ACLU take note: People are praying

People are praying in public places, in open defiance of the Supreme Court. The New York Times trembles.

Children are reciting the Pledge of Allegiance (with those ominous words, ``one nation under God''). Signs proclaiming ``God Bless America'' proliferate in public schools. The ACLU is agitated.

Patriotism and faith (they go hand in hand) have rebounded, and the guardians of multiculturalism and secularism look on with growing apprehension.

On Oct. 21, the Times alerted its readers to a dire development. In the wake of the World Trade Center attack, a prayer was offered before a high school football game in Greenbrier, Ark., even though our liege lords judicial told us in a decision last year that invocations at these events are tantamount to the Taliban's theocracy.

A proposal before the South Carolina Legislature would transform the state's moment of silence at the beginning of the school day into an audible prayer - another desecration of the Constitution for the Supreme Court's majority. Texas Gov. Rick Perry shamelessly defended his participation in prayers at an elementary school earlier this month.

In Madison, Wis. - like Berkeley and Cambridge, a community of arthritic peace-marchers - the school board initially banned recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and singing the national anthem.

Some parents - not police and firefighters, you may be sure - were upset by the pledge's appeal to the Almighty and ``militaristic themes'' in the ``Star-Spangled Banner.'' Roughly 20,000 e-mails from outraged citizens, and prospective recall campaigns, resulted in a reversal of this cretinous policy.

Litigation terrorists have threatened to sue the Rocklin, Calif., Unified School District for displaying what the ACLU calls a ``hurtful, divisive message'' (``God Bless America'') on a marquee.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, patiently explains that even under the court's twisted interpretation of the establishment clause, ``God Bless America'' and ``one nation under God'' (referred to by one federal court as ``ceremonial deism'') are constitutionally permissible.

Politicians are no longer fearful of breaching that mythical wall of separation (words which do not appear in the First Amendment). President Bush proclaimed Sept. 14 a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance. Congress authorized the use of the Capitol Rotunda for a day-long prayer vigil.

The House unanimously passed a resolution urging public schools to display ``God Bless America'' signs in a show of national unity. Not long ago, the high court was keelhauling high schools for posting the Ten Commandments.

New York City's Board of Education has brought back the Pledge of Allegiance to the Big Apple's schools, despite objections of the state ACLU that students who remain silent might be ``scapegoated or targeted.''

A cleansing wind is blowing through the land, clearing away cobwebs in the minds of those accustomed to unquestioningly obeying the elite.

You say you're uncomfortable with references to God in the pledge? Tough. America was founded on religious principles. The pilgrims weren't secular humanists. The Declaration of Independence appeals to the Supreme Judge of the World, not the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, if you can't bring yourself to publicly declare your loyalty to America (whatever your politics), you should consider relocating beyond our borders.

If football fans choose to ignore the Supreme Court's politically motivated reading of the Constitution, what will its God-phobic majority do - hijack a plane and crash it onto the field at halftime?

With 5,500 of our fellow citizens dead and the threat of anthrax and smallpox looming, Americans have little patience for cranks and fussbudgets who snivel about public expressions of faith - including those in black robes. In the eternal scheme, they are no more than flyspecks. I've yet to see a sign asking the ACLU to bless anything.

CBS is not cancelling Touched by an Angel, or if they are it is not because of the use of the word "God". This is a false and malicious urban legend in much the same way the lie about the FCC censoring all religious broadcasting from radio is. Please stop spreading false information such as this. More information can be found here. You discredit your cause by passing on such misinformation.

Oh for heaven's sake! I DID NOT pass on a rumor. If you will go back and READ what I posted, you will see that all I said was that I got the email today. I did not say it was fact, I did not say anything about it at all - just that I got the email today. PERIOD!

And, for your information, I emailed the person that sent it to me and asked where they got the information and if it was something new the athiests are attempting to do or if it is the same old stuff the athiests have been up to for years.

So, get off your high horse and READ what is written before you start blasting away. In other words, ENGAGE BRAIN before engaging mouth and fingers!

"WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATED OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions . . ."

Tell me, if such language were drafted -- for any reason whatsoever -- today, would these words be unconstitutional?

By posting it you have spread it. You provided no qualifiers with the message, you simply printed exactly what you received without comment as to any research you might have done as to the validity of the claim. You did not make any statements asking if the claims within the message were accurate. Your only comment, "If this is a new attack I think the athiests are in for a surprise in light of Sept. 11.", does not imply any sense of incredulity regarding the information that you received.

