They can kiss my ass

[JeffWartman]

Well...No. The STATES wanted their own rights. This is in contrast to the British views of the King runs all. See the difference?

This is an extreme oversimplification.

The Federal government could not impose upon the States a Federal religion. However the States had every right to decide upon their own.

I've heard of this argument before. But, there's a reason no respected law professor will make it anymore.

I don't care if you don't want to believe that Christianity played a big role in the formation of this country. You can think that as much as you want. I don't even care if someone isn't a Christian. I am not a preacher, and I don't go around trying to save people. There is very obviously a "social" war going on today surrounding Christianities role in this country. In my opinion what started it was the rapid onslaught of scientific information. People stopped believing in God because they believe they can explain our existence through other means. Other than a God. This however has no bearing on how the country was founded. One more thing...Christianity just means that one accepts that Jesus was the messiah, and the son of God. If the colonies were demanding that one be a Baptist, or a Catholic, or a Methodist, or take your pick. Then I could see ones comparison to the British rule of law that all must conform to the Catholic church. This however isn't the case

If you actually look at our founding fathers, many of them weren't incredibly religious, specifically Thomas Jefferson. He was a Deist, and wrote a version of the Christian bible in which he took out all the miracles. He liked the moral teaching, but found the book too mythological. Also, if you want to look at what influenced Jefferson, don't look to the bible. Look to Locke. The Declaration of Independence is a near exact reproduction of his work. And we're all better for it

 

[DeadCanDance]

Well...No. The STATES wanted their own rights. This is in contrast to the British views of the King runs all. See the difference? The Federal government could not impose upon the States a Federal religion. However the States had every right to decide upon their own. I don't care if you don't want to believe that Christianity played a big role in the formation of this country. You can think that as much as you want. I don't even care if someone isn't a Christian. I am not a preacher, and I don't go around trying to save people. There is very obviously a "social" war going on today surrounding Christianities role in this country. In my opinion what started it was the rapid onslaught of scientific information. People stopped believing in God because they believe they can explain our existence through other means. Other than a God. This however has no bearing on how the country was founded. One more thing...Christianity just means that one accepts that Jesus was the messiah, and the son of God. If the colonies were demanding that one be a Baptist, or a Catholic, or a Methodist, or take your pick. Then I could see ones comparison to the British rule of law that all must conform to the Catholic church. This however isn't the case

No one ever denied that american people were religious in the 1700s.

What is a fact, is that the revolution was about (partly) overthrowing the old orthodoxy of divine rights, and insidious State-Church oligarchys.

It was the crown loyalists, and the theocrats who wanted to keep the old european traditions. These were the american tories. And the torys were quite powerful in american up to and including the revolution.

We killed or exiled the american tories, such that even the few states that had offical state religions, had disestablished those State-Church alliances by the 1780s. 1790 at the latest. The lone holdout was Connecticut, which waited until 1818 according to wikipedia to disestablish its state religion.

So, I'm not denying america wasn't and isnt' a relgious nation. Who ever denied that? We all grew up with the pilgrim stories and all that stuff.

What I'm saying, is that those who wanted to keep the old european tradtions of State churches and divine right, were those who largely opposed the american revolution, and the secular government the founders created. There is no tradition in post revolutionary american, of State Churches. That is abhorrant to the principles of the american revolution, the founding fathers, and the US Constitution

 

[roadhouse158]

I am not saying that you, or anyone denied that early America, and present day America isn't religious. What started this thread was an argument about the ACLU. What my post have intended to show was that the founding fathers didn't want to exclude religion from the people. They intended to not allow a National Religion. I am all for that. What I am not for, and the founding fathers were against was the prohibition of religion. This is what has happened in schools. It's ok to teach about homosexuality being normal, it's ok to teach sex education, it's ok to teach classes on multicultural studies. When it comes to religion however; This must not be talked about at all. I don't mean a bible study class. I mean schools are completely removing the the religious aspects and philosophy that the founders adhered by. If religion is something that should be "up to the parents" to talk about. Then shouldn't the same be said of homosexuality and sex education? Just a rhetorical question....

