This 'religion' thing

The Washington Times ^ | Balint Vazsonyi

[dennisw]

Which brings us to the mounting interference with Christian practices from Jewish sources. I submit it is unseemly, in poor taste, possibly downright arrogant for any member of the Jewish community to tell American Christians where they can pray, mention God, or exhibit a Jewish family in the form of a Nativity scene. Here is why. In 1787, Americans agreed to the Jewish request of no religious test for any office; they provided safe haven from the beginning, through the Russian pogroms, Adolf Hitler's "Final Solution" and Josef Stalin's rabid persecution; they died liberating death camps; they singlehandedly maintain the state of Israel; they set up a Menorah in front of the White House. Let no one presume to judge where these same Americans may erect a Christmas tree.

GOOD WORDS! My fellow Jews must BUTT OUT!

[Polybius]

My Post 112 was meant as a reply to the original article and not a personal reply to Uriel11975.

This new thread format with pagination takes a little practice getting used to.

[Nebullis]

No "shift". If you'll notice, that's what the posted article concerns -- the public schools.

No, as I had to point out to OWK, the article uses the public school examples to discuss the larger issue of religion in the public spere. Perhaps you just skimmed the first few paragraphs to launch into one of your favorite diatribes and skipped the rest of the article which point to the scope the author writes about:

"Perhaps the terrible wake-up call of Sept. 11 will restore our memory of some essential truths, suppressed by the campaign — launched during the 1960s — to alter this country beyond recognition. One has to do with the reasons for America's success, the other with the implied contract under which newcomers used to be admitted." and "

Thus, preserving America's approach to matters religious is essential, partly to "insure domestic tranquility," and partly because the rest of the world still cannot deal with religious strife. "

[Uriel1975]

Perhaps you can tell me what religion was established with the words "God Bless America"? 110 posted on 10/16/01 7:37 AM Pacific by jwalsh07

BZZZZZT. Wrong question. I'm not even addressing the First Amendment issues here, which are a mess in their own right (as the thread proves).

I'm talking about the Fifth Amendment.

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

Perhaps you can tell me how stealing money from the home-schooling parents of my congregation, and then offering to poison their children in "exchange", constitutes any kind of "just compensation".

It is the height of hypocrisy for Christians to wrap ourselves in the protections of the Fifth Amendment while continuing to condone a gross violation of the Fifth Amendment (not to mention a gross violation of the Eighth Commandment of the Law of God). The Christian Religion does not sanctify THEFT by the occasion of its practice within the stolen property in question.

Christians dishonor our King Jesus by supporting trivial displays of God-talk and 1-minute unitarian prayers in the Temples of Theft. What is needed here is revolution -- the complete abolition of the State educational-warehousing complex, not an accomodation of appeasement with the statist Leviathan. But such radical devotion to Biblical morality is anathema to modern "christians". And why don't more American "christians" support the abolition of Public Schools? Simple. "Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves." (Isaiah 28: 15)

We don't love our children enough to care for them, and we have become junkies on State education-welfare.

[Polybius]

Is the right to practice one's religion a right held by the individual, or by governmental bodies?

A governmental body does not have the right to practice religion freely; it is certainly true that for the body to have a religion to practice is a violation of the establishment clause.

Please explain to me which particular "religion" that could be "established" is promoted by the phrases "God Bless America" or "In God We Trust" as is written on the dollars bills in your wallet.

Equating any mention of God as a specific "religion" is where some folks have highjacked the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution never intended this.

[OWK]

Powerful.

[Uriel1975]

I haven't called the cops in the last year... should I get my money back for that too? 119 posted on 10/16/01 7:44 AM Pacific by SiouxsieQ

Whether you call the cops or not, they patrol your town for criminals.

Police protection from criminals = Public Service.
Shoveling manure down children's throats (and sending you the bill) = Not a Public Service.

The only way for you to maintain your case is to pretend that modern State public schooling is a "service" to children.
Which is to say, you'll have to lie through your teeth.

[Nebullis]

The people intent on removing religion from the public sphere by force of law have the models of totalitarian regimes as backdrops for their persuits. It may be feasable to remove federal funding from public schools, it is less so to remove state funding and even less to remove local funding. And the issue of religion in the public sphere does not evaporate when the sphere regarding education is moved closer to home, for the forces in opposition to any religion are concerned about the minds of the young, no matter where they are educated or who educates them.

