Limbaugh Shows How Intolerant 'Liberals' Wage War on Christianity

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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?

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.”

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.