A New Liberal Commandment

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Adam's Apple, Mar 13, 2005.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before the ACLU
    By Mona Charen
    March 11, 2005

    http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com

    There was a time when "fear of God" meant piety, or at least conscience. Today, it more accurately describes the worldview of secular liberals who get itchy and twitchy at any reminder of our religious roots as a nation.

    Thus, we are currently treated to the spectacle of the American Civil Liberties Union dragging the state of Texas into court for the offense of displaying the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the state capitol in Austin. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide in June whether a display of the Decalogue violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. This gives "God fearing" a whole new meaning.

    "At the very seat of Texas government," thunders the ACLU brief, "between the Texas State Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court, is large monument quoting a famous passage of religious scripture taken, almost verbatim, from the King James Bible." Question: Is there any kind of scripture that is not religious?

    The state of Texas argues that the monument isn't so important really. It stands at the back door of the capitol, not the front. It is smaller than several of the other 16 monuments dotting the campus of the capitol. And it contains many symbols found elsewhere in American public life — such as the pyramid with the eye at the top and an eagle with outstretched wings clutching the stars and stripes — both of which are also found on the dollar bill. Hard by the Ten Commandments monument are statues and plaques honoring or memorializing the Boy Scouts of America (under fire from the left, as well), Korean War Veterans, World War I veterans, Pearl Harbor, Texas children, the National Guard and pioneer women.

    But no religious acknowledgment is too small to escape the attention of the zealous modern God fearers. The petitioners complain that the monument "expresses an unequivocal religious message: There is a God, and God has proclaimed rules for behavior." We can't have that. Just you wait, the dollar bill — which proclaims in broad daylight "In God We Trust" is not safe.

    The God fearers are not engaged in a fool's errand. They have good reason to suppose that their protest may be well-received. Over the past several decades, the court's establishment clause jurisprudence has been, well, peculiar. The court has held that a crèche could be displayed at Christmastime only if it was accompanied by a requisite number of candy canes, Santas and other non-religious symbols. The court has also ruled that states may constitutionally provide maps (and, in a later decision, computers) for parochial schools, but not books.

    The court has held that student-led prayers in a football huddle constitute an establishment of religion. Ditto an invocation offered by a rabbi at a public high school graduation. There, Justice Kennedy explained that asking non-believers to stand and "maintain a respectful silence" was unconstitutional. Respectful silence just isn't the spirit of the age.

    The state of Texas urges the Court to adopt the reasonable person standard for evaluating the Ten Commandments monument. Would a reasonable person, seeing this granite slab, assume that Texas meant to enforce a ban on graven images or to force neighbors to refrain from covetousness? The brief did jocularly offer that "no one would reasonably think that the state has adopted a position, one way or the other, on whether the Dallas Cowboys should continue playing professional football on Sundays or whether the Texas Longhorns should continue playing college football on Saturdays (notwithstanding the seriousness, and even religious fervor, with which Texans approach their football ...)."

    The real point is that we've lost our grip on any common-sense definition of establishment. The Founders did not want to favor one church over another at the federal level (when the Constitution was ratified, several states did have established churches). By forbidding one national church pre-eminence, freedom of worship would be more reliably protected. The notion that this country, founded firmly in the Judeo-Christian tradition, could not even mention God in public without fearing a subpoena is simply ludicrous. (Amen!)

    If the Supreme Court hands down a ruling that the Texas monument violates the Constitution, it will do so in the literal shadow of a frieze on the Supreme Court's chamber depicting none other than Moses holding the tablets in his hands.
     
  2. theim
    Offline

    theim Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,628
    Thanks Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Ratings:
    +234
    But the open-minded liberal atheists might get offended and actuall, literally, faint, like that woman in the room with Prof. Summers. Sorry, I still get a kick out of that."
     
  3. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    Somehow, the courts have made the leap from, "Congress shall make no law..." to "Government at any conceiveable level shall make no mention." This is clearly erroneous. The purpose of the establishment section was to keep centralized government from issuing edicts from on high on matters that are the community's business - not to obliterate all mention of religion from the public arena. The culprit is a (conveniently) flawed interpretation of the 14th Amendment. In ensuring that the Bill of Rights applies to all states, the courts have issued a weapon to the enemies of religion, and it's being used....er...LIBERALLY. The very protections the Constitution designed to protect the community from cenralized government are being turned against the community BY centralized government - in the person of the federal courts. It's time to hit the brakes.
     
  4. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Oh puhleeez...!

    <center><h2><a href=http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141>Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks </a></h2></center>

    The ACLU is a favorite boogey-man for the right because it upholds the rights of the individual over the state. Get over it.
     
  5. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    No. it upholds the agenda of the left over the constitution and common sense.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  6. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533


    I don't know how you could possibly arrive at that. "The rights of individuals over the state" has a nice, pretty ring to it. However, in the context of the Constitution's design - the decentralization and devolution of power to the states, the community, and, ultimately, the individual - it misses the point. At the ever-devolving levels of government envisioned by our founders, the people ARE the government. That's the whole point of the exercise.

    How on earth are individuals served by the micromanaging tyranny of the federal courts? The ACLU goes by the anti-constitution. My unabashed dictionary defines this as "tyranny".
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    Nice correction.

    I'm very rarely with the ACLU. Only when they step up to the plate on free speech issues. Right now, they're among the lefty-loopies criticizing the Minutemen in Arizona for... you know... protecting the country. But they have good company: President Bush, who calls them "vigilantes".

    http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/03/aobserversa_pla.php
     
  8. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Agreed--problem is that I don't see ANYONE getting up in arms about protecting our borders
     
  9. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    I can't believe Bush called them that. That really pissed me off. The golden boy is starting to tarnish just a tad. Though he's still basically "the man".
     
  10. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    Lets just make God illegal and start importing Lions from Africa. By doing so we will get rid of troublesome Christians, and support African economics by providing money so they can fight their own Aids epidemic.

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page