At some point that issue of religion in public life needs to be confronted and not placed on the back burner in favor of taxation or public funding of education. Governments which have given a wink and a nod to public funding of multiple religions (as in the establishment of no particular religion) have become voluntarily secular (think of norther Europe) whereas governments which have sought to eliminate religion from public life have been hit with backlashes of fundamentalism (think of China and Russia).

[Jim Scott]

Thanks for posting the essay.

I think Vazsonyi makes some valid points here regarding religion and the acknowledgment of God in the public square, as it were.

Although our resident atheists will jump out of the foxholes to do battle with the concept of a religious nation, as is their right, I would rather bypass all the hypotheticals and familiar points of discussion (as well as the insult-trading) and simply comment that, as Vazsonyi states, America was founded with a religious base but with the freedom to worship (or not) as we wished. This worked well for two hundred years.

In recent times (post 1960), that freedom was questioned when anything; a prayer at graduation, a nativity scene on the village green, the very mention of the word 'God' was claimed to somehow violate the rights of atheists or believer of some other religion, often obscure, because it wasn't 'his God'. As the author states, this was pushed to the limit, and now schools cannot use the word 'God' in any way, shape or form for fear of being sued by the ACLU. I agree with Vazsonyi that this goes against our history and common sense. Just about all religions have a God in some form, by some name. To have a sign or banner that says 'God Bless America' does not 'impose' any religion on anyone and when we stop pretending that it does, we'll start to regain some sense on what should be a non-issue. I see the long brawl over keeping the mention of God out of public discourse as one of simple power games. The tiny minority of the non-religious found an opening to impose their will on the vast majority of citizens and basically won the fight, even as millions shook their heads and wondered why the word 'God' was now illegal on public property. It made no sense to most.

The pandering to not only the non-religious but the various immigrants that come to America and find lawyers willing to demand that not only should their native food be served at the school cafeteria but since they worship a cow or the moon or whatever, no mention of God - any God - may ever be whispered on school property is absurd. The events of September 11th shook most of us and as always when bad things are happening and circumstances are beyond our control, the nation collectively turns to God. It's obvious wherever you look. The atheists see their carefully constructed house of cards falling down as Americans abandon the pretension of being so Politically Correct that they would keep God locked up in church and never dare to let His name be breathed in (gasp) a school! The idea that someone, somewhere might be 'offended' by the mention of the name of God seems pretty foolish when looking at the video of the attack on the WTC and the resulting carnage. It's almost a reflexive action to call on the name of God in crisis and for many at the World Trade Center on September 11th, it was probably the last words to pass their lips. Now, a school puts up a sign that says 'God Bless America', a plea really, and this is condemned by some, including the ACLU. Bad move.

Opponents can call it xenophobia, religious bigotry and whatever they can come up with to make the average, nominally religious citizen feel foolish, narrow-minded and guilty for approving of the name of God on a school sign or a village edifice but a crisis will bring out the truth about many things and this nations basic religious fiber will not forever be stifled and ridiculed by a tiny minority with a flimsy basis for obliterating the mention of God on a school sign as some sort of infringment on others 'rights'. It's divisive and unnecessary and should not stand.

I don't care who founded the ACLU or what Madison said in some otherwise obscure letter, the use of the phrase 'God Bless America' as an expression of heartfelt emotion by the students and administrators of a public school, supported by and approved by the taxpayers of that district, on a school sign or banner or any public building is not an imposition of religion or a state sponsoring of religion. Lawyers can twist it around to appear that way but common sense knows that this is not so. It's a simple acknowledgement of a higher power, God, and a plea for His blessings in a time of crisis. The atheists and ultra-liberals among us should realize this and stop fighting a battle that has no real winners. Signs may be ignored, and this obsession by the ACLU and it's allies to 'win' every battle over such a simple, heartfelt expression of collective sentiment following a horrible attack that came without warning and took thousands of lives in a very short space of time, is just bullheaded and unnecessary. It may be won or lost but the residue of resentment will linger for a long time and the anti-God forces will not do well with the collective public will on these issues in the future. So be it.

