Prager wants our help to get Biblical Verses back up

Dennis Prager ^ | 7/16/03 | me

[beaversmom]

You've probably heard that the ACLU was successful in getting the Parks service to remove 3 Biblical Verses from the Grand Canyon.

Here's the story just in case someone has seen it yet.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/946848/posts

Some conservatives like Dennis Prager feel like this is the last straw and want to fight back.

He's asking that atheists, believers in other religions, agnostics, Christians, and Jews all get involved to have the plaques put back where they have been for over 30 years. He's actually received letters from atheists who are as outraged as some Christians and Jews.

Today he had a guest from the Arizona state senate that wants to help in the fight.

First off, Dennis would like everyone who isn't happy about this to e-mail, write, or call Gale Norton--Secretary of the Interior--to express displeasure but to do it an a very mannered way.

Second, he wants those same people to e-mail him to let him know if you would be willing to march to the Grand Canyon if the letter campaign isn't sufficient to get the plaques back up.

Third, he wants people to write to State Senator Robert Blendu to let him know that you stand with the Senator to get the plaques back up.

Spread the word.

[thulldud]

Last year, when my younger daughter was recovering from an abusive relationship, drug use, and suicidal depression, her mother and I took her for a road trip. Since her mother has always talked about her childhood visit to the Grand Canyon, I thought that would be a fitting place to go, and off we went. It was April, no crowds, some snow still on the ground(!), and we had a blast. Among the fond memories I have of that time was the discovery of the plaque at the Hermit's Rest. Reading it there, in that setting, was like a balm of healing.

Yes, the ACLU and the liberal elites hold the levers of power in this land, but what good does that do them? Sure, I would like to get the verses back, but more than that I want God to flush them out of their "refuge of lies". Let them openly take the field against Him, and see how long they last. Some will learn in no other way.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***All the other religions will also want the same special treatment. ***

They already have it. Many of the bluffs, mesas and canyons are named after non Judeo-Christian gods.

Oh My Gosh! What if they find out there is a ZION National Park with many Biblical names!

[Consort]

How does a fringe group get so much power?

"We" allowed them to have it.

[Consort]

...and Devils Canyon and Del Diablo, etc.... I was thinking along the lines of giant statues of Buddha or Mohammed or Wiccan and Pagan symbols, etc.

[DPB101]

That is the problem. The courts have removed this issue from the democratic process. Same thing the courts did with abortion. We can write all we want but the courts will rely on their own twisted precedent to knock down any attempt to keep religious expression in the public square.

The ACLU welcomes lawsuits fighting this--the group is awarded legal fees. Millions all across the country.

Wish I had an answer. I don't.

[DPB101]

If it's allowed for one religion only, then it's special treatment. If it's allowed for all religions, then it's a bad idea.

You are relying on post WWII liberal "interpretations" of the First Amendment for your argument. Yes, those decisions are the law of the land but that doesn't make them right.

There is no constitutional basis, no historical precedent for the censorship of religion we see occurring on a daily basis.

[Consort]

You are relying on post WWII liberal "interpretations"...

No. Just common sense.

[Consort]

Are you prepared to say that angry, vile Islam (the religion of fanatical control and murderous mayhem) is on the same plane with Christianity?

It's up to you to study the histories of both religions, if you have the stomach for it.

While I agree that individuals adhering to all religions should be treated equally under the law, there is nothing that compels us to accord equal treatment (or ascribe equal validity) to all religions. That's nutty!

If there is nothing that compels us to do that at present, then something will be put into law that does compel us to do that. It's a familiar pattern. You already know that, of course.

[LibertyAndJusticeForAll]

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0714canyonbible14.html
"FLAGSTAFF - ...
However, the Park Service decided one of the main trails into Grand Canyon may carry the name Bright Angel, and a number of the Canyon's formations can share the names of Hindu gods."

It is ONLY the Judeo/Christian religions that are being attacked. The Bible is what this nation and it's Founding Fathers read and believed. Can't have any of that.
Hindu gods; now they should be kept and preserved for everyone to learn and remember. I mean, just look at the great 3rd world nation that the Hindu religion has built. If you see someone lying in a gutter, you can just turn away and say that it is their Karma, don't interfere. And while we're at it, let's embrace the Caste system. Hindu gods, yeah, let's name more of our country after them.

[DPB101]

No. Just common sense.

No..liberalism. Until FDR stuffed the Supreme Court with marxists, Americans were free to put up Nativity scenes on town greens and display their faith most anyway they chose.

