| Aww man! Enough of the fundraiser posts!!! |
|---|
 |
| Only YOU can make fundraiser posts go away. Please contribute! |
Posted on 10/05/2003 11:50:01 AM PDT by Bob J
"America Without Jesus "
By Hans Zeiger
In her letter, the playground coordinator wrote, "Because the Saint Edward State Park Playground is located on public land, our intent and unwritten policy for all of the 511 bricks sold was to engrave only non-religious requests in order to uphold the separation of church and state as dictated by our state constitution."
Last week, the American Center for Law and Justice filed suit against the state of Washington for violating the freedom of speech and religion of Dan and Olga Buchanan. Not only has the state denied the First Amendment rights of a couple of generous donors, the state has positioned itself in stark opposition to Jesus Christ.
In speaking of Jesus Christ in Isaiah 53, the prophet writes, "He is despised and rejected of men." Here in America, Jesus Christ remains despised and "rejected" of men. But the type of rejection that is now happening in America is on a scale indicative only of a nation drowning in irreligious self-interest and anti-Christian relativism.
America's government is not officially Christian, but its people ought to be. As John Adams wrote, "The constitution is only fit for a moral and religious people."
On top of the multitude of lawsuits and city council decisions and judicial laws that have arisen in recent months concerning the Ten Commandments, we are now told that a fundraiser brick paid for with private dollars and containing the word "Jesus" is an offense to the public domain.
America needs Jesus. The extent to which our government now goes to prohibit mention of His name is characteristic of government's general attitude toward a variety of issues involving our nation's Christian culture and heritage.
In Washington State, where state park officials told the Buchanans that "Jesus" is off limits, the state House of Representatives passed a rule last year banning the mention of Jesus Christ in prayers on the house floor. Last month, a Wiccan high priestess in South Carolina won a lawsuit against the City of Great Falls leading to a similar censorship of Jesus' name at city council meetings. And earlier this year, a California appellate court ruled that city councils in California are not allowed to use the name of "Jesus" during their invocations.
Like the Buchanans, Robert and Mildred Tong of Chicago bought a $50 brick at Senn Park in July, intending to have a message to their young children engraved, "Jesus is the cornerstone." Chicago Park District officials denied the request, telling the Tongs that their request was inappropriate because it would appear as "endorsing expressions of religious beliefs."
The Christians of America have never experienced religious repression like that which is constantly inflicted on Christians in places like Sudan, China, Somalia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, or North Korea. But as the title of David Limbaugh's new book Persecution suggests, America's neglect of spiritual acceptance in the public square is becoming a dangerous new veracity.
What we are experiencing is a radical privatization of faith. Largely unchallenged, the privatization of faith occurs at the same time as government at all levels refuses to privatize the functions of social power it has usurped. Government has taken upon itself the burden of duties once reserved for church, family, and private organizations.
Enlightened from the filching of moral and civic responsibility, the social institutions of America have fallen to napping at the helm while the political institutions - using the public schools and a thousand other programs - have molded a generation of Americans dedicated to the false faith of moral relativism.
The privatizers of faith are the same social engineers who demand universal public health care, who embrace public welfare, who bid a nation to come learn their simple doctrine of the solitary value of tolerance. That is, except tolerance for Christians.
To reverently speak the name of Jesus Christ in public is today an offense more rank than to take His name in vain while condemning the existence of absolute truth. To prohibit the name of Jesus in public was once the death wish of ideologically insane communists and humanists. Today, strict secularism has become the unconditional demand of bureaucrats and legislators and judges at all levels of government.
Given the immensity of the government monster that has grown up in opposition to the name of Jesus and other references to God's Word, Christians can easily choose to shut up and be silent, ashamed to speak the name of Jesus Christ.
We can choose to join the deadly fight in the flesh that will claim the flesh of America. Or we can get back to fighting the war of the spirit. As Douglas MacArthur said, "It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh."
Hans Zeiger is president of the Scout Honor Coalition. He is a Seattle Times columnist and a freshman at Hillsdale College in Michigan. Contact: hazeiger@hillsdale.edu
The brilliance of the founders was that they were all Christian yet they chose a secular form of government. This was done to prevent the tyranny and mischief that can be wielded with religion.
| Aww man! Enough of the fundraiser posts!!! |
|---|
|
| Only YOU can make fundraiser posts go away. Please contribute! |
Respect for minorities is Holy. But the minority must also respect the majority.