[jwalsh07]

I'm talking about the Fifth Amendment

Powerful? Yeah a powerful change of subject. I want to know on what basis the ACLU thinks it can prevent the posting of the words "God Bless America". So I ask again, what religion is "established"?

[Uriel1975]

So file a lawsuit. If it is truly against your religion to fund the public schools, then you'll win. 123 posted on 10/16/01 7:47 AM Pacific by SiouxsieQ

As long as State-worshippers masquerading as "christians" constitute a "jury of peers"? Doubtful.

Now, maybe if more Christians decided to stop spitting in God's face with their constant support for violations of the Eighth Commandment, such lawsuits might have a better chance of succeeding. But right now, many "christians" would rather continue to spit in God's face, then wean themselves off their addiction to the educational welfare of the Idol State. I'd guess true Christian adherence to the Law of God on this issue to include, at best, one "christian" in ten.

I know that my church supports the abolition of public schooling. (My pastor has endorsed their abolition from the pulpit). What are YOU doing about it, if you dare to claim yourself a "Christian"?

[Texaggie79]

All which goes to prove that the gov. cannot control religion and vice versa. The simple action of a goverment official, or agency recognizing God was, is, and shall never be forbidden.

[jwalsh07]

Uriell, perhaps a majority of all Americans embrace public schools. That being the will of the people you have several choices. You can avail yourself of the public schools or not. Your choice. If you find th etax burden for supporting those schools oppresive and repugnant then you can avail yourself of the unalienable right to puresue happiness elsewhere. Its what I would do.

[AppyPappy]

What are YOU doing about it, if you dare to claim yourself a "Christian"?

Face it. We'll never be a good a Christian as you.

[Uriel1975]

No, as I had to point out to OWK, the article uses the public school examples to discuss the larger issue of religion in the public spere.

Back up a bit, Neb. While the entirety of the article is broad in scope, the author posted a $2,000 challenge which specifically concerned the constitutionality issues of Public Schools. Storm Orphan fancifully responded to that challenge, and that's how the discussion took off.

The author's intention in posting such a challenge was to provoke discussion -- or he would not have issued the challenge at all. And he centered that challenge upon the constitutionality issues surrounding public schools.

[The Man Upstairs]

Thanks anyway, but I don't need to be recognized by your agencies. In fact, I consider it somewhat of an embarrassment. I don't like people collecting money from others who are unwilling to give it, in my name.

I could do without this kind of "help".

[Jerry_M]

"You are, of course, free to send your child to any school."

Am I "free" to not send my money to "publick edjumacation" if I choose to educate my children at home? (Or will they come with guns to compel me to pay my "fair share" to fund the poison that they want to prescribe?)

[Uriel1975]

Face it. We'll never be a good a Christian as you. 135 posted on 10/16/01 8:11 AM Pacific by AppyPappy

Face it. Trying to tar your brother as acting "holier than thou" is just an attempt to evade valid Biblical rebuke. "O LORD, are not thine eyes upon the truth? thou hast stricken them, but they have not grieved; thou hast consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction: they have made their faces harder than a rock; they have refused to return." (Jer. 5:3)

It's called the Law of God for a reason, Hank. I didn't write it, and I am not claiming to be the only one who can read it.
In fact, I know full well that my brethren can read it. That's why my rebuke to them is so sharp.

You can pretend that this is a pride thing if you want. But you are responsible to the Lord for adherence to the Law of God. Casting aspersions on a brother's rebuke does not exempt your from that responsibility. Period.

[RnMomof7]

We have even forbidden ourselves to ask: If a person prefers to live by the customs of Mexico, Kashmir, Arabia or China, why not stay there? Instead, we are terrified that our ways may offend newcomers who do things differently. Have we gone stark raving mad? We have turned our back on reality to the point where rational argument has been all but replaced by the emptiest of demagoguery. Is there really a sane person who believes that an Islamic, or Buddhist or Sikh majority in the land would continue to abide by the U.S. Constitution — a document that contravenes everything their religions prescribe?

The truth is that only when you know that you have the truth can you be secure enough to allow others their gods.The founders knew that.