'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.

[Old_Mil]

Only in America could a group that comprises 80% of the population, including the president and most members of congress claim the title of persecuted.

If this was true, then the traffic on Sunday morning would be about as bad as it is on Monday morning. Instead, we live in a society where the traffic at 2:00am on a Friday night is heavier than it is at 10am on a Sunday morning.

[MuddyWaters2006]

If you think that Christians ought not to get involved in Government.

By what logic did you make the long leap from Matthew 22:21 to "Christians ought not to get involved in Government?"

Founding Father Isaac Backus in 1773 wrote that, "We view it to be our incumbent duty, to render unto Caesar the things that are his, but...not to render unto him any thing that belongs only to God..."

It was evident to Isaac Backus, and the Baptists of Massachusetts who he represented, that God had "always claimed it as his sole prerogative to determine by his own laws" things such as what form his worship should take, who should administer his worship, how his ministers should be supported, how one should be baptized, who has received the gift to minister and has authority to preach the gospel. Isaac Backus served as a delegate to the Massachusetts Convention that adopted the U. S. Constitution.

He was obviously a Christian and he obviously did not believe that Christians ought not to get involved in Government. What he most likely believed was that "the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, and religion is a concern between God and the soul, with which no human authority can intermeddle."

If a Christian civil officer uses the authority of his office to intermeddle in religious matters he, violates God's law, the spirit of the U. S. Constitution and the sacred right of conscience. When President George Washington issue his famous 1789 Religious Proclamation he was intermeddling in religious matters and trespassing upon the authority of God Almighty.

[P-Marlowe]

When President George Washington issue his famous 1789 Religious Proclamation he was intermeddling in religious matters and trespassing upon the authority of God Almighty.

So when you become President, you lose your first amendment free speech rights? You throw your religious convictions out the window and you only serve the secularists and the atheists?

[ru4liberty]

I have one word for you: Incrementalism

Find out what incrementalism has produced in America here.

[MuddyWaters2006]

when you become President, you lose your first amendment free speech rights?

I speak from the view of the Jeffersonian republicans. Saint George Tucker, as professor of law at the College of William and Mary and one of the leading exponents of Jeffersonian republicanism, in 1803, published the first extended, systematic commentary on the United States Constitution after its ratification and later its amendment by the Bill of Rights. Tucker wrote, "Liberty of conscience in matters of religion consists in the absolute and unrestrained exercise of our religious opinions, and duties, in that mode which our own reason and conviction dictate, without the control or intervention [involvement] of any human power or authority whatsoever. This liberty though made a part of our constitution, and interwoven in the nature of man by his Creator." On the question of religious recommendations, Tucker wrote: “"The proclamation of the two former presidents recommending fasting and prayer, were of this nature; they were an assumption of power not warranted by the constitution, or rather prohibited, by the true spirit of the third article of amendments [the First Amendment]"

A government officer, employee or agent has no First Amendment or free speech right (or any other right) to assume any sort of jurisdiction, authority or power over the religion of his fellow man. God has absolute and exclusive authority, including the authority to use reason and persuasion, in matters of religion.

The civil governments of the temporal sphere have no legitimate authority whatsoever over religion, not even the "recommendatory" authority to issue religious recommendations to fast, pray, give thanks or express public humility via Executive or Congressional proclamations.

[justche]

Look, I'm not disputing that religious rights are being eroded - my beef is with the henny penny scare tactics of WND and some other folks around here. If the only response is posting in a forum about it, we deserve what we get - if we want to start reversing these things, we need to be front and center in elections, and recall efforts, etc.

[MuddyWaters2006]

"Religion", as the word is used in the establishment clause, means "the duty we owe to our Creator." The duty to place ourselves "under God" and to "trust in God" are duties we owe to the Creator, and are therefore "religion" as the word is used in the establishment clause.

[P-Marlowe]

Tucker wrote: “"The proclamation of the two former presidents recommending fasting and prayer, were of this nature; they were an assumption of power not warranted by the constitution, or rather prohibited, by the true spirit of the third article of amendments [the First Amendment]"

And Tucker was wrong. Nothing in Washington's proclamation was mandatory, it was simply a suggestion. Tucker himself forgot the words he wrote just a few sentences before, "Liberty of conscience in matters of religion consists in the absolute and unrestrained exercise of our religious opinions, and duties, in that mode which our own reason and conviction dictate, without the control or intervention [involvement] of any human power or authority whatsoever."