On a side note: JeffWartman brings up Thomas Jefferson. I was raised with a preaching of Thomas Jefferson. I am a collateral descendant of his. National Geographic was producing a show entitled "In Search Of Adam". A few of my family members, including me, were asked to submit to a DNA sample (cheek swab...very sophisticated ) to "inspect" our Y chromosome. I am a direct descendant of Field Jefferson, Thomas' uncle. I never got to see the program, but the process of being involved was quiet cool. We learned a lot about Jefferson history. Much of which we already knew, due to it being past down from generation to generation. I know recent history has described Jefferson as a deist, but according to family knowledge he was a Christian. Not a particular sect, just Christian. He was also a philosopher, which in his writings is where people conclude that he was a deist. It doesn't really matter, and I don't care what history says about him. I do have great pride in being a descendant however. Like I said...Just a side note

 

[DeadCanDance]

Your point about public prayer in schools back in the days of the Founders is quite irrelevant.

Because back then, there were virtually NO public, government run schools. They were virtually all private. A private school can require as much, or as little prayer as they want from their students. That's their right.

Until at least the 1840s, , most schools continued to be privately owned and operated. It wasn‘t until about 1870, all states provided free elementary schooling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_education#History

Government employees and government institutions cannot require students to observe one particular faith, or one particular prayer. Students can, however, pray as much as they want in public schools. However, the school employees and administration cannot dictate a particular form of faith or worship.

So the point about school prayer back in 1790, and what the founders may or may not have thought about it, is quite irrelevant.

In fact, the founders were quite eloquent about keeping government institutions and religion apart. I’ve already shown what Jefferson and Madison (Father of the Constitution) thought. They were quite clear about a separation of church and state.

In fact, one of the first public schools established, was specifically intended to be secular:

Thomas Jefferson founded one of the first secular, public schools in the country - the University of Virginia - because he didn’t like the religious biases of his alma mater, the private William and Mary College of Virginia. He wanted a university free of religious indoctrination, and one where the principles of the Enlightenment could be studied: Science, Engineering, philosophy, political science.

This is not to say Jefferson wasn’t a spiritual man. He certainly was a deist, but certainly no orthodox Christian. He was a free thinker. And he believed religion was a personal matter, between humans and their creator. He was hostile to the melding of Church and State institutions - because he saw where that road leads, in the corrupt Church-State oligarchies of Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Virginia#History


Virtually all of the State Churches in America were disestablished by 1790. That’s what the revolution was about , in part: we were abandoning the ways of Europe: the old, corrupt State-Church oligarchies. Sure, there were some remaining Tories and Theocrats that wanted to keep the old European ways - mixing church with state. But, our history, and the history of the founders, quite clearly was a move away from State-Church relationships, and towards freedom of religion based on the individual’s conscience.

THOMAS JEFFERSON: “Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State ”

JAMES MADISON (Father of the US Constitution): “An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against.....Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government.”

 

[roadhouse158]

I never mentioned, or made a point of praying in public schools. I am not talking about instituting a bible class or prayer in schools. People have become so obsessed with this "Separation of Church and State" which wasn't made up by Thomas Jefferson...Like I said before, it came from the Baptist sermon The Garden and the Wilderness. Fundamental Baptist don't want the government to be able to control them. That's where it came from. The first amendment was about protecting religion, not abolishing it. Public schools are keeping anything to do with religion out. Remember the French Revolution? That wasn't here. That's were a completely secular government took over. Just let me know exactly what your argument is? Are you trying to say that public schools aren't trying to ignore religion. Not TEACH it, but ignore it? I am not understanding your argument here. I understand what your posting, don't get me wrong. I just don't see what your argument towards me is. I think we both agree that our founding fathers were religious. We agree that religious philosophy is all over the Bill of Rights. We also agree that the Government can not impose State supported Church. So what exactly are you disagreeing with me on??

 

[Larkinn]

I never mentioned, or made a point of praying in public schools. I am not talking about instituting a bible class or prayer in schools. People have become so obsessed with this "Separation of Church and State" which wasn't made up by Thomas Jefferson...Like I said before, it came from the Baptist sermon The Garden and the Wilderness. Fundamental Baptist don't want the government to be able to control them. That's where it came from. The first amendment was about protecting religion, not abolishing it. Public schools are keeping anything to do with religion out. Remember the French Revolution? That wasn't here. That's were a completely secular government took over. Just let me know exactly what your argument is? Are you trying to say that public schools aren't trying to ignore religion. Not TEACH it, but ignore it? I am not understanding your argument here. I understand what your posting, don't get me wrong. I just don't see what your argument towards me is. I think we both agree that our founding fathers were religious. We agree that religious philosophy is all over the Bill of Rights. We also agree that the Government can not impose State supported Church. So what exactly are you disagreeing with me on??

