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.
LOL! I was wondering when I became a Baptist!
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
what is your point?
The very notion that a public monument cannot be erected for a religious reason is already wrong. Religion is something that is publicly exercised. The sad fact is, freedom of religion was lost not now but when someone invented the idea that the intent behind every monument must be secular.
ROFL
I am the blonde ok? But there's always room for another Baptist! 8^]
Except that I'm Catholic and we seem to "disagree" on a few issues.
But here's a great thread on blondes if you're interested. :-)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1585939/posts
We have to get the judges out. This is NOT a country run by judges. It is a republic run by representatives ELECTED by the people.
"But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuig invariably the same Object (read, agenda) evinces a Design to reduce them (We the People) under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, TO THROW OFF SUCH GOVERNMENT.' (Declaration of Independence).
If the New York City Police Department can display a Koran, I don't think it's asking too much to have a Bible on display.
My point is that what you see in the U.S. is absolutely NOTHING like China-style repression of religion. Not even close. To say it's similar is completely silly and way too hyped on the rhetoric.
I of course do not know the circumstances of the two men you speak of. But, if they were organizing an underground church, then they were not arrested for preaching (unless it was the crazy Fulon Gong). They would have been arrested for illegal assembly - after being warned to stop at least once.
As for Christianity in China, more than one Buddhist has complained the Christianity is the most popular religion and that so many are practicing it.
That is likely the reason why there are sections of department stores where you can find so much Christian related merchandise (statues of Jesus, prayer hands, Jesus on a Cross, etc). for sale.
Nobody said it was.
"Now what?"
The 9th misinterpreted precedent as to standing.
What's your point?
The answer to this ridiculous problem has become obvious. Change the name of Christianity to something else. Call it Islam, or Buddhism. Sure, the muzzies will piss and moan about it, but you've just totally undercut the liberal fascists. Now they can't discriminate against Christians, because they're Muslims. In name only, of course.
The national motto is "In God We Trust."
It is in our national anthem, final stanza.
It is on all our money.
Obviously, to rule that "Under God" in a flag pledge is out of order would be to say that many things which have been around for scores of years, uncommented on by any court, are suddenly unconstitutional.
Lemon Test: like Marlowe says, the LT says what the judge feels like making it say.
Jesus was speaking to a Roman governor.
That verse does not say that Christians are to achew involvement with the political world. And if they get involved, they are not much of a Christian, are they, if they hang their beliefs on the hatrack?
That said, "under God" and "in God we trust" are no more Christian than they are anything else. In sum, there is no religion that is "established."
No foul has been committed.
Holy Cow! Boy do you have both scripture and politics messed up. Have you read the constitution? Did you get past the first three words?
"We The People..."
We ARE the Government. We are Caesar. This is OUR country and that is OUR Constitution.
If you think that Christians ought not to get involved in Government because we should render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, then maybe you should be living in a totalitarian regime, where that saying might make sense.
We are not going to render this government to the atheistic anti-God anti-Christian secularists without putting up a fight. The government belongs to the people and the government should be rendering to the people those things that are the people's. If we let those who run our government become the government, then they will become Caesars and we will be their subjects.
I think the point being that the tools necessary to have such persecution are being put into place.
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.