Citizens were allowed to work out who put up what among themselves. You want judges to decide. That is tyranny and absolutely the opposite of what the founders intended when they wrote the first amendment.

Btw..have you noticed certain religions do get special treatment? Muslims are allowed to pray in NYC schools. Congress spent $1 million to build a school in Israel for "Black Israelites"(American citizens) from Chicago.

I don't have a problem with either as a matter of principle. If that is what the voters want, so be it. But let's have some equality under law and extend these rights to all. As the founders intended.

[Consort]

No..liberalism.

You're talking ideology; I'm talking common sense.

Btw..have you noticed certain religions do get special treatment? Muslims are allowed to pray in NYC schools. Congress spent $1 million to build a school in Israel for "Black Israelites"(American citizens) from Chicago.

I believe that favors my argument.

[thulldud]

Noting that the governments instituted among men "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed", and noting further that you ignored my last question, I must dispute your contention. "We" never allowed them this power; this is unjust tyranny.

If we don't stop it, we'll never contain it.

[thulldud]

The Bright Angel trail is named for a rock stratum in the area. If they want to change THAT name, they might actually have to consult somebody outside the Park Service. Removing a Psalm from the Hermit's Rest is bureaucratically safe.

Btw, where do people get off assuming that posting a Psalm automatically confers endorsement of Christianity? Last I heard, it wasn't Christians that wrote the Psalms. Did I miss something?

When I saw the plaques at the Canyon, I had no idea who had donated them, and I still don't. I never heard of the "Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary" and I couldn't tell (without looking it up) what they are, other than that they are probably not Jewish. And, as far as Americans go, they are officially second-class citizens now.

Can you tell I'm a little. . . upset?

[Consort]

Noting that the governments instituted among men "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed", and noting further that you ignored my last question, I must dispute your contention. "We" never allowed them this power; this is unjust tyranny.
If we don't stop it, we'll never contain it.

In the last General Election most of the "governed" gave their "consent" to the Leftist candidate and they outnumber us as the Popular Vote proved. They are the "we" that allowed it to happen and want it to continue. That's the answer to your question.

[djreece]

Consort, on one level, I understand what you are saying when you say "we" allowed it to happen. But on another level, you are very wrong. Over and over again, actions by the ACLU prove very unpopular in polls. The majority of Americans don't WANT public expression of religion shut down. Until recently, many believed they had no choice. The courts had spoken; the matter was settled. With recent overreaching by the Supreme Court and other courts, many Americans are waking up to the fact that the judicial branch has usurped far more power than the Constitution allows, and "we" will move to remind them of their proper role and place.

As for "we" electing leftists who appoint liberal activist judges, the problem is worse than that. Even judges appointed by conservatives have participated in this newfound "divine right of rule" by judges.

[DPB101]

I believe that favors my argument.

Why? Should we censor speech because some don't like what is said? Of course not. Same thing with religion.

I don't care what anyone believes. Neither did the founders. The free exercise of religion was for everyone.

Absurd to claim the founders protected everything from flag burning to teaching about homosexuality in government schools but they wrote the first amendment to ensure that God cannot be seriously mentioned in a the public square.

They didn't. The men who wrote the first amendment attended church in the House of Representatives. They hired clergy to convert the native tribes. They authorized the printing of a bible, they gave land to missionaries, they set aside a day of prayer and thanksgiving, they mandated services in the military, they set aside sections in new townships for the advancement of religion and most of them used the New England Primer (filled with religious teachings) as a textbook when they were children.

[DPB101]

Only recently has the ACLU stepped into purging the public square of religion in a big way. The crucial cases were won by Leo Pfeffer, lead lawyer for the American Jewish Congress. In the 1960s, Pfeffer boasted that his court wins had created a "triumph" of "secular humanism" in America and his group's absolutist position on separation of church and state had become the "law of the land."

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is another group which has been in the battle. It was organized in the 1940s by Klu Klan Klan members who feared a Catholic take-over of America.

The ACLU merely is the Marxist wing of the drive to push religion off the stage.

All three groups are, however, now intertwined. One or the other is used depending on how members think an attack will play with the general public. They fear a backlash.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

I have'nt seen them either but suffice it to say they were taken down because they were religious.When is someone going to say to the ACLU,"GO TO HELL"and to the courts,"YOUR RULINGS ARE NO LONGER VALID"!