Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Limbaugh Shows How Intolerant 'Liberals' Wage War on Christianity
NewsMax.com ^ | Sept. 30, 2003 | Phil Brennan

Posted on 10/06/2003 8:51:09 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS

All across America, Christianity is under attack. The battlegrounds in this war are the nation’s courtrooms, schools, the media and within federal and state governments.

Now, for the first time a courageous American lawyer, author and columnist, David Limbaugh, has gathered a mass of documentation showing how far this war against those who worship Jesus Christ has progressed.

In his new, best-selling book, "Persecution – How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity," Limbaugh exposes the outrageous bias and discrimination against Christians.

Wherever the forces aligned against Christianity can find a legal loophole, an agnostic judge, government official, school administrator, professor or teacher, the full weight of the law is employed to drive the faith from the public square.

Limbaugh explains what Christians are facing on dozens of fronts. The examples of the multiple successes of anti-Christian campaign present a frightening picture.

In this first part of a three-part series, NewsMax.com explores the geneses of this campaign, looks back at how America’s government schools developed out of a widespread system of Christian schools, recalls the growth of anti-Christian law, and provides examples of how the war has been fought against the nation’s schoolchildren.

Driving Christianity out of America’s Schools

Even if you were reading ""Persecution – How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity" in a freezer with the temperature way below zero, your blood would still boil.

David Limbaugh pulls no punches in reporting the unrelenting assault on Christianity being waged against it by a collection of latter-day Neros who want nothing less than to throw Christians to the lions of total secularism.

Christians, he tells us, "are often subjected to scorn and ridicule and denied their religious freedoms" and are referred to as "Bible-thumping idiots."

One incident he mentions should turn up the heat under the arteries of any devout Jew or Christian who cherishes the Holy Bible as the word of God. He tells the shocking story of a teacher at a Houston middle school who saw two students carrying Bibles. The girls were taken to the principal’s office, and the mother of one was summoned. Upon her arrival the teacher "waved the Bibles at her and exclaimed ‘This is garbage’ and then threw them into the trash can."

Among today’s Neros, the author explains, are "activist judges misinterpreting the law," the idiot acolytes of political correctness, Hollywood movie makers, the overwhelmingly paganistic mainstream media, and "educators" at all levels from preschool to universities.

Limbaugh, a skilled lawyer, goes to some length in explaining the constitutional underpinnings of religious freedom and shows how legions of black-robed tyrants have badly distorted the meaning of the First Amendment, imputing to it shadings and gradations never intended by the men who wrote the Bill of Rights.

This facet of the war against Christianity recently came to the fore during the infamous case of the federal court-ordered removal from the courthouse in Montgomery, Ala., of a monument containing the text of the Ten Commandments.

If You Tell a Lie Often Enough ...

Thanks to the issues raised by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, for the first time many Americans were startled to learn that the famous slogan of "separation of church and state" they’ve been told bans government at all levels from allowing religious expression within public facilities or by official bodies is nowhere to be found in the Constitution of the United States.

It is a largely a judicial fiction based on a deliberate misreading of the Establishment Clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and the Free Exercise Clause, which follows: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

It was not until 1947 that any other meaning than that which forbade Congress (but not the states) from setting up a state-sponsored religion was found. In that year, in the case of Everson vs. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black took a passage from a private letter Thomas Jefferson sent to a friend in which he mentioned an alleged "wall of separation" and made it a key part of the Constitution, where, as noted above, it is nowhere to be found.

All of the subsequent court actions concerning the state vs. religion grew out of Black’s misleading view of the Establishment Clause. From that point on the courts have steadily eroded the prohibition against the "free exercise" of religion.

The full impact of this misreading of the Constitution became apparent with the Supreme Court’s 1962 decision in Engel vs. Vitale, which outlawed state-sponsored prayer in government schools (it's no longer accurate to call them "public" schools; they serve the government, not the public that pays for them). In that case the prayer at issue was non-denominational: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."

In the first part of his book, Limbaugh laments the damage done to America’s schools that has resulted from the courts’ open hostility to religion, especially to Christianity which has become a target of federal judges seeking to drive Jesus Christ out of the public arena.

He provides an exhaustive history of the growth of public/government education, largely a mid-19th century development that built upon a disparate network of local schools in the various states that were fully Christian in every sense of the word. All education in the U.S. was erected on a platform of Christian schools, and even after public schools became the norm, Christianity was an important part of the curriculum upon which all other subjects were taught.

The author traces the development of secularism in the government school system, which he says many Protestant leaders claim was the result of the work of Horace Mann, a Massachusetts legislator who played a key role in establishing the Massachusetts Board of Education in 1837.

The Thought Police

Limbaugh cites some of the shocking results of the enforced secularization of public education:

A teacher at the same school where the Bible was described as garbage confiscated book covers that contained the Ten Commandments and threw them in the trash saying the Commandments were "hate speech" that might offend other students.

In May 1995, U.S. District Court Samuel B. Kent of the Southern District of Texas decreed that any student uttering the word "Jesus" would be arrested and tossed in the pokey for six months.

Said this blacked-robed Nero: "And make no mistake, the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court. Anyone who thinks I’m kidding about this order better think again … Anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this court gets through with it."

Thank God this Nero had no lions around to feed with Christians.

Limbaugh sums up this part of the book by commenting that: "When you consider that the first common schools in this country were established for the purpose of Christian instruction, the current climate of hostility to all in the public school environment is sobering."

The separationists, he warns, "are determined to purge public schools of Christian thought, symbols and expression."

Editor's Note: Get "Persecution – How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity," the latest book by the author of "Absolute Power." David Limbaugh exposes the farce of leftist "tolerance" and reveals the true agenda of "liberals" who abuse the law to force Christianity out of the public square. Click here now.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
, Intolerant 'Liberals' Wage War on Christianity

The extremity of the war against Christianity was manifested in Madison, Wis., where transit authorities sought to honor the late Mother Teresa by putting her image on the metro pass in April 2003, a distinction later planned for the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi.

