Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 08/17/2006 8:21:56 PM PDT by xzins
'China-level' Christian persecution coming: Pastors say court's ruling in Houston Bible case 'breath-taking'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: August 17, 2006 5:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Houston's Bible monument
A few more court decisions like this week's over a display of a Bible in Houston and the United States will be approaching the "China-level" for Christian persecution, according to a leader in the midst of that battle.
The ruling from the Fifth Court of Appeals said the display of a Bible on public ground in Houston to honor the founder of a mission has to go, not because it was unconstitutional itself, but because it became unconstitutional when a Christian group rallied around it.
The pastor's group said that means any monument, building, or even feature of nature is an illegal "establishment of religion" if a church ceremony is held there.
"Connecting the dots between the eminent domain case, which says all of your churches are up for grabs if a town wants a mall, secondly you now have been told you do not have constitutional rights in the public square," Dave Welch, executive director of the Houston Area Pastors Conference, told WorldNetDaily.
"Any kind of an event is okay, as long as you didn't express any religious faith. What is that telling you?
"We're not persecuted yet, we know that. But we're on our way there. Add that to the surprising acceptance of militant Islam, the fear of speaking against that from a Christian standpoint and then we're dangerously approaching the point where we have literally given away and yielded our freedoms that were earned," Welch said.
"We have history, law and the founding fathers who adopted the Constitution collectively affirming the truth expressed by revered Justice Joseph Story in 1840 that, 'We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity,'" said a statement issued by the pastor's group.
Welch told WND that the court's conclusion was "ludicrous" and if followed logically, could mean that a religious rally at any public building would therefore make the building unconstitutional so it would have to be removed.
The Bible was installed on county property about five decades ago in honor of William Mosher, the founder of Star of Hope Mission, and was replaced in 1996 with donated funds. However, an atheist challenged the monument, and on an appeal from the District Court decision that the Bible was unconstitutional, the appeals court carried the argument further.
Its ruling said that the monument became an unconstitutional "establishment" after a 2003 rally was held by Christians to defend the display. That rally involved prayers and clergy, the court noted.
"The ramifications of this tortured decision are breath-taking and without any historic or legitimate Constitutional rationale," said the pastors' organization. "For the court to state that if a private citizen exercises his or her First Amendment rights of religious expression and assembly on public property, that any monument, building or fixed item of any kind that contains religious references becomes 'establishment of religion' is simply irrational."
The conclusion, if applied nationwide, would result in the sandblasting of hundreds of monuments and buildings "including the capstone on the Washington Monument, which reads, 'Laus Deo,' or 'Praise be to God,'" the pastors group continued.
"For this panel majority of two justices to claim that words and actions by private citizens or elected officials with religious content, expressed about a building or monument, convert it from 'secular' and constitutional to 'sacred' and unconstitutional amounts to an act of blatant judicial activism against the freedoms and Constitution," the HAPC said.
The group Battle For The Bible also is working on the case, and Welch said there are experts on constitutional law who have been and plan to continue assisting the county in its fight over the representation of the Bible.
"They are of the opinion this needs to be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, and we're working on that right now," Welch told WND.
He called the logic "twisted" that could conclude the monument once was constitutional, but since "some action by a private citizen" it now becomes unconstitutional.
Because the atheist's lawsuit was against the county over the monument on county land, the pastors and their advisors have been assisting County Attorney Michael Stafford in the fight.
The other thing that needs to happen is to repeal the law that allows the ACLU to automatically recover attorney fees and expenses from any government entity it sues and prevails against.
It only takes about 5% of a population to overcome that 80% if the 80% do nothing.
First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
The author did NOT say we are now like China. he said beware. Can't you read?
You are exactly right. But the bufoons who don't understand that are a big part of the problem and, God help us, they are allowed to vote.
There are several.
The problem is funding. The ACLY lefties got their counterparts in congress to pass legislation that gives them full payment of fees and expenses from any governmental agency they sue and win against.
Apples and oranges.
Then what did it say?
Where is the "concept"? What language in the U.S. Constitution strikes you as the "concept" of church and state.
Huh? You're arguing against yourself.
Time for a Supreme Court Ruling
You realize of course that this article was posted what a week ago, and a few days later it was reversed?
It is exactly what was being said -
Actually I am pretty aware of the true revival that is going on in China - I also personally know 2 Chinese men that were in prison for preaching. But I'm sure you're much more current on it then I am.
I just read the opinion and the author of the article is in large part correct.
I also note that, as per my tag line, plaintiff's attorneys, the ACLU, will be paid about $40,000.
But this was only a district court. There's a ways to go before this is settled. The commies simply won round one, as they often do.
It ain't over.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
The phrase did not originate with Madison, nor did it originate in any of the constitutional debates. It originated in a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson in reference to a minister's concerns about government hostility and interference in the expression of the particular religion expressed at his church, NOT as an admonishment to the minister or to government to avoid public semblances and expression of religion. In fact, for nearly 150 years the USSC ruled that the expression of religion can't be enforced nor prevented by government no matter where or how expressed. It wasn't until the late 40s that some USSC morons ruled otherwise. So much for stare decisis.
Which is why I say this isn't over. The tyranny of the minority will not prevail.
First of all, the U.S. Constitution wasn't written for over another decade after the period you speak of. Further, a group of people praying at a monument is not a threat to peace and good order. The quotation in your last paragraph merely means that the freedom recognizing the expression of religion cannot be used as excuse or reason for otherwise illegal conduct.
He may have ruled the same way even if it did violate the Lemon test, lol! :>
Many wish it was so. If not, they would not be so abusive toward judicial appointments such as Alito.
You are quite right about Alito not having to adhere to precedent in the USSC.
The article about Alito and the Lemon test was just some drivel to relax conservative support for his confirmation because the author of the piece was too stupid to know what you just pointed out - there wasn't a choice for Alito in the circuit court regarding the Lemon litmus test - so he thought Alito wasn't Christian enough.
"Professing" - nice weasel word. This case isn't about merely professing faith or belief in a particular religion. It's about public expression of faith and belief in a particular, broad form of religion known as Christianity.
You can deny the truth all you want, but it's obvious even to a blind man that the public symbols representing that expression are being rapidly dismantled.
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.