The Constitution does not prohibit the President from making such proclamations as he pleases. The president has the Liberty of Conscience guaranteed by the Constitution and as long as he does not compel any person to pray or fast, he can call for prayer and fasting anytime he so pleases. Those who are like minded will pray and fast and those who are not like minded are free to ignore the proclamation or to vote the guy out of office.

The power of the executive branch is delegated to a single man. That man does not give up his freedom of speech or his freedom of religion by simply taking an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. He is certainly free to ask America to join him in fasting and prayer. To take that away from the President is to take the presidency out of the hands of the man. That would be unconstitutional.

[MuddyWaters2006]

Tucker was wrong. Nothing in Washington's proclamation was mandatory, it was simply a suggestion.

Maybe he was right or maybe he was wrong. It was made a political issue which was decided, during the Early Years of the Republic, in favor of the view of Saint George Tucker and the Jeffersonian republicans. From 1789 to 1861, there were only five religious proclamations issued at the request of Congress. If we scored the contest as they do football, the Jeffersonians kicked butt 71 to 5. (It all changed with that ole deluder Abe Lincoln and the rise of Counterfeit Christianity)

God has absolute and exclusive authority over religious suggestions. The government, including the President, has none whatsoever.

[P-Marlowe]

From 1789 to 1861, there were only five religious proclamations issued at the request of Congress.

I thought we were discussing the religious proclamations of the president. The president is a man. The president has free speech rights. Congress has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and the issuing of religious proclamations is arguably not one of them.

But the president is a man. The office is vested in a man. That man has the same free speech rights and free exercise rights as president that he had as a citizen. He can make whatever religious proclamations he wants and as long as they are not binding or as long as they do not carry with them the force of law, they do not violate either the spirit or the letter of the Constitution.

I think we've beaten this horse to death. You may have the last word.

[NewLand]

Journey of one thousand miles begins with a single step.

Repressive income taxes began with a single percentage.

All socialist and repressive controls are incremental.

It's people like you who deny reality that enable repression.

It needs to be stopped now, not when it's too late.

[xzins]

That doesn't wash with what was meant by an establishment of religion in the founders' era.

[Tall_Texan]

Have the church groups meet and pray at the ACLU offices until they are declared unconstitutional...

[xzins]

makes sense to me. :>)

[MuddyWaters2006]

What do you believe was meant by the phrase "an establishment of religion" during the founders' era and in the establishment clause. The phrase was novel in 1789, in the sense that the exact phrase had never been used before in English or American law. Tell me what principles of interpretation you followed to arrive at your interpretation of the phrase.

[MuddyWaters2006]

the president is a man.

True

The office is vested in a man.

True

That man has the same free speech rights and free exercise rights as president that he had as a citizen.

Mmmmm....true. But, there is no right to assume recommendatory authority over the people's religion under the guise of free speech; and the right of the President to exericse his religious sentiments according to the dictates of his conscience, does not grant him authority to use his civil office to give us relgious advice recommendation or suggestions regarding the things that are God's.

He can make whatever religious proclamations he wants

He should not issue religious advice under the color of his civil office. He should do it as a private citizen at his own expense, or he should explicitly inform us that he has authority directly from God to specifically issue specific advice to the people regarding the things that are God's; and provide us evidence to establish that he speaks for God such as telling us how, when and where this information was communicated to him by God and why we should believe him. As I recall, God has never ever granted any human being general authority to speak for him without also providing very convicing evidence of that grant of jurisdiction.

and as long as they are not binding or as long as they do not carry with them the force of law, they do not violate either the spirit or the letter of the Constitution.

God has the authority to issue us non binding religous recommendation that do not carry the force of law. Please tell me how, when and where God granted the government co-equal advisory jurisdiction with him, over matters of religion?

[freedumb2003]

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.

[Smokin' Joe]

Thank you for posting that! I like it!

[xzins]

"China-level" for Christian persecution, according to a leader in the midst of that battle.

What country do you figure that "leader" is from?

[freedumb2003]

What country do you figure that "leader" is from?

I don't know what country, but he seems to come from the State of Apoplexy.