The idea, however, infuriated one Annie Laurie Gaynor, the president of the appropriately named Freedom From Religion Foundation. She claimed that using Mother Teresa’s picture on the bus pass was "an insult to Madisonians who value women’s rights and separation of church and state."

Mother Teresa, she charged, was unworthy of being honored because she "lived in parts of the world where she saw firsthand the overwhelming poverty and tragedy resulting from women’s lack of access to birth control. Yet she campaigned stridently throughout her life at every opportunity against access to contraception, sterilization and abortion for anyone."

This about a saintly woman who became famous because of her years of going into the streets of Calcutta, gathering the destitute and dying, taking them to her convent, bathing them, cleansing their festering sores and helping them to die with dignity.

Wrote an astonished Limbaugh: "So this remarkably strong woman, Mother Teresa – world-renowned for her selfless lifetime of charity works in poverty-stricken nations, whose Missionaries of Charity Order was sanctioned by the pope and who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 for her astonishingly good works – is an ‘insult’ to women’s rights’?"

The author cites numerous examples of attacks on Christianity at local, state and federal levels.

In Alabama, after Gov. Bob Riley together with his cabinet members and senior staff began having weekly voluntary Bible studies, Larry Darby, the Alabama director of American Atheists, attacked the sessions as "a form of Christian terrorism."

This was the same Darby who joined with the notoriously anti-Christian ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center in the successful attempt to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama State Judicial Building.

Even though the First Continental Congress opened with two hours of prayer and the first session of the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 24, 1789 began with a four-hour communion service, Americans for Separation of Church and State protested plans to use the U.S. Capitol Rotunda for prayer sessions for members of Congress.

"The U.S. Capitol is not a revival tent," stormed the group’s president, Barry Lynn. He suggested that if members of Congress wanted religious service they should "go to their houses of worship."

Secularist attempts to ban any use of Christmas symbols on public property are rife all across the nation, and in many places even the mention of the word Christmas is banned. Government schools now tend to refer to Christmas as a "winter festival" or as some other pagan celebration.

Hooray for Satan

The monomania of ACLU's war on religion was illustrated when the organization set out to sue Carolyn Rusher, mayor of Inglis, Fla., for denouncing Satan.

Every Halloween night for nine years Rusher had issued a proclamation banning Satan from city limits and posting it on her office wall and four other places in the tiny municipality.

"Be it known from this day forward that Satan, ruler of darkness, giver of evil, destroyer of what is good and just, is not now, nor ever again will be, a part of this town, Inglis. Satan is hereby declared powerless, no longer ruling over, nor influencing, our citizens."

Taking up a complaint from a resident, ACLU eagerly planned to file suit, that, if successful, would ostensibly make Satan welcome in Inglis.

When the complaining resident said she was unwilling to file the suit, ACLU said it would go ahead on its own, no doubt to the delight of the prince of darkness.

Anti-Christian hostility became blatantly obvious when Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and his leftist comrades began attacking some of President Bush’s nominees to the federal bench for the crime of having religious principles he feared might influence their judicial decisions.

When the president nominated J. Leon Holmes, a devout Roman Catholic and opponent of abortion, to the federal bench, Sens. Schumer, Dianne Feinstein and alleged Catholic Dick Durbin became unhinged.

Schumer stormed, "This man is an embarrassment to be nominated – this guy is so far off the deep end."

As Limbaugh notes: "Undeniably, the litmus test is as clear as it is unconstitutional: Practicing Catholics need not apply."

Churches as Cancer

Real estate has become a battleground in the war against Christianity. All across America zoning laws are being used to ban construction of churches, the excuse being that they are a public nuisance and supposedly lower the values of real estate where they are built or attract too many of the wrong sort of worshippers.

In Castle Hills, Texas, Castle Hills Baptist Church was compared to a cancer. In a lawsuit against the church, city officials stated that the church "seems to grow like a cancer, feeding on homes in much the same way as a cancerous tumor feeds on healthy cells."

In Portland, Ore., zoning authorities ordered Sunnyside Centenary United Methodist Church to curtail its meals program for poor families and homeless people and demanded that attendance at all events, including Sunday services, be limited to 70 people. They even further restricted Wednesday night Bible classes and other uses of the church.

The abuse of zoning as a weapon against churches finally got so bad that Congress passed a law in 2000 forbidding any discrimination against churches by zoning authorities.

The Media and Hollywood War Against Christianity

In his new, best-selling book, "Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity," David Limbaugh exposes the outrageous bias and discrimination against Christians. Read Part I in this series, Intolerant 'Liberals' Wage War on Christianity, and Part II, Leftists Treat Christianity as 'Cancer'.

The two most powerful molders of opinion in the nation, the media and Hollywood, are at the head of the line in the war on Christianity, frequently ridiculing and disparaging Christians in ways they would never dream of employing against any other group of Americans.

Writes David Limbaugh: "This anti-Christian bias manifests itself in unflattering portrayals of Christians in Hollywood films and entertainment television, and also in the demonization of Christian conservatives in the media."

Sometimes, he notes, the Catholic Church is singled out for special ridicule, a fact made obvious with the incredible overplaying of the recent sex abuse scandals where the facts were often overblown, especially in the media’s incessant labeling of it a "pedophile priest" scandal, where only a tiny percentage of the cases involved pedophilia and the overwhelming majority involved teen-agers molested by homosexual priests.

The media, the author says, portrays Christians as unreasonable and violent, charging them with violent acts against abortionists, abortion clinics or homosexuals while at the same time both Hollywood and the media downplay injustices and violent acts committed against Christians.

