Is banning the Bible next?

Jerusalem Post ^ | Aug. 13, 2003 | Mark Steyn

[twowilliam]

the item titled Is Banning The Bible Next? I replied that
the Bible is the Word of God and since 1881 many have
tried to change it. Your comments concerned the 1871 version of KJV. Back in the early 1600's when we were working on the translation that became known as the King James Version we were in agreement that the best material had been assembled for the work and when the King gave us the go ahead, we divided up and started to work. It seemed to satisfy King James especially when we included the one and ahalf pages of praise for his permission to do it.(joke)

[VOA]

Gays want Christians banned cause they would lose a real debate.

It's not a debate the gay-stoppo fears: it's the idea that a higher power has actually
already pronounced judgement on their activities and dread that they may find out
the true cost of not repenting and changing their ways...

I guess I'd just say they are REALLY afraid that they are just wrong.
Hence the ferocity to extract not just tolerance, acceptance, but actually
embracing by the rest of society.
Or else they'll make sure you can get thrown into jail for what a person
might say (and you know it's coming) or think about them.

[VOA]

Was it true, demanded Senator Russ Feingold, that "you even went so far as to reschedule
a family vacation at Disney World in order to avoid Gay Day?"

My heart was wounded that not one Senator, Democrat or Republican didn't jump in
and say to Feingold "Sir, have you no decency?".

The failure to do so says that the idea that "it's a big country and we can
all get along" was proved dead by this little bit of theater...

[VOA]

...the Democrats delved into his history of homophobic vacationing

For cripes sake...at least Tailgunner Joe had the courtesy to go after
people on issues of national defense!
And not waste his authority on a matter of personal choice.

These Democrats/Libs certainly have a jello-like consistency in their
stance on "the right to privacy".

[f.Christian]

"There is nothing so absurd but if you repeat it often enough people will believe it."

This statement precisely describes the tact utilized by the Court in the years following its 1947 announcement. The Court began regularly to speak of a "separation of church and state," broadly explaining that, "This is what the Founders wanted—separation of church and state. This is their great intent." The Court failed to quote the Founders; it just generically asserted that this is what the Founders wanted.

The courts continued on this track so steadily that, in 1958, in a case called Baer v. Kolmorgen, one of the judges was tired of hearing the phrase and wrote a dissent warning that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of church and state," people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution. That warning was in 1958!

Nevertheless, the Court continued to talk about separation until June 25th, 1962, when, in the case Engle v. Vitale, the Court delivered the first ever ruling which completely separated Christian principles from education.

Secular Humanism

With that case, a whole new trend was established and secular humanism became the religion of America. In 1992 the Supreme Court stated the unthinkable. "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. In 1997, 40 prominent Catholic and Protestant scholars wrote a position paper entitled, "We Hold These Truths," in which they stated, "This is the very ... antithesis --- of the ordered liberty affirmed by the Founders. Liberty in this debased sense is utterly disengaged from the concept of responsibility and community and is pitted against the ‘laws of nature and the laws of nature’s God. Such liberty degenerates into license and throws into question the very possibility of the rule of law itself.

[VOA]

separation of church and state

Whenever the occassion arises, I let liberal friend know that I understand why
liberals/Democrats are so pro-Islamic, pro-Palestinian, pro-terrorist, etc.

"It's because Jefferson never talked about separation of mosque and state..."

I have to be careful...one of these days I'm gonna' say that to some cardiac case...

[VOA]

bump for publicity...