Perhaps there really are Satanists in these organizations, who feel they must fight any mention of Jesus ever. Short of this, I can't understand it.
Did I miss something here? Guess they'd better rename the darn park to Mr. Edward or Sir Edward or something else....sheesh!
Last time I looked, Christians recognize sainthood, so government absolutely must not in order to be politically correct.
Like the Buchanans, Robert and Mildred Tong of Chicago bought a $50 brick at Senn Park in July, intending to have a message to their young children engraved, "Jesus is the cornerstone." Chicago Park District officials denied the request, telling the Tongs that their request was inappropriate because it would appear as "endorsing expressions of religious beliefs."I went to Moody Church this morning with the Tong's. Pastor Lutzer commented on this very thing . . . when loving G_d is a crime.
If loving God was a crime, I'd be an outlaw I would join the fight They could not shut me down I would stand tall, for what I know is right *Chorus* Would you stand with me for the world to see When all is on the line Would you be ashamed of Jesus name If loving God was a crime The schoolroom, I hear, teaches choices To kids who cannot pray And the unborn I fear, they have no voice in politics today *Repeat Chorus* *Bridge* Take a look around. What will tomorrow hold? It's time to stand our ground. We must be bold. We must be bold. *Organ Solo* If loving God was a crime, I'd be an outlaw. I would join the fight. Will you stand with me for the world to see When all is on the line Will you be ashamed of Jesus name When loving God is a crime When loving God is a crime (3x) (when loving God is a crime) When loving God is a crime I'll be an outlaw When loving God is a crime (repeat and fade)
The ACLU has its roots in communism, btw. It makes sense. Communism, as a belief system, must not have any competition, especially Christianity. For instance, two areas of conflict are covetness vs class warfare and Rights from God vs Rights from the commissar.
IMO, the ACLU is trying to use the constitution against believers. Of course, they twist the original meanings to ultimately try to push God out of the public square. What seems to be incomprehensible is that they are taking incredibily small baby steps to do so. But, try they will nevertheless. They are desperate to form a precident in the mind of the public, IMO.
Amatuer opinion: Their neurosis would simply be called paranoia. This is not a psychosis. However their deeper pathology is a sociopathy. They are sociopathic not really psychopathic. The difference? A pschopath is often self-destructive and sometimes criminal. The sociopath is sometimes self-destructive and often criminal. IOW, you will find many more sociopaths in prison than psychopaths.
Their fear seems to be that they will be challenged on moral authority. Christianity absolutely challenges the morality of the left. Therefore, consistent to the left, Christianity must be neutralized or the left will be neutralized - so says the paranoid sociopaths.
Amatuer opinion: Their neurosis would simply be called paranoia. This is not a psychosis. However their deeper pathology is a sociopathy. They are sociopathic not really psychopathic. The difference? A pschopath is often self-destructive and sometimes criminal. The sociopath is sometimes self-destructive and often criminal. IOW, you will find many more sociopaths in prison than psychopaths.
Their fear seems to be that they will be challenged on moral authority. Christianity absolutely challenges the morality of the left. Therefore, consistent to the left, Christianity must be neutralized or the left will be neutralized - so says the paranoid sociopaths.
Let's see how much you like that argument if you move to a city where muslims become the majority and use that argument to establish Sharia as the official municipal code. There is a difference between prohibiting the state from being partial to any religion and prohibiting something as benign as a child reading a Bible in a public school. By allowing the former you force non-believers of a religion to subsidize a belief they don't subscribe to and by doing the latter you violate that individual's civil rights.
If you don't want your kid to be subject to theories like Evolution then you are free to send your kid to a private school or to home school them. While you're at it, make sure you vote for someone that thinks you have the right to take both your kid and you're money with you to that private or home school session.
It is a sad bit of commentary about most conservatives that they have not learned why from things like this that libertarians believe that the vast majority of issues should be outside the realm of political debate. If you want to protect your rights as a Christian, the only way you can do so is to truly separate the church from the state by giving the state no power to control your non-violent/abusive exercising of your faith. If the first amendment were truly applied to public schools, your kids would have more power to exercise their religious freedoms there, not less.
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.