A favorite media tactic is the use of the pejorative term "religious right" to describe Christian conservatives, implying such believers are, as the author writes "intolerant, backwoods fanatics, and yet never labeling religious liberals such as Jesse Jackson, as the ‘religious left’ or other leftists as the ‘anti-religious left." Limbaugh cites a screed by the Washington Post’s Michael Weisskopf who described followers of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson as "largely poor, uneducated and easy to command."

Other shocking examples of this tactic cited by Limbaugh:

Bryant Gumbel in a June, 2000 CBS "Early Show" interviewing Robert Knight of the Family Research Council appearing to defend the Boy Scouts refusal to allow homosexuals to be Scout leaders, thinking the mike was off, muttered that Knight was "a f***ing idiot."

CNN founder Ted Turner asked employees who had ashes on their foreheads on Ash Wednesday if they were "a bunch of Jesus freaks?"

In his book "Bias" Bernard Goldberg reported that CBS producer Roxanne Russell called Christian activist and then-presidential candidate Gary Bauer "the little nut from the Christian group."

Christians have been called "the American Taliban, with one reporter for a Florida newspaper, Bob Norman referring to "evangelical loonies," and "way-out-there Christian wackos." In the St. Petersburg Times columnist Robyn E. Blummer wrote that the "religious right" is trying in "Taliban-like ways to inject religion into public schools and the operations of government."

One of the more outrageous examples of anti-Christian ranting was exhibited on the liberal taxpayer funded National Public Radio (NPR). On January 22, 2002, NPR reporter David Kestenbaum "seemed to imply," that the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), a pro-family ministry was involved in the terrorist anthrax attacks on the nation’s capital.

Here, as Limbaugh reports, is what the NPR reporter said: "Two of the anthrax letters were sent to Senator Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, both Democrats. One group who had a gripe with Daschle and Leahy is the Traditional Values Coalition, which before the attacks had issued a press release criticizing the senators for trying to remove the phrase ‘so help me God’ from the oath."

Kestenbaum then went on to say that TVC had not been contacted by the FBI without bothering to explain why they would have, clearly implying that they might be suspects in the attacks. It took NPR a full year to apologize for that slanderous report.

"No one told our reporter that the Traditional Values Coalition was a suspect in the anthrax mailing," their apology stated, adding that "no facts were available then or since to suggest that the group has any role in the anthrax mailing."

But that didn’t stop NPR from making what amounted to a thinly veiled charge of attempted murder against TVC at the time.

One of the more current cases of extreme media bias has been the handling of the controversy surrounding Mel Gibson’s new film, The Passion" which tells the story of Jesus Christ’s final 12 hours.

Although the film is solid based on the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – Gospels that have been accepted as the true narrative of Christ’s passion and death from the very beginnings of Christianity – Gibson is being attacked for promoting anti-Semitism.

Yet numerous Jews who have seen the film deny that charge. Given that the film does faithfully follow the Gospels, as both evangelical Christian Bible scholars and the Vatican attest, it can only follow that those charging anti-Semitism are charging that the Gospels are anti-Semitic.

Wrote the Boston Globe’s columnist James Carroll: "Even a faithful repetition of the Gospel stories of the death of Jesus can do damage exactly because those sacred texts themselves carry the virus of Jew hatred." Aside from the absurdity of the statement, what Carroll is suggesting is that Christians should avoid reading the Gospels for fear that it will cause them to be anti-Semites even though the Gospels make plain the fact that Christ’s death was the work of sinners.

The role of the media, especially that of the New York Times, the Globe’s owner, and the paper’s far-left arts columnist Frank Rich has been to keep the pot stirring, no matter how many times the charge of anti-Semitism is disproved. This has been in keeping with the Times long anti-Christian record.

"Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity," is far and away the most thorough account of the war on Christianity – it is complete and detailed, and he makes a prima facie case that the faith is under a sustained and vicious attack in all aspects of American life.

Editor's Note: Get "Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity," the latest book by the author of "Absolute Power." David Limbaugh exposes the farce of leftist "tolerance" and reveals the true agenda of "liberals" who abuse the law to force Christianity out of the public square. Click here now.

 

1 posted on 10/06/2003 8:51:10 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
We Salute Free Republic's Donors! Be one!

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

2 posted on 10/06/2003 8:51:35 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; narses; american colleen; nickcarraway; ninenot; eastsider; Polycarp; Loyalist
Ping.
3 posted on 10/06/2003 9:01:18 AM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
WND: Have you heard about this excellent book? Really, you should buy the book. Did I mention, we're selling the book? This book is a must read. Don't forget to buy the book. Step right over here to buy the book. ;O)
4 posted on 10/06/2003 9:17:10 AM PDT by newgeezer (Last time the Cubs won it all, Wrigley Field did not exist. Radio hadn't been invented. ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
INTREP - FREEDOM of which RELIGION
5 posted on 10/06/2003 9:20:54 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Support Free Republic
... in the end the Constitution will hang by a thread!
6 posted on 10/06/2003 10:05:31 AM PDT by patriota-ferus ("All that is needed for EVIL to flourish is for good men to do nothing!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS; All; sfRummygirl

Terri Schiavo has nine days to live in Florida. Thousands of Americans are trying to save her life. Freepers are focusing on public awareness and media coverage. We need everyone's help. Thanks in advance.

7 posted on 10/06/2003 10:07:55 AM PDT by freeparoundtheclock (conservative-spirit.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
I'm sure David Limbaugh makes the case that we are the only religion, the only group of people, who can be made fun of, ridiculed beyond compare, and no one will leap to our defense. It's perfectly okay to make fun of us because nothing will happen to you if you do.
8 posted on 10/06/2003 10:30:41 AM PDT by TruthNtegrity (God bless America, God bless President George W. Bush and God bless our Military!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthNtegrity

and no one will leap to our defense.

