Federal Judge Makes It Official -- America Now an Atheist Nation

The issue isn't a granite stone with the Ten Commandments inscribed on it. Never has been. The issue is much more diverse and important than a piece of stone.

The issue was best stated by none other than Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who said that the display of the stone containing the Ten Commandments (which also contains a host of other historical documents) is illegal. Thompson said the central, most important issue was this: "Can the state acknowledge God?"

That is the issue. Lest we fail to understand what has occurred here, let me explain. A single, lower-court federal judge has bluntly told every American that America is now officially an atheist nation.

In one swift stroke of the pen, Judge Thompson tossed out over 225 years of American history and law. In one swift stroke of the pen, he has instituted a new form of law based on what he wants it to be. Rex has become lex. He wears a black robe and he says he is the law.

Go back and read the First Amendment, the one Judge Thompson destroyed in the name of preserving it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," the First Amendment says. Congress has passed no law establishing religion. But what Congress refused to do, indeed because Congress refused to do it, Judge Thompson did. He instituted as the law of the land the religion of atheism, which says there is no God.

Not only did Judge Thompson usurp the power of Congress, he also took away the rights of every individual and state. The second half of the establishment clause of the First Amendment reads: "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This is precisely what one lower federal judge has done. He told Americans who disagree with his official state religion of atheism that he can and will prohibit the free exercise of their religion -- unless, of course, that religion is atheism. He stripped both Congress and the people of their rights. He set himself above the law because he considers himself to be the law.

From this day forward, our entire judicial system must be based on the religion of atheism. Follow that to its logical conclusion. In the future there will be no frame of reference from which to decide law. Law will become what any person wearing a black robe and sitting in court desires it to be. The First Amendment has been ripped apart in the name of upholding it. Orwell's 1984 has arrived.

No, you will not notice any drastic changes immediately. There is still a remnant left in the hearts and minds of the current citizenry. But when that remnant dies out, those who come after us will see a big difference.

The state will become intolerant of any religion other than atheism. That, of course, will come into conflict with people of conscience whose religion differs from that of the state. That is when the persecution, quite legal I might add, will start. It was the atheist Santayana who said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote: "The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

The public school system and most public universities; even displaying Christian displays has offended athiests and many Christians have been terminatied from public and private jobs for witnessing of the saving grace of God the Father in Christ Jesus. I myself have witnessed on job sites and called to the office and warned not to.

You didn't answer my question. You are citing examples of witnessing (also known as proselytizing), while I asked for examples to bolster your contention that your right to pray is somehow being denied. Words mean things, and people being told not to proselytize on private or government property does not mean the same thing as people being forbidden to pray. Please try again.

It's againgst our constitutional rights

Do you feel that religious speech is unacceptable?

Nope. (Irrelevant question, but Im happy to provide an answer anyway).

And Christians have the right to pray in public places and have manger scenes and easter scenes and Christmas partys just like pagans have earth days and other ridiculous days on public and private property.

Of course Christians have the "right" to pray in public places. No one has nor can anyone stop them from doing so if they wish. I can walk into any government building and pray all I want to, and I defy anyone to stop me. What Christians do not have the right to expect is that tax dollars (from Christians and Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims and atheists and agnostics and the amoral, etc.) be used to support religious speech solely favorable to Christians in any way.

You have a "constitutional" right to proselytize? Please provide the specific passage in the Constitution that grants you the right to do that. And if you say "free speech," I'll merely reply that your right to free speech does not obligate me in any way to listen.

Sterla; you are denying the truth and it has a way of pushing against those who try to deny it. Anyone with eyes and ears and some interest knows that the liberal communist movement in America is the left-wing democrats and green party(mainly funded by trial lawyers and teachers unions, racists and gender biased people,feminists and homosexual advocates),and that they do hate Christians and generally are anti-semites.They admire communist nations and leaders worldwide and would destroy the American Constitution and make the despicable United Nations Charters the new basis of America's laws.Their lies and abuses of the Constitutiion are evident nationwide and only the foolish 1/3 of American's who don't care about America's sovereign status and constitution are unaware and usually don't vote and yet they moan and groan about how"all politicians are liars and thieves". The other two thirds are liberals and conservatives and the respective political parties they vote for or against the politicians that are supposed to represent them within the boundries and limitations of our founding fathers Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The first ammendment plainly declares;

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Note 2 things herein. One, there is nothing here concerning the seperation of church and state, nothing at all though liberal and deceiving federal judges and university professors and many liberal school teacher say there is. I know better. Two; prohibiting free speech or the free exercise of religion ,especially the right to preech the gospel of God and His Christ is part of the establishment clause that liberal liars deny even exists.
Some people(usually those of the athiest belief and faith system want to deny and silence the Christians and Jews from talking about the Glory of the Lord of Hosts.
This is unacceptable and our constitution must be defended. We have an uphill battle as the liberal athiests are aggressive athiest and use the American Communists and Liberals United, the aclu, as one of their persecutors of the Body of Christ and of conservative viewpoints in America.

