Replies

If one accepts the bastardization of the Constitution that "no single religion can be given preference over another,"

It's not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but that was the thinking among the Fathers around that time:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." -- -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

It's not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but that was the thinking among the Fathers around that time:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." -- -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

That's interesting, but I'm not buying your interpretation. There is a vast difference between affording a religion "protection" and giving one "preference." All religions are protected, but it is obvious that neither Islam or Hinduism has ever been our preferred religion. Our nation should not allow prayers to Satan in the senate - the apparent goal of the ACLU and our opponents on the Left. The Judeo-Christian ethic is given preeminence throughout our history and it has been acknowledged by the Supreme Court that this is so:

Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian. We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. . .because of a general recognition of this truth, the question has seldom been presented to the courts. . . . There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people. . . . And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Executors, this Court . . . observed: "It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law . . . ." These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation . . . we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. . . . The happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality. . . . Religion, morality, and knowledge [are] necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind. . . .(Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892)

It is not until the influx of secular humanist philosophy in the courts that we see a historical shift - and not for the better.

The first Muslim prayer was given in the U.S. Senate in 1992. If your broad interpretation of Jefferson's words are correct, one would have expected that to occur much sooner. Our nation and laws are not founded on Muslim or Hindu principles.

I can find many more quotes to support my supposition than you can yours. If we continue down this road to multiculturalism while denying our plain heritage, enslavement will result. The secular humanist religion is the real threat to our liberty, not Christianity.

Recommended reading: America's Real War, by Rabbi Daniel Lapin.

Moral Absolutes Ping.

More on this case - and a response to the claim that everything that claims to be a religion should be given a platform equally.

Giving protection to every religion is one thing; giving pseudo-religions the opportunity to publicly pray in front of people who DO NOT WANT TO LISTEN TO THE FAKE RELIGIOUS PERSON is entirely different.

I suppose this "witch" claims membership in Wicca, which is a faux cult/sect invented by an Englishman in the 1940s out of a hodge podge of various dibs and dabs of this and that.

Freepmail me is you want on/off this pinglist.

Note: The County Board of Supervisors should certainly be able to pick and choose whose prayers, if any, they'd like to hear.