Nietzsche's point has even more force in our own society, wherein, with few exceptions, men and women live their lives as if there were no God and yet still carry on a profession of being religious. In Nietzsche's dramatic picture, there is something tragically absurd about the man who is shocked by someone else's atheism when it is impossible to discover any genuine religious faith in him. For the average American today, as for the average individual in Nietzsche's Germany, it simply makes no practical difference whether God exists or not. This is true in spite of those polls that show that 98 percent of Americans believe in God. Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and the Death of God Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and the Death of God ,Dr. Ronald H. Nash

Barna's research indicates that, of the 80 million Americans who claim to be born again, roughly only 7 million of them have a biblical perspective. In Think Like Jesus, he examines guidelines for developing a Christian worldview and letting it change one's way of life.Researcher Says Most Christians Lack Biblical Worldview AgapePress ^ | September 15, 2003 | Allie Martin / George Barna is the founder of Barna Research Group

Q. Sir, on May 6th, on the floor of the house you asked the question: "Are the American people determined they still wish to have a Constitutional Republic." How would you answer that question, Sir?

A. A growing number of Americans want it, but a minority, and that is why we are losing this fight in Washington at the moment. That isn't as discouraging as it sounds, because if you had asked me that in 1976 when I first came to Washington, I would have said there were a lot fewer who wanted it then. We have drifted along and, although we have still enjoyed a lot of prosperity in the last twenty-five years, we have further undermined the principles of the Constitution and private property market economy. Therefore, I think we have to continue to do what we are doing to get a larger number. But if we took a vote in this country and told them what it meant to live in a Constitutional Republic and what it would mean if you had a Congress dedicated to the Constitution they would probably reject it. It reminds me of a statement by Walter Williams when he said that if you had two candidates for office, one running on the programs of Stalin and the other running on the programs of Jefferson the American people would probably vote for the candidate who represented the programs of Stalin. If you didn't put the name on it and just looked at the programs, they would say, Oh yeah, we believe in national health care and we believe in free education for everybody and we believe we should have gun control. Therefore, the majority of the people would probably reject Thomas Jefferson. So that describes the difficulty, but then again, we have to look at some of the positive things which means that we just need more people dedicated to the rule of law. Otherwise, there will be nothing left here within a short time. Are the American people determined they still wish to have a Constitutional Republic An Interview With Ron Paul, SierraTimes.com, 05. 23. 03

9 posted on 10/06/2003 10:51:11 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
I'm a little over half way with this book and it has been a definite eye opener. I guess I've gotten used to the weekly "odd" article about the separation clause that doesn't exist being used to enforce what the ACLU and minority atheist groups would have. However, in this book example after example are lined up for the reader to consider - like I said, it's an eye opener. The chapters about our educational systems were chilling. It was a little more expensive than what I'd like to pay (what isn't?) and I had to ask at the Barnes and Noble desk as to the book's location, but it's worth it. I plan on lending it out and recommending it to anyone who cares.
10 posted on 10/06/2003 10:56:09 AM PDT by AD from SpringBay (We have the government we allow and deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
BUMP
11 posted on 10/06/2003 11:55:04 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthNtegrity
It's perfectly okay to make fun of us because nothing will happen to you if you do.

Well, at least not in this life....

12 posted on 10/06/2003 11:57:10 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AD from SpringBay
Starting to get attention:

Point of View Radio Talk Show with Marlin Maddoux reaches about 2 million and they did an interview Point of View - Broadcast Archives 10/1/2003 - Wednesday DAVID LIMBAUGH - "HOW LIBERALS ARE WAGING WAR AGAINST CHRISTIANITY CELL" REAL PLAYER for replay.

Amazon.com Sales Rank: 53

13 posted on 10/06/2003 1:32:38 PM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
I'm troubled by one critical omission in all this "war against Christianity" dialogue: the absence of an agenda for change. Christians site dozens of examples of how war is being waged against them, but they never say what changes they'd make in order to feel less oppressed. For instance, would Christians feel less threatened if a Christian Minister led all public school children in prayer once every morning? Should the Bible be required reading? Should the Ten Commandments be a required display in every court room? Should politicians take an oath of some sort, which indicates that they are not an atheist?

So, Christians, what's your specific list of changes you want in order to feel less oppressed by those nasty Liberals? Maybe in seeing such a list, I'd better understand your position.
14 posted on 10/06/2003 2:35:22 PM PDT by Sonnyw (Religious Crossfire Hits...The World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sonnyw
Federal Courts in general, SCOTUS in particular, need to comply with the Constitution.
15 posted on 10/06/2003 3:41:47 PM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sonnyw
"For instance, would Christians feel less threatened if a Christian Minister led all public school children in prayer once every morning? Should the Bible be required reading?"

Of course we can't have a Christian minister lead public school children in prayer, nor can we require that public school students read the bible. However, Christian parents who are not happy with their public schools can pull their kids out and take the initiative and start their own Christian schools, which is exactly what happened in my brother's California town when Christian kids were snubbed by the local public schools.
16 posted on 10/06/2003 3:57:56 PM PDT by ladylib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sonnyw
Christian students can also go to court:

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-scotus-bible-club,0,4536246.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

The much maligned 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (will wonders never cease?)agreed with the students and the school district appealed to the Supreme Court and lost.

It's all about being proactive.
17 posted on 10/06/2003 4:04:43 PM PDT by ladylib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sonnyw
Just let my Mom and her friends go back to taking turns leading a lunchtime prayer at the local Senior Citizen's center. They have been banned from doing this for a year due to one of many endless government regulations.

That's for starters.
18 posted on 10/06/2003 4:21:16 PM PDT by MissouriForBush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
Jesus said when you lose your salt and light, your good for nothing but to be trampled under foot. That's why the church is having so many problems. Most of them are nothing but social and entertainment clubs. Without a vision, the people perish. So the devil comes up with the ultimate pacifier, "your going to fly away, so just relax, enjoy, and sleep in your pews". You better start praying for a real revival church, because that fly away from great tribulation rapture garbage, is a bigger lie than Arnold is a Republican.
19 posted on 10/06/2003 5:34:14 PM PDT by Russell Scott (On the rampage, skewering sacred cows, without regard for religious or political views.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
There will be a time in this country that Christians will be persecuted beyond anything we have ever seen. It doesn't happen overnight but it is coming. We are starting to see the beginning of the storm.

