'China-level' Christian persecution coming: court's ruling in Houston Bible case 'breath-taking'

WorldNetDaily ^ | 17 Aug 06 | WND

[Jezebelle]

The Ninth isn't big on following precedent. They're big on interpreting it to their liking.

[Jezebelle]

It also allows results that are clearly a violation of the free exercise clause which actually IS in the First Amendment, unlike the non-existent "separation" "clause".

[Jezebelle]

What a load of hogwash.

And the Lemon test is CLEARLY arbitrary. It is subject to interpretation. The Free exercise clause is crystal clear.

[Jezebelle]

The First Amendment is not at all ambiguous.

[Jezebelle]

It happens everywhere, constantly. Atheists, part of the Fifth Coumn in America, mock and ridicule Christians every chance they get.

[Jezebelle]

The decision has NOT been reversed. It has been stayed until all appeals are exhausted.

[ArGee]

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.

I agree. But Roy Moore, who defied a Court Order, did not get imprisoned or tortured. There's a world of difference between what we "suffer" here and what Christians suffer in China.

I'm not saying we will never be there, but we aren't on the edge of the precipice.

Shalom.

[MuddyWaters2006]

Many believe the First Amendment's religion clauses are ambiguous, in that there is more that one reasonable interpretation, because the word "religion" was "generally and popularly" used in 1789 to refer to more than one concept or idea.

[MuddyWaters2006]

The "wall of separation between church and state" phrase designates the concept of a government with limited and enumerated powers and no explicit or implied grant of civil authority over religion. Do you want to discuss the intellectual content of the legal concept or play some silly name game with the appellation attached to it by the U. S. Supreme Court in 1878?

[MuddyWaters2006]

"It originated reference to a minister's concerns about government hostility and interference in the expression of the particular religion expressed at his church."

Which government was expressing hostility or interference with the minister's particular religion and how was this being done?

[Gone GF]

I keep seeing the ACLU mentioned in this thread. Anybody have a link showing they actually have anything to do with this?

[Gone GF]

"We are not exoeriencing that level...yet. But we will, and the entire point of this article is to show how close we really are."

Yeah, just the other day the police broke down the doors of our Baptist church, dragged half the congregation off to jail, and tortured the pastor. And it's getting so you can't even find a church any more -- they've all had to go in hiding with secret services. I mean, my area used to have hundreds of churches but they're all gone now.

[MuddyWaters2006]

"""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."""

The U. S. Supreme Court never had to rule on the issue of "free exercise of religion" until 1878 when George Reynolds appealed his bigamy conviction claiming that the law prohibited him from freely exercising his duty to take more than one wife.

In its opinion in the case styled "Reynolds V. U. S" (1878), the U. S. Supreme Court observed that "the word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution" and that "we must go elsewhere to ascertain its meaning."

The Court found it appropriate to go the history of the times in the midst of which the "free exercise of religion provision" was adopted. The precise point of the court's inquiry was, "what is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed?"

The Court made a fast dash for the definition of "religion" that James Madison used in his famous 1786 Memorial and Remonstrance. That definition was, "the duty which we owe to our Creator."

When we replace the word "religion" with the meaning ascribed to it by the Reynolds Court, the result is,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of the duty which we owe to our Creator, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

[MuddyWaters2006]

"""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."""


I cannot respond to you message because you did not post in quotation marks the comment you are responding to. I don't know what you are talking about and I am much to lazy to try and figure it out.

[MuddyWaters2006]

"""The Ninth isn't big on following precedent."""


What precedent did they fail to follow, my sweet Jezebelle?

[Antoninus]

More and more it appears that "separation of church and state" = "atheism is the state religion."

Is that really what the Founding Fathers intended? I don't think so. The time for massive displays of civil disobedience over this issue is almost at hand.

[beckysueb]

I remember when I was a kid in the 60's and there was talk of in the future Bibles would be against the law. I thought no way. That could never happen.

[Jezebelle]

Those who claim the First Amendment is ambiguous simply wish it to be so. That is the first idea they must promulgate in order to tear it down.

[Jezebelle]

You need to do some more reading about the how the phrase came about.

[Jezebelle]

The ACLU has been extremely active in the assault on expression of Christian faith.