I reponded as I did because I detest slanderous and/or defaming urban legends that are easily revealed as myth but proliferate because so many are willing to knee-jerk and so willing to accept stories that reinforce the myths and stereotypes they hold and because so few will ever bother themselves to insure that the information they pass on is accurate. Those who spread urban legends under the caveat "I don't know if this is true but I thought you should hear this!" are even more irresponsible -- not knowing if the words they pass on are true they share them anyway for others to read and accept.

The origin of this discussion is the nature of the word "God" and why a few people are hell-bent on having it removed from everyday usage (well, that seems to be the extremist view of things, I personally believe that the motives and desired results are far less sinister). You jumped into the discussion and provided a story of yet another attack (by the "atheists", apparently) against the mention of God in the public arena as related to you in an e-mail, as though to further expose just how much the "anti-God" forces wish to destroy. Unfortunately the described "attack" is fiction, no such effort is underway to remove the word "God" from network television, broadcast radio or some random bloke shouting on a street corner. Two results can come of this: either people believe the false accusaions and line up to destroy this new oppresive group (which may not have even been a "group" until lumped together by their opponents) for things that never happened or the tales are proven false and those spreading them lose credibility -- after all, if they are willing to make up one story to discredit their opponenets, why not many more?

I try to avoid emotion on discussion forums whenever possible, however urban legends -- specifically defamatory ones -- are a sore spot. I attack and expose them wherever I see them because the greatest threat in this country, in my opinion, is ignorance.

"WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation. WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness "

"WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATED OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions . . ."

This comes from the Decleration of Independence, which has no legal basis for the laws of this country that of which I am aware (feel free to correct me on this matter).

Tell me, if such language were drafted -- for any reason whatsoever -- today, would these words be unconstitutional?

For any reason whatsoever? I would say no, but IANAL. Did I ever suggest otherwise?

”I am well aware of the historical significance of July 4th. I was wondering how it was any kind of legally binding document, as it was drafted and submitted when the thirteen colonies involved were still a part of the British empire. For the DoI to be a legally binding document it would have needed approval from the British government. The British government did not approve the document and as such did not recognize the independence of the colonies.”

”The Declaration of Independence was the thirteen colonies of North America declaring to Britian, "We don't want to be a part of you anymore, so we are no longer a part of you.", but officially they couldn't be recognized as independent without the blessing (even if forced) the British.”

See above.

”"We" did not fight anything during the Revolution because "we" (the USA) did not exist until after the Revolution, whereupon the British government officially recognized the independence of the colonies (and even then the British tried to reverse the position later, hence the War of 1812).”

Even Bill Clinton would blush to make such an obviously erroneous statement. The suggestion that we were nothing prior to the peace treaty is absurd on its face.

”Regardless of what people think of the Revolutionary War, it was originally a civil war between an empire and thirteen of its colonies”

Wrong. There is a huge difference between a civil war and a war designed to sunder the ties between a distant colony and a colonial power. If you don’t understand that, I’m not going to try to explain it to you. If you want to ask our British cousins, you may ask them if there was a difference between the war for American independence and the Civil War between the King and Cromwell.

I would respectfully disagree.

Whether or not a document or a sign "has no legal basis for the laws of this country" is beside the point. A sign on school property which reads "God Bless America" has no legal basis for the laws of this country, either. Yet, some arrogant ACLU types declare it to be unconstitutional.

This comes from the Decleration of Independence, which has no legal basis for the laws of this country that of which I am aware (feel free to correct me on this matter).

I remember reading in college (about 500 years ago) that the courts often refer to the Federalist papers and the Declaration of Independence as a reference framework for making constitutional decisions. My memory is a bit fuzzy in this respect, so I'm not sure.

It sounds like you are practicing law without a license, and without an understanding of history. First, the creation of the United States preceded the peace treaty that ended the revolution. Did you get the ideas you are espousing in the Close Cover Before Striking School of Law?

I have never claimed to dispense legal advice.

Following 7/4/1776, the Unites States Congress passed numerous laws, none of which were approved by the British. The fact that France and the Dutch, among others, recognized the United States, and provided them with arms, money and supplies, should put to rest any silly assertions that none of the laws passed by the Continental Congress (including borrowing money, printing currency and creating a standing army) were not legally binding.

Well, yes, the colonies declared independence and acted as such, but they were still not offically free of British control so long as the British government chose to assert or enforce their authority -- that France recognized the independence of the colonies was no more official than the fact that Germany officially recognized the British rule thereof. The war and subsequent peace treaty are only of direct historical significance because the British lost control and the colonies gained independence -- had the war gone the other way (and no resurgence of rebellion occured) then it would have been regarded as a civil war between the British colonies and a large organization of rebels and traitors.