We have a window of opportunity to proclaim the Gospel to anyone we know. There will be a time that this will become more and more dificult.

According to some experts a pattern is emerging reminiscent of Jewish persecution in post war Germany. "Isolation of, and discrimination against Christians is growing almost geometrically" says Don McAlvany in The Midnight Herald. "This is the way it started in Germany against the Jews. As they became more isolated and marginalized by the Nazi propaganda machine, as popular hatred and prejudice against the Jews increased among the German people, wholesale persecution followed. Could this be where the growing anti-Christian consensus in America is taking us?"
20 posted on 10/06/2003 5:50:24 PM PDT by truthandlife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Russell Scott
Part of the purpose of a church IS to be a social club. That's the way Southern churches have functioned for centuries. Southerners are raised to be social and gracious, and make others around them feel comfortable. It's all about fellowship and if we strengthen it over Sunday dinners of fried chicken, homemade gravy, candied yams and mouth-watering pies -- is that such a horrid little sin?
21 posted on 10/06/2003 6:52:54 PM PDT by MissouriForBush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MissouriForBush
Thanks for a specific, succint example of what a Christian would change. In reply, I'd say first that your mother's Senior Citizen's center must be government supported. It is not illegal for privately-funded centers to have staff-run or staff-condoned sectarian prayers. So, taxes from Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Wiccans, and on and on support your mother's center (good for all of us; that's a worthy objective for my taxes). So, what would happen if a Jewish mother resented your mother's plea to Christ? What would happen if an Atheist mother or a Wiccan mother wanted to also lead the group in their particular kind of prayer? Wouldn't your mother feel rather oppressed to have to listen to someone else's religious or spiritual beliefs just before she was going to eat?

Remember, this country was founded mostly by Christian sects who were fleeing Europe's religious oppression. Alas, these sects soon started bickering and forming exclusive colonies. Baptists were actually hung in the colonial days for their refusal to abide by some sect's particular beliefs (yes, American Christians killed other American Christians in the name of sectarian "purity"). That's why the First Amendment should be sancrosanct in American's hearts. Your mother needs to be protected so that she can enjoy her own particular faith free of impositions of all kinds from people of another faith.
22 posted on 10/09/2003 2:54:03 PM PDT by Sonnyw (Religious Crossfire Hits...The World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sonnyw
Sonny, everybody where I come from is Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Roman Catholic...So I say states' rights, majority rules. My ancestors WERE exactly the Christians you speak of -- French Huguenots, for example. All of those groups above have no problem with a prayer being said before lunch.

This is a states' rights issue.
23 posted on 10/09/2003 5:18:43 PM PDT by MissouriForBush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Support Free Republic
I don‘t know why everyone seems so surprised by this. The persecution of Christianity by the republican State and by the non-Christian groups which empower it are the natural result of any system of non-sacramental government. In any State where the government rules “of the people, by the people, and for the people”, it necessarily follows that the power of that State is limited only by the will of “the people” (i.e. those who make the laws and control the armed forces). In other words, even the best-intentioned republic eventually ends up as a tyranny, with all power residing in the hands of a small elite of demagogues and enforced by the Mob they control. Such a tyranny follows the overthrow of sacramental government as surely and as naturally as water running downhill; this fundamental flaw (common to all forms of representative government) is a product of human nature – the natural desire to hold on to power. To those in power, there can be only one law in town: their own, crafted by their own human hands. To them, anyone holding an allegiance to any law or authority other than their own is a threat, and common sense dictates that any threat – however small — be neutralized as quickly and completely as possible. Thus, to the demagogues who always end up in coontrol of the Republic, the only sensible course of action is to persecute, oppress, and in time eliminate those who do not accept their authority as being supreme and unlimited.

It goes without saying that the true Christian reserves his highest allegiance to God and His Law – a sin that no Republic can afford to forgive.

Popular government is flawed and un-Christian at its very fundament. The traditional Christian concept of government is the divine hierarchy: God to King to Lord to freeman, peasant, or serf. All authority comes from God as a sacrament by way of the Church. He who bears the Crown bears the burden of upholding the Natural Law within his desmesne; he is, like Christ, both Lord and Servant of his people. The king is limited in his powers by his Faith and by the sanction of the Church; should either be removed, his status as King disappears and his power is transferred to his legitimate successor.

The scramental state is based on love and loyalty, nou upon nose-counting. The King's capacity for tyranny is limited by the love of the common folk (with their scythes), he loyalty of his peers (with their arms and retainers) and by his own loyalty to God and God's Church (with its ability to excommunicate). Like the family, the sacrammental state is an institution founded upon Duty – to God, to Peer, to Subject, to Liege Lord, to Sovereign – not upon the self-centered notion of personal Liberty.

A Republic, which replaces God with the will of the people (“the consent of the governed”) has no such limitations. Unlike the Natural Law, the Republic is ordained and established by the constitution, a written or unwritten artiifice that is subject to reinterpretation at will by judges (who are either elected – and thus beholden to their electorates – or appointed, which puts them in the service of their patrons among the power elite). Thus, the power of the Republic is in fact unlimited, and will in time inevitably become more and more centralized in the hands of those with the resources and skill to manipulate the sans-culottes into legitimizing whatever their whims decree. The road to the abolition of man is thus paved with the ballots of the well-intentioned.

Any government that is not specifically and constitutionally founded on the Christian faith is a ticking time-bomb. The Christians of the Vendée found that out; we will, too. In a state where power and law are both made by men, power has no bounds and law will come to mean whatever those who hold it want it to mean. What was true in 1793 is still true today: kill the King in the name of Liberty and you end up with a tyranny far worse than any the Crown ever imposed. Our day of reckoning is coming, just as surely as it did for the Christians of France. Aux barricades, citoyens! Ecrasez l'infame!