You keep mentioning that the founders didn't want to abolish Christianity. Do you think anyone relevant is actually trying to abolish Christianity nowadays? Somehow I doubt your religion will stop to exist because you can't teach it in schools anymore.

 

[mattskramer]

So in your opinion, America wasn't founded and established using Christian philosophy? OK. Very odd that all the history books written before the 60's had to say otherwise. Now we know differently. The more generations that we get away from what happened back then, the more truth we learn. Just kind of makes me think about that example the teachers used in school. You know...Whisper something to one student, and see how much it has changed by the time it gets to the last person. Usually it's not even close. hmm...But this is nothing like that. This time the last student doesn't actually tell what the teacher said to the first student, rather what the teacher meant to say to the first student. That's awesome!!

I’ve been busy. Who are you talking to in this thread? America was founded using Christian philosophy to a degree. It was also founded on slavery and land taken from Indians.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I never mentioned, or made a point of praying in public schools. I am not talking about instituting a bible class or prayer in schools. People have become so obsessed with this "Separation of Church and State" which wasn't made up by Thomas Jefferson...Like I said before, it came from the Baptist sermon The Garden and the Wilderness. Fundamental Baptist don't want the government to be able to control them. That's where it came from. The first amendment was about protecting religion, not abolishing it. Public schools are keeping anything to do with religion out. Remember the French Revolution? That wasn't here. That's were a completely secular government took over. Just let me know exactly what your argument is? Are you trying to say that public schools aren't trying to ignore religion. Not TEACH it, but ignore it? I am not understanding your argument here. I understand what your posting, don't get me wrong. I just don't see what your argument towards me is. I think we both agree that our founding fathers were religious. We agree that religious philosophy is all over the Bill of Rights. We also agree that the Government can not impose State supported Church. So what exactly are you disagreeing with me on??

The first amendment was about protecting religion, not abolishing it. Public schools are keeping anything to do with religion out.

I guess I'm not exactly sure what you want public schools to do about religion.

No one has ever suggested abolishing religion. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right in this country.

People can pray as much as they want in school. One could pray twenty times a day in school, if you wanted. However, government employees and government institutions can't proscribe one type of prayer or religion, over the other types of religion. That's exactly what James Madsion, Thomas Jefferson and the founders where saying.

As far as schools ignoring religion - I'm not sure what your suggesting. They don't. Yes, one can take classes on religion in public schools. My public university had classes on religious history and comparative religious studies. Religion is part of humanity, worthy of study. I'm sure some high schools have comparative religion classes. That's not unconstitutional. And I think as far back as elementary school, I learned about the religious pilgrims and settlers that came to this country, in the context of freedom of religion. I don't recall religion being ignored as an academic and historical matter of study.

What I'm not understanding, is whether or not you think government employees, like school teachers and school adminstrators, should be requiring some sort of christian tradition or prayer in school.

 

[roadhouse158]

No. The Federal laws dealing on religion are not being changed. Like I said before, this thread started as a discussion on the ACLU, and other types of groups that are trying to ban any form of religious expression. At city council members, lawsuits demanding that someone can't pray in Jesus name. The prayee has every right to pray to his or her God. It's their religious freedom. Other groups are trying to get department stores to ban Merry Christmas. Children may sing Christmas carols during school concerts, as long as other secular songs are included in the selections. And your community or workplace is not required to ban religious content from their holiday celebrations. The problem isn't Federal Laws. It's groups that take you to court, which does cost money, to try and forbid these actions. Hers is one of the latest court cases dealing with this http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...-moment_07met.ART.State.Edition1.424b0da.html
This a lawsuit being brought up to stop the "moment of silence" from being held in schools since one could actually use it to pray. This is what this thread was started about. Not about the Government. That was the main argument started by this thread. Not about the Laws surrounding religious freedoms, but about those that interpret the laws as complete banning of anything religious in public. Now some people, and businesses, and even schools are banning anything dealing with religion in fear of being sued. It's not that these anti-religion groups could necessarily win. Some have because there are non religious judges who have the final say so on these matters, but they avoid anything dealing with religion because they can't afford to pay for a lawyer to defend their 1st Amendment rights.

 

[mattskramer]

No. The Federal laws dealing on religion are not being changed. Like I said before, this thread started as a discussion on the ACLU, and other types of groups that are trying to ban any form of religious expression. At city council members, lawsuits demanding that someone can't pray in Jesus name. The prayee has every right to pray to his or her God. It's their religious freedom. Other groups are trying to get department stores to ban Merry Christmas. Children may sing Christmas carols during school concerts, as long as other secular songs are included in the selections. And your community or workplace is not required to ban religious content from their holiday celebrations. The problem isn't Federal Laws. It's groups that take you to court, which does cost money, to try and forbid these actions.