What Christians do not have the right to expect is that tax dollars (from Christians and Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims and atheists and agnostics and the amoral, etc.) be used to support religious speech solely favorable to Christians in any way.
Christian conservatives, unlike liberals, don't accept or expect the government to pay for our proselytizing or any other thing we pay for ourselves. Christians believe that accepting money from the government is embarassing at best and insulting and degrading at worst, unlike democrats who would accept free rides and overpaid non-working jobs and complaing and or striking whenever possible,never considering the fact that they will drive the government into bankruptsy and the nation into the ground.

You're seeing a whole team of health professionals, aren't you?

You lose.When liberal minded people run out of arguments, they generally attack the person making the argument and not the argument itself.

"

strela, I found this article and thought of you immediatly. Here's a link;
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=index

Chalk Up ANOTHER God-Given Win Against the ACLU in the Battle for Religious Speech!

Every year, hundreds of thousands of young men and women graduate from our nation’s high schools.

For many, one of the greatest thrills of their lives is standing up before their parents and peers to celebrate their hard work and personal achievement.

Many of these students want to use the occasion of their commencement to publicly give thanks to the One who made it all possible: Almighty God, or their “best friend, Jesus”. Sadly, many are denied their constitutional right to do so because of misguided notions of “the separation of church and state.”

At Norfolk (Nebraska) High School, the graduating seniors voted to have two separate prayers, an invocation and benediction, as part of their commencement ceremony. These prayers were non-sectarian. Two students were chosen to deliver the prayers.

One student who did not participate in the vote told his mother, and they went immediately to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU informed the school superintendent and school board that they would take immediate legal action if the prayers were allowed. At the beginning of the commencement ceremony, the school board president told the assembled senior class, along with the relatives and friends: “With deepest regret from the Board and Administration, and with our most sincere apologies to the Senior Class of 2000, we will need to remove the Invocation and Benediction from today’s graduation ceremonies…we are saddened that it has come to this.”

But one school board member had had enough of the ACLU’s bullying tactics. When he got up to speak, he recited the Lord’s Prayer, without asking anyone to bow their heads or stand, in protest of this unconstitutional censoring of religious speech. The result was that the ACLU and the family filed suit against the two members of the school board. The suit was subsequently dropped against the school board president, but the suit against the other school board member remained. ADF National Litigation Academy trained attorney Jeff Downing provided key legal assistance to his defense.

The result? On August 20, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that the school board member was privately opposing the school board’s decision when he included the prayer in his remarks, and therefore was engaging in constitutionally protected speech. The ADF-funded victory in Adler v. Duval County School Board (litigated by our allies and friends at Liberty Counsel) was cited repeatedly in the majority opinion!

This is the exact type of case that would have been lost by default if not for the wisdom of our founders in creating the Alliance Defense Fund, and the prayers and support of our ministry friends. Thank you making another victory for religious speech possible!

Do you feel that religious speech is unacceptable?

Nope. (Irrelevant question, but Im happy to provide an answer anyway).

Here is a link: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/article.php?sid=72

And how about this one. Some Missouri liberal athiests are actually disobeying the American Constitustion and the first ammendment of the bill of rights.

Topic: Religious Freedom
Larry Phillips is a social worker with the Missouri Department of Social Services and always had a perfect employment review. When he voiced opposition to his supervisor about licensing individuals with "alternative lifestyles" (i.e. homosexual behavior), as foster parents, he quickly became subject to persecution from his fellow employees. His supervisor wrote a long negative review about Larry which stated that his "religious beliefs were affecting his ability to perform his job effectively" and that he was "too moral."

Larry requested a transfer to another unit and it was granted. However, the supervisor, who no longer had any authority over him, went ahead and submitted the negative review. Larry was eventually fired from the department. With the help of ADF-backed friend and attorney Frank Manion, Larry filed a claim of religious discrimination and harassment against the supervisor and the department. During the initial trial before the U.S. District Court, a deputy attorney general for the state of Missouri argued that an employee's religious beliefs [like these] could be taken into account when making employment decisions. In October 1999, the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Larry on the discrimination charge. The state immediately appealed to the 8th Circuit Court on the grounds that Larry had failed to establish an adverse employment action and his discrimination claim should fail as a result. In July 2001, the circuit court ruled 3-0 in favor of Larry Phillips. The court said that the supervisor should have known about Larry's religious beliefs and made proper accomodation for them. They added: "...accomodating Phillips' request not to license homosexual couples would have had virtually no effect on his employment duties nor his administration of the division."

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.