24 posted on 10/09/2003 6:05:02 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
"when Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and his leftist comrades began attacking some of President Bush’s nominees to the federal bench for the crime of having religious principles he feared might influence their judicial decisions.

Would that include "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not bear false witness", "Thou shalt not steal" or Clinton's worst "Thou shalt not commit adultery"?

Hmmmmm, Chuckie?


25 posted on 10/09/2003 6:38:53 PM PDT by HighWheeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sonnyw
Well for starters, simply refraining from continually and viciously harrassing Christians would be a good start.

Christianity-bashing is the biggest, and the only politically correct approved, form of hate-filled bigotry in America.

It was Jews in 1934 Germany, and it's Chritians in 2003 America. The fetid hatred now is driven by exactly the same type of people back then. All they need is to find their Hitler, and they can open up the ovens for business.
26 posted on 10/09/2003 6:48:13 PM PDT by HighWheeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS

What happened to your "about page"??? I started reading it last week and today I wanted to read further . . . but now it merely states: "Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS hasn't created an about page." Huh???

.

27 posted on 10/09/2003 7:28:46 PM PDT by GeekDejure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sonnyw
You want a list of what we want. Just make a list of what has been banned. Same list. Stop banning Christianity from the public. Treat the Christian American traditions of Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving as just that. Historic revision and political correctness are lies.

But in all that is and will be, we are told to expect just what is happening, though we are remiss to let is slide.
28 posted on 10/09/2003 8:32:55 PM PDT by Blue Collar Christian (Are you saying our founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment for sporting purposes?><BCC>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sonnyw
"Your mother needs to be protected so that she can enjoy her own particular faith free of impositons of all kinds from people of another faith."

Like atheism? Why does it seem to me that "non-practicing" Christians or Jews, actually atheists, along with avowed atheists lead the charge to push the Christian-Judeo religion out of the public forum? Nothing is removed without something else taking its place. In this case, the Christian religion is removed and the religion of atheism is installed. This is simply the evangelism of atheism, and woe to all who are a part of this success. We Christians are not to force our religion on atheists, only to share our faith with them, and move on if it is not accepted. I cannot say the same for atheists. (nor historically for the "Church")
29 posted on 10/09/2003 8:57:43 PM PDT by Blue Collar Christian (Are you saying our founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment for sporting purposes?><BCC>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
You think you are upset now, wait till they start lopping our heads off, as foretold in Revelation.
30 posted on 10/09/2003 9:13:07 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HighWheeler
I'm not "bashing Christianity" when I ask my government officials to refrain from taking actions which are clearly perceived as endorsing one religion or another. I'm simply asking that they abide by the U. S. Constitution.
31 posted on 10/10/2003 2:22:54 PM PDT by Sonnyw (Religious Crossfire Hits...The World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
I'm sorry you have the perception that I'm endorsing atheism over Christianity. Nothing could be further from my intent. And I would never advocate the removal of Christian words and ideals from the "public forum," where ideas and beliefs should forever be unfettered. I am simply asking government to make no law respecting an establishment of religion. I am advocating the absence of religion (or no religion) from the "governmental realm," which is an entirely different area than the "public forum."

To do otherwise would eventually lead to government endorsement of a particular Christian sect over another Christian sect, just like we had in pre-colonial, pre-Constitution America. The First Amendment wasn't demanded by the Colonies for no reason at all. They feared that the Federal Government would supplant their own state-supported religion (different Christian sects in different colonies-soon-to-be-states). So, many states remained sectarian (e.g. Connecticut citizens were taxed to pay for Congregationalist churches). Sadly, the Civil War taught everyone that the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) should apply to the States as well, and the 14th Amendment was added. This eventually (by Supreme Court decisions over the ensuing years) came to mean that the freedoms encompassed in the Bill of Rights could not be restricted by State legislatures. The First Amendment was finally applied to the States, and governments at all levels were finally told to remain neutral in regard to religion.

Religion or non-religion has no place in the governmental arena.
32 posted on 10/10/2003 2:40:25 PM PDT by Sonnyw (Religious Crossfire Hits...The World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MissouriForBush
I cringe whenever I hear the words "majority rules" brought into a debate about the First Amendment.

As stated by Justice Jackson in 1943’s decision, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (319 U.S. 624), "The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no election."

What part of this eloquent... and urgent... statement do you disagree with?
33 posted on 10/10/2003 2:49:19 PM PDT by Sonnyw (Religious Crossfire Hits...The World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
"... wait till they start lopping our heads off, as foretold in Revelation."

Oh, please. Don't clutter a serious discussion with hysterical blather like this.
34 posted on 10/10/2003 2:51:30 PM PDT by Sonnyw (Religious Crossfire Hits...The World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
"Just make a list of what has been banned."

That's not very helpful to my understanding exactly what it is that Christian's want corrected. For instance, school administrators have been "banned" from denying students the right to use school property for their Bible Clubs, or Christian Clubs. I support this Supreme Court decision, so am I to assume that this is one of those "bannings" you want "undone"?

Please, someone tell me how you would rewrite the First Amendment's establishment clause in order to remove all of those "banned" things that are causing such alarm among many Christians.

I'm still waiting on that list.
35 posted on 10/10/2003 2:59:24 PM PDT by Sonnyw (Religious Crossfire Hits...The World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
"Any government that is not specifically and constitutionally founded on the Christian faith is a ticking time-bomb."

America's greatest strength lies in the undeniable fact that the above view is now and will forever remain in the minority.
36 posted on 10/10/2003 3:09:54 PM PDT by Sonnyw (Religious Crossfire Hits...The World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sonnyw
What's not serious about, "and I saw those that had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus, who had not recieved the mark of the beast, neither his name".
37 posted on 10/10/2003 5:36:07 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sonnyw
We obviously approach the statement from two different directions. Your obsessive concern for the rights of the minority far overreach the original intent of our Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers framed the Constitution so that religious minorities would not be persecuted. In my book, your concept of persecution is far too thin-skinned and dilutes ad nauseum the original intent.

