared in a Supreme Court Opinion. It was a short eloquent way of referring to the legal concept and had been adopted by many of the American people.

If you don't like the name affixed to the concept, why don't you come up with a better one?

[MuddyWaters2006]

"Free exercise means that my exercise cannot be impeded, curtailed, shortened, dictated, etc."

James Madison and the other members of the Virginia General Assembly of 1789 would disagree. They included the following statement in the 1786 Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom:

"It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when [religious] principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order."

The New York Constitution of 1777 ordained, "that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall be forever hereafter be allowed, within this state, to all mankind" but qualified that freedom with a provision that read, "the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state."

Other State Constitutions had a similar qualifying provision.