The Government has got the first amendment backwards.

Oct 20, 2014 by

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a government redress of grievances. Seems pretty straight forward. But in this new world of Progressives, political correctness, and a government that has far overstepped the bounds set by the Constitution, it has been turned topsy-turvy.

Time and time again, Atheist organizations like the Freedom From Religion group, having nothing better to do with their lives, have filed suit against any person, group, or organization that has even a remote connection to the local, state, or federal government and has anything to do with religion, specifically the Christian Faith. They always cite either the “establishment” clause of the First Amendment, or the “separation of church and state” argument. Both arguments are completely bogus, legally groundless, and have nothing to do with the First Amendment.

In a recent especially egregious example, the openly gay Mayor of Houston Texas, has subpoenaed five Houston pastors to turn over their sermons and other pastoral communications to the city for signs of “political activity”.  Read this story for the whole sordid mess.

Houston Persecution

In another case, two Christian ministers in Idaho are being threatened with fines and jail if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages. Again, you can read the whole pathetic story here.

Idaho Persecution

In the Houston case, it is strange that the Houston Mayor has not subpoenaed any Muslim Imams for their sermons and other communications for signs of “political activity”. But that is a whole other blog post.

The problem with both these cases, and many like them, is that they have no basis in law, especially with regards to the Constitution. The First Amendment was written to protect religion from political persecution, not protect the government from religion. The “establishment clause”, for those like the members of the Freedom From Religion organization who are obviously confused by simple sentences, specifically states  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.  Where in either of these cases is Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion? Right, I did’t read of one either. It further states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, which in both of the above mentioned cases is being violated. If Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, neither can the city or state.

With regards to the argument of “separation of church and state”, that phrase does not even appear in the Constitution. So as far as the Constitution and the First Amendment are concerned, there is no legal ground for the city of Houston or the State of Idaho to pursue harassment and persecution of Christians in this manner. In fact, both cases violate the free exercise of religion as well as abridging freedom of speech. In both instances the Christians are being persecuted by homosexuals although that is not always the case. The Gay Mafia is alive and well and as intolerant of the views and rights of others as any other hate group. How cases like this are even being won is beyond me. Apparently there are many courts and judges who are equally baffled  with the simple wording of the First Amendment or choose to ignore its true and stated purpose and intent.

 

 

 

read more

Federal Judge Usurps State Rights and Misrepresents First Amendment

Nov 11, 2009 by

A federal judge ruled recently that South Carolina can’t issue license plates showing the image of a cross in front of a stained glass window along with the phrase “I Believe.”

U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie ruled that the license plate was unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment ban on establishment of religion by government. Apparently Judge Currie needs to take a remedial course on Constitutional law or else she is deliberately misrepresenting the true meaning of the First Amendment to promote a political agenda.

Let me just quote the First Amendment and then I will endeavor to explain why Judge Currie’s ruling is unconstitutional and misguided.

First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That doesn’t seem so hard to understand, yet it seems many Liberals have their own special interpretation of those simple words. As long as Congress doesn’t make a law that tells Americans that a particular religion is the official state religion to which all people must belong or passes a law that prohibits us from worshiping or not worshiping the religion of our choice, the First Amendment has not been violated. It is as simple as that.

So where does the much abused term “separation of church and state” come from? It is certainly not in the Constitution. The phrase actually came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Baptist Association fifteen years after the Constitution was written. The Baptists were afraid that the state of Connecticut had not granted them an inalienable right to worship their religion, rather the state was allowing them to worship as a “favor.” So they wrote to Jefferson seeking guidance and comfort that they could continue to worship as they would.

Jefferson responded with the words of the First Amendment and also mentioned the “establishment clause” created a “wall of separation between church and state.” What Jefferson meant by those words was that religions were protected from the state, not the other way around. There is also no constitutional protection from being offended by a religious display on government property.

So when a spokesperson for Americans United for Separation of Church and State said government must never be allowed to give favorable treatment to one faith above others, that is not what South Carolina is doing and not what the First Amendment protects against. Putting a cross on a license plate is not the equivalent of the state of South Carolina making a law telling South Carolinians that Christianity is the official state religion to which all South Carolinians must belong. Neither is it passing a law preventing Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or Atheists from practicing their religion. South Carolina is not prohibiting placing religious symbols of those faiths on license plates and only permitting Christian symbols to be used.

So if the agenda of Americans United for Separation of Church and State is to separate church from state, all I can say is good luck because you certainly cannot use the First Amendment as the tool to further your goals. What groups like this really want is to eliminate religion altogether from our country. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are replete with statements that show that the Founding Fathers believed that religion was vital to the continuation of our Republic. To quote President George Washington in his Farewell Address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle.

So when groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State attack religion on false grounds, what they are really advocating is the very destruction of our Republic.

read more

Christianity once again under attack on college campus.

Apr 13, 2009 by

prayerTwo students were threatened with suspension at the College of Alameda after one of them prayed with an ailing teacher in a faculty office. The students, Kandy Kyriacou and Ojoma Omaga said college officials threatened to suspend them for “disruptive behavior”, holding disciplinary hearings and sending them letters warning that they would be punished if they prayed in the teacher’s office again.

The women sued, citing the violation of their freedom of speech, and a federal judge ruled that the two can go ahead and sue the college,  saying a college student has the right to pray in private outside a classroom.

While studying fashion design and merchandising at the two year college the two students took breaks from class to pray with each other and other students on a balcony. On two occasions the students prayed with teacher Sharon Bell at an office Bell shared with other teachers. The second time another teacher entered the office and told Kyriacou, “You can’t be doing that in here,” and the student stopped praying and left.

Ten days later Kyriacou and Omaga received suspension notices, being accused of praying disruptively in class, although the two never prayed in class or during class. In seeking dismissal of the suit, lawyers for the Peralta Community College District argued that the school was entitled to designate faculty offices as “places for teaching and learning and working,” and not for “protests, demonstrations, prayer or other activities” that would be disruptive.

The students countered that they were being punished for the content of their speech, not its disruptiveness. I do not see how you can lump prayer with demonstrations and protests. How is praying in a private office disruptive? Disruptive to who? The teacher who was praying did not complain and there were no other students in the office.

This is clearly a case of discrimination against Christians on campus. I will bet that Muslims are allowed to pray on campus where ever and whenever they want. Yet when two Christians get together to pray in a private office it is deemed “disruptive” by college officials. A two-faced spokesman for the college said its leaders “respect freedom of speech and the First Amendment.” But that respect obviously does not include Christians at the College of Alameda. I don’t think that one teacher bowing her head in prayer is an endorsement for a particular religion.

As Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute said,

It is alarming that a publicly funded college would seek to suspend and expel students for praying on campus, then dig in its heels to defend an untenable, unconstitutional position.

Amen to that.

read more