What if a bunch of high-school students demanded that their special cheerleading squad be allowed to assemble to boo their own high-school team at games, right next to the regular cheerleading squad? This is a tiny minority, but we're talking about infringing on freedom of expression and assembly, right? So you think it is absolutely necessary that they have this right, eh?

At my Mom's senior citizen center, all of the attendees are Protestants and Roman Catholics. Should they be denied their rights because a Wiccan in California or a Druid in New Jersey objects?
38 posted on 10/10/2003 6:44:59 PM PDT by MissouriForBush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MissouriForBush
First, let me say that I appreciate your tone. We may differ regarding religious freedom, religious intolerance, minority protection and the point when a secular government becomes an anti-religious one, but at least we agree that religious freedom is important enough to embody in the Constitution.

I am comfortable with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. All of their decisions have successfully embodied the letter and the spirit of our Founding Father's decisions, the impetus for which you correctly attribute to a fear of religious persecution (such as they experienced in Europe and were seeing repeated in the American colonies). Were I to feel differently and think that I was in the majority in this regard, I’d have only one recourse, to seek a Constitutional amendment.

The amendment process is our Founding Father’s single most brilliant innovation in peacefully governing man’s affairs. The majority can rule on any issue, but only after 2/3rd’s of the state legislatures agree. Every Mosque, Synagogue or Wiccan assembly could be prohibited if that’s what the majority of Americans want… as evidenced by the successful passing of a Constitutional amendment.

My obsessive concern for the rights of the minority matches the obsessive concerns of our Founding Fathers and those of every state legislature that voted for the newly-written U.S. Constitution… only after it included the Bill of Rights. (They did not, however, envision the application of the Bill of Rights to their state laws. That decision was made via the 14th Amendment and subsequent Supreme Court decisions.)

You can silence the man who yells fire in a crowded theater, so it’s perfectly consistent with the Constitution if you prohibit “booing cheerleaders” from the athletic field. Free speech is not protected if its principle purpose is to incite mayhem. Religious speech is another matter and an entirely different one if the school administration is involved in it.

You’ve changed the context in which we discussed your mother’s senior center. I thought the administrators of your mother’s center were behind the Christian prayers. It’s perfectly OK by me and my Wiccan friends in California or my Druid compatriots in New Jersey if your mother and her Protestant friends say a prayer before their meals… as long as no one objects. If your mother’s Jewish friend objects, however, and is made to eat at a later time or leave the dining room while “the Christians have their say,” then I’d want the center’s administrators to step in and ask your mother to respect the wishes of all the center’s residences. No Christian prayers if a minority of one object to them. Such are the special privileges afforded minorities when my tax money is used to finance the senior center. If it’s a privately-funded senior center, my position would be the same but I would not have the U.S. Constitution as support.
39 posted on 10/13/2003 1:32:23 PM PDT by Sonnyw (Religious Crossfire Hits...The World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Sonnyw
If it aint' broke, why fix it? For generations, we said prayers around here before meals and now it's a federal offense. If you're the one person who is too thin-skinned to listen to everybody else's 30-second prayer, you are the one with a problem. Just close your eyes and think of England.

My ancestors fought in the Revolution for LESS government and FREEDOM to pursue their lives in the type of community of their choice. If they wanted to be Buddhists, they would have moved to Asia or some community on the West Coast with a majority of Buddhists. They didn't risk their lives and property for the Big Brother rulers we have today sticking their noses into every nook and cranny of our lives. But that is obviously the type of government you want. You remind me of a child throwing a temper tantrum. "I can't have my way, so nobody else will, either."
40 posted on 10/13/2003 5:10:51 PM PDT by MissouriForBush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sonnyw
No list forthcoming, however, two examples of religious freedom, not specifically Christian-Judeo, being trampled by our "modern" government and society:

Prayer is banned from the Capitol rotunda.

The Boy Scouts being pressured to comply with atheist advocate's demands over reverence, gay rights advocate's demands over homosexuality and women's rights advocate's demands over exclusion of girls in the troops.

If this is invisible to you, no list will open your eyes. You don't want to acknowledge the push for anti-Christianism in America, and really the entire globe. That's OK, it's a truth we are prepared to face.
41 posted on 10/15/2003 7:23:53 AM PDT by Blue Collar Christian (Are you saying our founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment for sporting purposes?><BCC>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MissouriForBush
Well, your discussion had been civil, but equating my position with a child who throws a tantrum dashes that thought.

Your religion must be pretty weak or unattractive if you have to usurp governmental property and institutions to shout out your religious dogma.

Our (you and me!) ancestors came to America to escape oppressive European governments. You and I agree with that, but you seem too quick to forget that it was those European governments' religious demands that forced our ancestors to these shores.

Over time our ancestors realized that in seeking relief from Europena tyranny, especially regarding freedom of religion, they had merely substituted their own form of religious tyranny. Out of this turmoil in the land of the free came the U. S. Constitution, which forbids government from supporting any religious sect. Keep church business in the privacy of your home or the privacy of your church, or pass a Constitutional amendment.

Why are you wounded, battered Christians so afraid of changing the Constitution if you don't like what the Supreme Court has mandated? I'll tell you why. It would reveal the weakness of your position and show you that the vast majority of Americans are very comfortable with the current restrictions regarding the religious invasion of governmental actions.

The American West Coast was all native American when our ancestors hit the Eastern seaboard, so please don't denigrate yourself with that silly remark.
42 posted on 10/22/2003 2:21:26 PM PDT by Sonnyw (Religious Crossfire Hits...The World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
You are free to pray in any government building as long as you refrain from using that right to usurpt someone else's right (i.e. you can't shout out your prayer just so you disrupt the governmental business at hand in the building).

