God cannot be pushed anywhere.
It's been tried before:
Posted on 10/18/2004 12:32:40 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
The Ten Commandments are finally having their day before the Supreme Court, but as former Alabama Chief Justice Ray Moore notes, it’s for all the wrong reasons.
The plaintiffs have taken a unique approach. Their Ten Commandments monuments are historic in nature, they assert that they are part of larger displays of documents with historical significance, and as such, are constitutionally protected from ACLU hunt and destroy missions.
That is, their safe because their motives are secular, not religious.
The Southern Poverty Law Center agrees. They contend that in “neither of these … cases is there concrete evidence out of the mouth of the defendant that he has religious motives,” and so they can sympathize with their cause.
That’s reassuring. And if there WAS concrete evidence, or even a hint of evidence, like ‘so and so is an active Christian,’ what would their position be then? They and their liberal pals would be all over it, you can bet on it. And well, the liberals are anyway.
But even if the Ten Commandments advocates win this time, there’s something wrong with this whole picture, isn’t there?
As I see it, these secular socialists are telling us if you believe in God, if you believe in a clear connection between American law and the Ten Commandments, if you believe it vital that our children and our children’s children understand that connection in the interest of perpetuating the very foundation of the best government, the best set of laws mankind has ever known—you can hold firm to those beliefs, and perhaps be ‘free’ to share them with others (in a very limited, monitored-by-the-state fashion) if you HIDE them, if you RE-CATEGORIZE them, if you LIE about them, and then, IF ONLY the God’s in Robes at the Supreme Court say you can.
This isn’t about neutrality, but hostility toward religion, for neutral is not neutral if you insist that non-neutrals be neutral. And it’s not just about posting the Ten Commandments, but about religious motives in general, in any public venue, on any public issue. Hide your faith. Lie about your motives. And maybe, just maybe, we’ll see something that resembles a public manifestation of freedom of religion, in a direct or indirect way, but not really.
And if you get caught lying, and if you dare come out and tell the truth and assert your faith and the wrong person hears you, they really have a sweet deal for you.
Plain and simple: ‘Hang your head in shame; turn in your commission; throw away your robe; resign from the school district; get out of Dodge! You are a villain of the worst stripe, a Neanderthal, a throw back, an outcast, maybe even a mere serial number in a prison cell, just ask Justice Moore. We took care of him.’
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.
You can’t declare to Christians and Jews that they possess freedom of religion and freedom of speech, so long as you demand that they shut up, so long as you demand that they hide their light and their faith under a bushel, so long as you demand that they never legislate according to their core values, according as their conscience directs. Or so long as they lie.
But maybe that’s what these secularists, these socialists want, a nation full of moral cowards and liars, a nation full of people who values are as empty, as meaningless, as chickenhearted as their own.
And thus a nation which can hardly stay free, because free governments void of moral citizens, void of citizens who comprehend the religious and moral roots of their own laws, or of that stabilizing class of Higher Laws which gave them their inalienable rights, self destruct. And isn’t that the point? Isn’t that what these secular socialists want?
Think about it. They want to push God into hiding. You know it, and I know it.
> You can’t declare to Christians and Jews that they possess freedom of religion and freedom of speech, so long as you demand that they shut up, so long as you demand that they hide their light and their faith under a bushel
Wow. Such astonishing hyperbole. Is this satire?
Maybe. Or maybe they are just so full of hate for Christians that they want to legislate public shame and disapproval on them, while encouraging pride in immorality and anti-God sentiment.
Sometimes I think we believers rely too much on government to protect our religious faith. Years ago, while on vacation in Texas, I heard the pastor of a large Baptist church bemoaning the fact that if Christians weren't careful, the government would essentially wipe out any influence of the church in society.
I say, if we believe in a God of power, let's not get overly concerned about the imminent death of the Judeo-Christian faith in our increasingly secular society. If we have to rely on the GOVERNMENT'S grace and permission, we're already on the doorstep of death.
Religion is not legislated into power nor is it destroyed by a government's legislation.
2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
(Whole Chapter: 2 Timothy 4 In context: 2 Timothy 4:2-4)
"Southern Poverty Law Center"? Worried about the ten commandments? And the connection with poverty is --?
Shameful how they've strayed from their putative purpose of protecting the rights of poor Southern blacks. But the Left's help has always come with strings: the helpee has to subscribe to the whole Leftist agenda: secularism, gay rights, abortion, victimhood, radical feminism, etc etc.
"Alabama Chief Justice Ray Moore "
I think the author meant Roy Moore.
The author might have helpfully cited Roy Moore's serial number and the location of the prison in which he is being held.
Well, either that or he was engaging in goofy hyperbole.
No one is demanding any of these things. The only thing public officials are forbidden from doing is using government resources to advance their religious beliefs.
How tough is that, really?
God cannot be pushed anywhere.
It's been tried before:
The first amendment does not forbid this at all, only the creation of a national church. The Founders themselves used government resources to endorse religious beliefs in many ways so the commie/ACLU interpretation of the First Amendment cant' be correct.
But what do commie scumbag lawyers care about original intent? They only care about suppressing religious freedom and have distorted the Constitution to do so.
Hysterical pieces like this from the right railing about the supposedly eminent "suppression" of Christianity are as bad as the left's rants about the alledged "suppression" of civil liberties under Ashcroft.
Militant atheists have subverted the Constitution in order to ban religious freedom from the halls of government. They distort the establishment clause to mean something the Founders never meant in order to violate the clause which forbids government to ever prohibit the free exercise of religion. They are enemies of the Constitution, enemies of freedom, and enemies of the Republic, and their time of tyranny is coming to an end.
My whole point is that there is essentially no difference between a "fundie zealot" and a "secular bully". Both twist the meaning of the founding documents totally out of shape to justify their agendas of excluding certain individuals from the public debate, and I have no sympathy for either.
No, they're not.
Secular bullies falsify the meaning of the Constitution in order to violate it by forcibly remove religious symbols from public property. I don't know how "fundies" twist the Constitution but I'm sure you have an example.
We sit in dark closets until late at night, and then... *BASH* *BASH* *BASH* Take that stupid monument! *BASH* *BASH* *BASH*
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.