'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.

[xzins]

I hadn't welcomed you to FR, MW2006. I just noticed the 2006 on your name. Welcome.

Grammatico-historic

What principle do you follow?

"Henry Abbot to James Iredell (from the N. Carolina Convention, 1788), "I am for my part against any exclusive establishment, but if there were any, I would prefer the Episcopal."[2]

[xzins]

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

If one is able to probe the sentence, one can guess which country the person is from who made the statement.

What battle is "that battle?"

What country do you think he's from?

[freedumb2003]

What country do you think he's from?

I assume you are going to tell me he is from China.

That doesn't exempt him from hyperbole. Unless things have gotten much, much, much bettrr for Christians in China than I have been led to believe.

[xzins]

It appears that you read the text the same way I do.

The man/woman speaking those words could be from that persecuted group in China.

If that's the case, then his/her opinion is based on that person's experience from within China. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

[freedumb2003]

If that's the case, then his/her opinion is based on that person's experience from within China. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Good thing that things are going well for Christians in China.

[xzins]

If other evidence comes forward that this article is out of line, then I'll say so. But those in China that I have read indicate that it is not going well there.

Of course, the word "approaching" is loose, isn't it? It could be more precise.

[Cvengr]

For the person who has faith in Christ the comparison is real. For the person who only lives by the flesh and worldly standards, such things are foolishness because they don't have the ability to understand the things of the spirit.

[justche]

You win the most condescending post of the day - Implying that I disagree because of lack of faith in Christ is the furthest thing from the truth - but then discernment might not be your gift - which is why you fall for the "sky is falling" routine.

[P-Marlowe]

Please tell me how, when and where God granted the government co-equal advisory jurisdiction with him, over matters of religion?

See last sentence of post 190.

Thanks.

Marlowe

[Cvengr]

You misread my intent.

The people who base their decisions against believers in the Fifth Court case are exercising a lack of faith in Christ, the same as those who enforce regulations against believers in China.

One can live through faith in Christ, while respecting the legitimate authority inherant in divinely established institutions, such as national governance.

The court case manifests a lack of respect for the faith in Christ in all things, as exercised by believers. In so doing IMHO, violates the Constitution by attacking the believer's worship.

[justche]

I didn't misread anything - but thanks for clarifying what you originally meant to say.

[MuddyWaters2006]

I thank you, sir, for the warm welcome.

When interpreting the Constitution, I follow the principles set forth by Joseph Story in the chapter on "Rules of Interpretation of the Constitution" in his "Commentaries on the Constitution."

[MuddyWaters2006]

What principle do you follow?

These are first several rules I use to construe the Constitution. They are derived from Story's Chapter on Interpreting the Constititon:

The first and fundamental rule of interpretating the U. S. Constitution is that our ultimate object is to construe it according to the meaning of the words and the intention of the bodies that gave it legal effect.

The intention of a law is to be gathered from the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, and the reason and spirit of the law.

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification, not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

If the words are ambiguous, the next step is to determine if their meaning may be established by the context, or by comparing them with other words and sentences in the same instrument.

If the word(s) are still ambiguous, the next step is to examine other writings upon the subject-matter of the provision which we are trying to interpret, to see how the word(s) are used in those writings.

If the word(s) are still ambiguous, the next step is to consider the reason and spirit of the law, or the causes, which led to its enactment. These are often the best exponents of the words, and limit their application.

At this point, examine the effect and consequence of your construction. If its literal meaning involves a manifest absurdity, it ought not to be adopted

If there is still uncertainty, more interpretation is necessary. Go back to Story's chapter on Interpreting the Constitution.

[teawithmisswilliams]

Can you give any examples of the ACLU defending the expression of Christianity in any case in the last 10 years?

They have been overwhelmingly hostile to Christianity for as long as I can remember...

[LIConFem]

All your church are belong to us!

Or something...

[xzins]

:>)

[linda_22003]

Yes. Here are a few examples.

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16471

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=548951&page=1

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/005/22.64.html

[teawithmisswilliams]

I'm glad to see the ACLU throws Christians an occasional bone. The ACLU "handles" over 6,000 cases annually, and the vast majority are overtly hostile to Christianity.
Apparently, they will defend an individual Christian's right once every few years to appease a rightly suspicious public "Discover the Network" has more:

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6145