The Boy Scouts are free to discriminate against gays, women or atheists... until they take my tax money to do it.

For instance, would you want your tax money going to a prison welfare group that claims reduced recidivism (a legitimate government concern) if Christian inmates are converted to Buddhism? How about tax money going to a Moslem group that builds houses for the poor but refuses to hire Christian contractors? Is that OK with you?
43 posted on 10/22/2003 2:32:30 PM PDT by Sonnyw (Religious Crossfire Hits...The World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Sonnyw
Don't you know what figurative speech is?
44 posted on 10/22/2003 6:17:47 PM PDT by MissouriForBush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Sonnyw
We agree on how it should be, but that is not how it is.
45 posted on 10/22/2003 8:04:08 PM PDT by Blue Collar Christian (Are you saying our founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment for sporting purposes?><BCC>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
fC ...

I don't understand how someone who believes in a creator ... can be attacked on a conservative site --- strange !

rwp ...

To: ContentiousObjector

Creationists are an embarrassment to Christians the world over.

An embarrassment to conservatives, too.


140 posted on 01/30/2003 10:17 AM PST by Right Wing Professor

46 posted on 10/22/2003 8:14:45 PM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MissouriForBush
OK. The words to which I took umbrage were merely a figure of speech. Back to the point of our ancestors and why they came to America. Undeniably, they wanted a haven in which to practice their Christian faith as they saw fit, not how the State saw fit. But the story doesn't end there (as you'd most conveniently like it to end). Our ancestors soon developed their own brand of religious bigotry, exclusion and state support. Here's an illuminating quote from Justice Black, writing the majority opinion in McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 1948.

"It is an unfortunate fact of history that when some of the very groups which had most strenuously opposed the established Church of England [and came to America] found themselves sufficiently in control of colonial governments in this country to write their own prayers into law, they passed laws making their own religion the official religion of their respective colonies. Indeed, as late as the time of the Revolutionary War, there were established churches in at least eight of the thirteen former colonies and established religions in at least four of the other five. But the successful Revolution against English political domination was shortly followed by intense opposition to the practice of establishing religion by law. This opposition crystallized rapidly into an effective political force in Virginia where the minority religious groups such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Quakers and Baptists had gained such strength that the adherents to the established Episcopal Church were actually a minority themselves. In 1785-1786, those opposed to the established Church, led by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who, though themselves not members of any of these dissenting religious groups, opposed all religious establishments by law on grounds of principle, obtained the enactment of the famous ‘Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty’ by which all religious groups were placed on an equal footing so far as the State was concerned. Similar though less far-reaching legislation was being considered and passed in other States.

"By the time of the adoption of the Constitution, our history shows that there was a widespread awareness among many Americans of the dangers of a union of Church and State. These people knew, some of them from bitter personal experience, that one of the greatest dangers to the freedom of the individual to worship in his own way lay in the Government’s placing its official stamp of approval upon one particular kind of prayer or one particular form of religious services. They knew the anguish, hardship and bitter strife that could come when zealous religious groups struggled with one another to obtain the Government’s stamp of approval from each King, Queen, or Protector that came to temporary power. The Constitution was intended to avert a part of this danger by leaving the government of this country in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of any monarch. But this safeguard was not enough. Our Founders were no more willing to let the content of their prayers and their privilege of praying whenever they pleased be influenced by the ballot box than they were to let these vital matters of personal conscience depend upon the succession of monarchs. The First Amendment was added to the Constitution to stand as a guarantee that neither the power nor the prestige of the Federal Government would be used to control, support or influence the kinds of prayer the American people can say - that the people’s religions must not be subjected to the pressures of government for change each time a new political administration is elected to office. Under that Amendment’s prohibition against governmental establishment of religion, as reinforced by the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, government in this country, be it state or federal, is without power to prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored religious activity."

So I ask once again, begging someone out there who claims to be an oppressed Christian and "in the anti-religious crosshairs" of secularists to be succinct and specific: What specific changes in our current laws, their interpretation or their enforcement would you want to change?
47 posted on 10/24/2003 12:51:21 PM PDT by Sonnyw (Religious Crossfire Hits...The World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
Can you please be more specific?

My earlier statements describe exactly how it is today. You are free to pray wherever you please. You are protected from coercion at work or government, which might force you to acknowledge an idol or another religion's sacrements or another religion's symbols. You are protected from being taxed to support Wiccan causes, Jewish causes or Muslim causes. A privately-funded and supported organization can discriminate against anyone due to their sexual orientation, their gender or their religion. And thanks to the constitutionally-protected tax deduction afforded religious organizations, you can find more churches in most communitities than you can find liquor stores or book stores.

Ain't this a great country we live in???
48 posted on 10/24/2003 1:02:25 PM PDT by Sonnyw (Religious Crossfire Hits...The World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Sonnyw
When you think of "waging war against Christians," you'd do well to read the words of Justice Brennan in his concurring opinion in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). (My comments are included within [] in order to aid the discussion.)

“Inevitably, insistence upon neutrality [which has lead to so many Supreme Court decisions that many Christians view as "anti-Christian], vital as it surely is for untrammeled religious liberty, may appear to border upon religious hostility. But in the long view the independence of both church and state in their respective spheres will be better served by close adherence to the neutrality principle. If the choice is often difficult [like telling students they cannot use the PA system to say a prayer before a football game, or telling senior citizens that they are in a tax supported home, so they cannot have a group-led Christian prayer before meals], the difficulty is endemic to issues implicating the religious guarantees of the First Amendment. Freedom of religion will be seriously jeopardized if we admit exceptions for no better reason than the difficulty of delineating hostility from neutrality in the closest cases.”
49 posted on 10/24/2003 3:48:54 PM PDT by Sonnyw (Religious Crossfire Hits...The World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson