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.
I must have uploaded the pre-updated version
"Have you seen these words: "Separation of Church and State" in the U.S. Constitution?"
I have seen the concept in the U.S. Constitution. Does that count?
Bad paragraphing on the part of the editor. It's obvious that it's saying that this is the pastor's group's interpretation.....probably based on their lawyer's viewpoints.
Do you agree that the above is a fact?
Greg is simply a very visible target. He's out there on the frontlines and taking the hits for those of us in the trenches.
Alex won't let me post to him, so thanks for coming to Greg's defense.
A Fellow Harvest Crusader.
What difference does it make if the Constitution does not contain the words, "Separation of Church and State." It doesn't say "the people can bury their dead." Does that mean there is no right to do it?
Huh?
"I, too, wish I could see some kind of synopsis of the entire case. Nonetheless, I expect that this report is close to the truth."
The report ain't even close to what the opinion actually says.
Staley vs. Harris County Opinion at http://www.txs.uscourts.gov/notablecases/03cv3411_46.pdf
This is just wrong, and is getting way out of hand. What are we going to do about it. Unconstitutional alright, but against our freedom of religion. It seems only Islam is protected in our country these days. Something is very wrong here.
It matters because the subject has been treated by the media as if it were part of the constitution. Many are suprised to learn that the US Constitution does not contain the words "separation of Church and State." Nor did the Articles of Confederation.
There is no similarity at all with burial of the dead.
Hey, P-M, about the link to the court case in post #70 is there any legitimacy in the pastors' interpretation that part of this ruling had to do with a rally around the monument?
Free exercise means that my exercise cannot be impeded, curtailed, shortened, dictated, etc.
It was part of the judge's reasoning. Since Christians rallied to save the bible (after the ACLU and athiest liars and perjurers- who testified that they were "offended by it" - hogwash!!), it was seen as evidence of a religious purpose and thus a violation not of the constitution, but of the infamous and invisible Lemon Test clause.
The opinion states (quite correctly) that the Supreme Court has established the Lemon Test, but has given little if any guidance as to how to apply it.
Hopefully this will be appealed. The decision is clearly another badly reasoned decision which is based not on the constitution itself, but on the stupid Lemon Test, which apparently has become more a part of the constitution in judicial circles than the very words of the Constitution itself.
Hopefully (now that O'Connor is gone - good riddance) the SCOTUS will take up the Lemon Test and squeeze the life out of it.
Thanks, PM.
The Lemon Test must go.
It must be replaced with the constitutional test:
1. Did any governmental body establish a religion for an area under their jurisdiction.
2. Did any governmental body prohibit anyone's free, unimpeded exercise?
I really like your profile page.
Calvin and Hobbes rules!
AMEN!!!
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.