Posted on 08/16/2011 9:22:27 AM PDT by Kaslin
The hysterical reaction to Republican presidential hopeful Governor Rick Perry's faith is about as overblown as his home state of Texas is big. Perry is facing a federal lawsuit filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) - purportedly because Perry prayed publicly for our nation.
America is headed south to a place much hotter than Texas, and you would think national figures offering prayers for the nation would be a source of inspiration. Even still, FFRF filed the lawsuit to prevent the beckoning of blessing from the God of whom this country was founded.
Filing the lawsuit in the Southern District Court of Texas, the FFRF argued the prayer event Perry attended violated the First Amendment's Establishment Claus. They claimed it could be "harmful or counterproductive as a substitute for reasoned action." What does that even mean? If you put the collective brain power of the current leadership in Washington into the body of a hummingbird, it would fly backwards, and yet a call to prayer on their behalf is "counterproductive" to reasoned action?
The very concept of separation of church and state is intellectually dishonest and legally indefensible. Even still, activists attempt to two-step their way around the Constitution in hopes to eradicate America's Judeo-Christian roots and replace them with their own "irreligion."
The simpler solution would be for groups such as the FFRF to accept the fact that prayer has weaved its way into the moral fiber of America since her inception. British colonists fled to America to escape religious intolerance. The first prayer of the Continental Congress, in 1774, clearly laid out our founders intentions in the words: "O Lord our Heavenly Father...we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor...desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. Be Thou present...and direct the councils of this honorable assembly...All this we ask in the name...of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior. Amen."
The Bill of Rights (the first ten Constitutional amendments) was ratified December 15, 1791. Amendment I speaks to the protection from federal interference in the free exercise of religion, speech, and the press, among other freedoms. Although the term "separation of church and state" cannot be found in the Constitution, activists who seem to be about as friendly as fire ants to America's Judeo-Christian roots borrowed words from and built case law around a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to church leaders in 1802 mentioning "a wall of separation."
The United States Supreme Court confirmed our nation's Christian DNA in a unanimous decision February 29, 1892 - that has never been overruled. The court cited various authorities confirming the influence the Bible had on America since its founding. This decision confirmed our founders' intentions in the Constitution's First Amendment to protect citizens from a national religion - granting us freedom of religion - not freedom from religion.
The court ruled: "There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all having one meaning: they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons; they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire group. These authorities were collected to support the historical conclusion that no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or nation, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation...we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth...this is a Christian nation..."
Eric Bearse, spokesman for the Texas prayer gathering Perry attended said they "expected this kind of legal harassment, but the right of Americans to assemble and pray has been established for over 200 years." While 200 years of precedence has never stopped Progressives before, it seems there may be a more obvious reason why the man, Perry, who has a campaign winning streak ten elections long, is feared: John Sharp, a 1998 lieutenant governor opponent to Perry summed it up when he said, "Running against Perry is like running against God."
Lawsuit harrassment, pure and simple. Litigation terrorists.
“Litigation terrorists”
Very apt description.
“Loser pays” is the solution. And aggressive counter-suits to every lawsuit.
Liberals can’t stand it, and cannot win, when conservatives do not fight with one hand tied behind their back.
Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF)
Are any taxpayer money going to this organization? If so, I’m qa Christian and I want a refund!!!!!
Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF)
Are any taxpayer money going to this organization? If so, I’m a Christian and I want a refund!!!!!
Such as....
“The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State”
Is “total separation” different in intent and meaning from a “wall of separation”?
Another....
“Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together”
To me a “perfect separation” is more complete than a “wall”. A wall can be dug under, gone over, or gone around. A perfect separation cannot be gotten over, under or around.
That being said - nothing Perry has said or done would raise the eyebrows of our founders as far as him being vocally and publicly a Christian - as he has every right to free exercise of religion and to speak to how his faith influences his thinking, morality, and philosophy.
We should just make it a rule: There is no such thing as A law suit. 2,5, 10, 20, yes, but not A lawsuit.
Can’t claim originality. A columnist coined the phrase quite some time ago (so far as I know). Can’t remember who or I would give him credit.
Gotta ask... IF Susan Brown suggests our background of Judeo Christianity is sooooooo large, how did we end up with a muslim president and a complete support network of muslims/ muslim sympathizers pushing the Christians around?
If the Christianity is so large and smart, how is sharia able to invade and push the constitution aside, right down to the presidents actions?
Because idiots voted for that arrogant pos, that’s how
We should ask Susan for her thoughts.
Its too bad still, that so many still think he is a “Christian” in spite of his participation in his christian iftar with all his high ranking “Christian” leader friends. Leaders, every last one of them. Its interesting that he could focus on such a select group of global “christians”.
People should recognize him for his actions.
Loser pays would protect a lot of school districts from the mischief of the ACLU and the like.
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.