Wrong. There is a huge difference between a civil war and a war designed to sunder the ties between a distant colony and a colonial power. If you don’t understand that, I’m not going to try to explain it to you. If you want to ask our British cousins, you may ask them if there was a difference between the war for American independence and the Civil War between the King and Cromwell.

I understand fully that there are significant differences between the US Civil War and the War of Independence. The economic and political motivations were amongst them, but the purpose in the end was the same -- a group of states attempting to sever ties with their controlling nation to form an independent country of their own. The differences -- such as the one being an empire in an impossible struggle to hold control to a colony halfway across the world to maintain economic superiority while the other being a battle to prevent states within the same landmass from dropping out and likely causing economic chaos -- were likely amongst the reasons that one succeeded and the other failed.

Thanks to my ability to ramble. this is getting hopelessly off-subject. Part of the issue of whether or not a country is "independent" and exactly when that happens is philosophical in nature, thus debate really can't solve it.

I know I wept seeing school children dressed in red, white and blue reciting the pledge of allegiance all across the nation, as well as when I saw the president and the soldiers openly praying at the memorial for the victims at the Pentagon, to name just 2. It is a beautiful thing to see unity in SPITE of diversity. Herein lies the power of the people. Hopefully judges will follow suit and follow the way of patriotism rather than political pressure, and start throwing some of these ridiculous political correctness issues out of the courts. Let's face it, there is no such thing as a politically correct war. President Bush made it abundantly clear that in this war, you are either with America or you are with the terrorists. I believe this applies to Americans as well. Oh; am I being intolerant? TOUGH!

If Congress (or any other governmental entity, school board, local assembly, or a group of dogcatchers) were to release a document with these words, I have no doubt it would immediately be declared an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

Aah, well you just said "for any reason at all", you did not qualify it as being issued by a government authority. Still, I offered my own opinion and I am not a lawyer nor do I have sufficient legal training to even hazard a guess on the legality.

Whether or not a document or a sign "has no legal basis for the laws of this country" is beside the point. A sign on school property which reads "God Bless America" has no legal basis for the laws of this country, either. Yet, some arrogant ACLU types declare it to be unconstitutional.

Well, the school is issuing a statement asserting belief in a "God" -- therein lies the problem for some people. Not everyone believes in a God and of those who do some believe that it is improper to turn a request for a blessing into an informal catchphrase. The issue is the appropriateness of the school acknowledging the existence of a God, and once doing that acknowledging a God who can be called upon through a generic statement to bless America.

>This comes from the Decleration of Independence, which has no legal basis for the laws of this country that of which I am aware (feel free to correct me on this matter).

I remember reading in college (about 500 years ago) that the courts often refer to the Federalist papers and the Declaration of Independence as a reference framework for making constitutional decisions. My memory is a bit fuzzy in this respect, so I'm not sure.>

I'm not sure of such either. The Constitution is the foundation upon every law in this country, any documents penned before it have no legal meaning unless enumerated through action after the ratification; however, it might be possible that a judge, seeing an ambiguity in a Constitutional matter, referred to an earlier work to perhaps find a means for interpreting the Constitution in light of the founders' intent. Such interpretation can lead to danger, however: I have seen a claim made in the past that the First Amendment was only meant to apply to Christianity and not religion in general and was only written as it appears because the writers did not think anyone would ever interpret it as applicable to non-Christian religions.

Because "God" is a dumb idea and this country was founded on much better ideas and higher ideals.

Can you name one that is not in the Bible?

"God" is just superstition.

You'll have to define your words for me. Religion may be a lot of things, but there is no definition of superstition I know of that encompasses it.

"God" is usually just "Santa Claus for adults," or worse he is an excuse for ignorance, misbehavior, and murder.

One wonders if you know any adults at all. If so, it is not very many. You certainly don't know any Christians. Note: Don't take your concept of G-d or Christians from TV. Take them from the real world.

"God" is not in the Constitution (search it yourself).

G-d is in the Declaration of Independence. That document is foundational to the Constitution and is therefore included by reference.

Because "God and country" is a remnant of feudalistic and tribalistic mind control techniques, and has nothing to do with real American patriotism.

The only thing in that sentence that makes sense is that you can be patriotic without being theistic. I'm not sure why you would be, though.

Because the name of "God" was on the lips of those who killed 4000+ people on September 11, 2001, and one Taliban is bad enough.

Actually, it was the name of "Allah." Everything you've heard to the contrary, Allah and the G-d of the Bible are two very different beings. If you understood either religion at all this would be obvious to you.

Shalom.

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.