Hello. I just explained that the ACLU is not trying to banany form of Christian religious expression. Children can wear religious shirts and pass out literature. What the ACLU opposes is teacher-led and administration-led Christian customs for children – particularly when they do not lead Children in practicing customs of other religions. Individuals can pray. I have yet to see any case by the ACLU trying to prevent individuals from praying silently or even whispering prayers. What the ACLU opposes is actions by the government (ie teachers and administrations) promoting Christianity over other religions via getting Children involved in Christian customs. I agree that the “prayee” has every right to pray. So what if people are trying to get private businesses to ban Merry Christmas. People try to influence stores to do, or to discontinue doing, a wide variety of things. Some people try to get stores to stop selling pornographic magazines on store shelves.

Hers is one of the latest court cases dealing with this http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...-moment_07met.ART.State.Edition1.424b0da.html

This a lawsuit being brought up to stop the "moment of silence" from being held in schools since one could actually use it to pray. This is what this thread was started about. Not about the Government. That was the main argument started by this thread. Not about the Laws surrounding religious freedoms, but about those that interpret the laws as complete banning of anything religious in public. Now some people, and businesses, and even schools are banning anything dealing with religion in fear of being sued. It's not that these anti-religion groups could necessarily win. Some have because there are non religious judges who have the final say so on these matters, but they avoid anything dealing with religion because they can't afford to pay for a lawyer to defend their 1st Amendment rights.

There are organizations like the ACLJ that will help Christians for free that think that they are being denied their right to practice their religions. By the way, The web site’s article includes this statement.

The lawsuit says a Rosemeade teacher told Mr. Croft's son that the minute of silence held each morning was specifically for prayer. She then bowed her head, clasped her hands and began to pray.

Right off hand, I’m not opposed to the moment of silence though part of me thinks that it would be a distraction for students and a waste of time, but then I am no child psychologist. I would not be opposed to trying it out in more states until it starts being abused by teachers who would tell students what to do (aside from telling them to be quiet) for this moment of silence.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Hello. I just explained that the ACLU is not trying to banany form of Christian religious expression.

Wrong. Christians are being told by the ACLU to not express their own brand of faith but only express a "non-sectarian" brand of prayer. Take the invocations matter in Virginia for instance. One county council in Fredericksburg had prayer rotation where they took turns at giving the invocations in order to fairly give voice to all represented. However, when councilman Turner ended his turn at prayer with the words "in Jesus' name" he was sued.

The ACLU wrote to the Fredericksburg council in 2004 asking that it end the practice or use a nonsectarian prayer. The governing body complied, starting a nonsectarian format. Then Turner filed a lawsuit against the council, saying the change violated his free speech rights.

The ACLU wants people to only have "non-sectarian" prayer (or no prayer at all).
Tell me, is there a religion called "non-sectarian"?

This case is still up for appeal.

John Whitehead, president and founder of the Rutherford Institute (representing Turner), said the issue came down to the last three words in Turner's prayer, "in Jesus' name." He said Turner, an associate Baptist minister, would be denying his own faith if he said the nonsectarian prayer.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/125917

 

[DeadCanDance]

Wrong. Christians are being told by the ACLU to not express their own brand of faith but only express a "non-sectarian" brand of prayer. Take the invocations matter in Virginia for instance. One county council in Fredericksburg had prayer rotation where they took turns at giving the invocations in order to fairly give voice to all represented. However, when councilman Turner ended his turn at prayer with the words "in Jesus' name" he was sued.



The ACLU wants people to only have "non-sectarian" prayer (or no prayer at all).
Tell me, is there a religion called "non-sectarian"?

This case is still up for appeal.

"ACLU Position:

“The ACLU would be the first organization in line to defend Rev. Turner’s right to espouse his Christian beliefs in church, in any public forum, and even during official city council deliberations,” Willis added. “But when an elected official opens a government meeting with a prayer, that official is speaking for the government, and the government is not allowed to express a preference for one religion over another.”

“Fredericksburg City Council made the right decision,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis. “Not only are they in compliance with court rulings on government prayer, but people of all faiths will now feel welcome at city council meetings in Fredericksburg.”


http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/21592prs20051114.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"ACLU Position:

“The ACLU would be the first organization in line to defend Rev. Turner’s right to espouse his Christian beliefs in church, in any public forum, and even during official city council deliberations,” Willis added. “But when an elected official opens a government meeting with a prayer, that official is speaking for the government, and the government is not allowed to express a preference for one religion over another.”

