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

WorldNetDaily ^ | 17 Aug 06 | WND

[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.

[Jezebelle]

You really are blind, aren't you? Or perhaps just another atheist.

[Jezebelle]

Did you have a point? Or was that strictly informational?

[Jezebelle]

Your entire post, which you can refresh your memory of by clicking on the "To XXX" box at the bottom of the post, which takes you to the post that the post is in reply to.

But of course you know that. You just have no good answer to what I posted to you.

[Jezebelle]

Pick any of the voluminous number of cases in which they've been overturned.

[MuddyWaters2006]

NWOC

[MuddyWaters2006]

NWOC

[MuddyWaters2006]

I dunno. I forgot by now.

[Lancey Howard]

"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.

Okay. This was just two scumbags. There's at least two scumbags on every court. This idiocy will be blown away when decided by the whole court.

[MuddyWaters2006]

Your entire post, which you can refresh your memory of by clicking on the "To XXX" box at the bottom of the post, which takes you to the post that the post is in reply to. Far Out! Ya learned me something new, jez my love. Thank ya, madam.

[Gone GF]

What I described in 132 would be more of a "China-level" persecution. That's not happening in the U.S.

[Gone GF]

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

They've also been active in defending it.

I repeat, I'd like to know if they were actually involved in this case (which will undoubtedly be overturned).

[MuddyWaters2006]

Pick any of the voluminous number of cases in which they've been overturned.

Ok, I pick Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. Now what?


************************************************************

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow

542 U.S. 1 (2004)

Docket Number: 02-1624

Abstract

Decided:

June 14, 2004

Argued:

March 29, 2004

Facts of the Case

Michael Newdow's daughter attended public school in the Elk Grove Unified School District in California. Elk Grove teachers began school days by leading students in a voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words "under God" added by a 1954 Congressional act. Newdow sued in federal district court in California, arguing that making students listen - even if they choose not to participate - to the words "under God" violates the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

The district court dismissed Newdow's complaint for lack of standing, because he and the mother of his daughter are divorced and he does not have custody. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Newdow did have standing "to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter." The Ninth Circuit ruled that Congress's 1954 act adding the words "under God" to the Pledge and the school district policy requiring it be recited both violated the First Amendment's establishment clause.

Question Presented

Does Michael Newdow have standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? Does a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

In an opinion authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court found that Newdow did not have standing to bring suit because he did not have sufficient custody over his daugther. "When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Justice Stevens wrote. Because it found that Newdow did not have standing, the Court failed to reach the constitutional question. Chief Justice Renquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas all wrote seperate concurrences, saying that requiring teachers to lead the Pledge is constitutional.

[tutstar]

Tell me I'm not in the Twilight Zone!


Baptist Ping (wag moral absolutes candidate)

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

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.

Well, this article has reached a WorldNetDaily level of hyperbole--oh, that's why, never mind.

[JamesP81]

"Any kind of an event is okay, as long as you didn't express any religious faith. What is that telling you?"

That if the American experiment isn't dead, it's terribly close.

[CindyDawg]

DC too.

[CindyDawg]

I think suing ought to be a last result but....a bunch of class action law suits against the ones messing with our civil rights might shut some of this down. Any of you lawyers want to get rich (er)?

[Stone Mountain]

Why did I know it was a WorldNetDaily piece just from the title?

[MuddyWaters2006]

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.


Naw, they just wanted to abolish religion as is evidenced by the following excerpt from the House debates during the proceedings that produced the First Amendment.

"Saturday, August 15, 1789:

The House again went into a Committee of the Whole on the proposed amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Boudinot in the chair.

The fourth proposition being under consideration, as follows: Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert 'no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.'

Mr. SYLVESTER had some doubts of the propriety of the mode of expression used in this paragraph. He apprehended that it was liable to a construction different from what had been made by the committee. he feared it might be thought to abolish religion altogether."

[WKUHilltopper]

for later read...