“Fredericksburg City Council made the right decision,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis. “Not only are they in compliance with court rulings on government prayer, but people of all faiths will now feel welcome at city council meetings in Fredericksburg.”


http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/21592prs20051114.html

Simply not true, since he is NOT attempting to force his religion on anyone NOR establish it as the Government sponsored religion, it is NOT in violation of the Constitution, I suggest you and the ACLU learn reading comprehension.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Would any of you wingnutters be cool with a Wiccan Witch priestess giving an invocation at a City council meeting?

No you wouldn't. Hell, I wouldn't either.

You want to reserve invocations by government officials, to chrisitanity. That's BS.

Anyone can pray and be a chrisitian or a wiccan. But, Government employees cannot promote one religion over the others, in his or her official capacity and duty as an elected official. Of course, they are free to pray however often they want as an individual. But, not when formally presiding over a public meeting.

This principle has been upheld so many times, by judges and courts, its not even debatable.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Would any of you wingnutters be cool with a Wiccan Witch priestess giving an invocation at a City council meeting?

No you wouldn't. Hell, I wouldn't either.

You want to reserve invocations by government officials, to chrisitanity. That's BS.

Anyone can pray and be a chrisitian or a wiccan. But, Government employees cannot promote one religion over the others, in his or her official capacity and duty as an elected official. Of course, they are free to pray however often they want as an individual. But, not when formally presiding over a public meeting.

This principle has been upheld so many times, by judges and courts, its not even debatable.

She is entitled to her fair turn. In fact, there was a case on this very issue in Virginia which supports that. By taking one's turn at invocations, government employees are NOT promoting one religion over another. It is a totally different matter when the ACLU starts dictating that one needs to express one's religion in a "non-sectarian" way which is limiting in nature and infringing upon one's freedom of religious expression.

As an individual government reps are only freely expressing their religion in public per their Constitutional rights - something the ACLU is against. They and other leftists are causing a lot of trouble in this area because their goal is for people in public to give up their rights to free religious expression. The ACLU wants to marginalize free expression of religion and remove it from the public square because they are a godless communist organization seeking to destroy the freedoms of America.

Yes, there's been lots of legal and liberal shenanigans ever since the infamous "wall of separation" opinion given by one man, Justice Black. It will be interesting to see how a more conservative court handles this case.

 

[mattskramer]

Wrong. Christians are being told by the ACLU to not express their own brand of faith but only express a "non-sectarian" brand of prayer. Take the invocations matter in Virginia for instance. One county council in Fredericksburg had prayer rotation where they took turns at giving the invocations in order to fairly give voice to all represented. However, when councilman Turner ended his turn at prayer with the words "in Jesus' name" he was sued.



The ACLU wants people to only have "non-sectarian" prayer (or no prayer at all).
Tell me, is there a religion called "non-sectarian"?

This case is still up for appeal.

Look at the second sentence that I made in post 110. The ACLU is not trying to ban individual private citizens from saying Christian prayers on public sidewalk. What you brought up is prayer at a government function. As long as there is consistency (no favoritism for one type of prayer over another) I have no objection. I understand that an allowance could be made to give each member a turn to pray his prayer. I think that such an arrangement would only lead to divisiveness.

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/21592prs20051114.html

“The Supreme Court allows government meetings to be opened with a prayer,” said Willis. “But it has been clear for many years that these prayers must be broad, inclusive invocations of faith that unify rather than divide on the basis of religion.”

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Look at the second sentence that I made in post 110. The ACLU is not trying to ban individual private citizens from saying Christian prayers on public sidewalk. What you brought up is prayer at a government function. As long as there is consistency (no favoritism for one type of prayer over another) I have no objection. I understand that an allowance could be made to give each member a turn to pray his prayer. I think that such an arrangement would only lead to divisiveness.

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/21592prs20051114.html

“The Supreme Court allows government meetings to be opened with a prayer,” said Willis. “But it has been clear for many years that these prayers must be broad, inclusive invocations of faith that unify rather than divide on the basis of religion.”

Glad you have no objection. Public schools are also a government function. Thus teachers and students as individuals should also be able to say prayers of their own choice as well.

 

[mattskramer]

Glad you have no objection. Public schools are also a government function. Thus teachers and students as individuals should also be able to say prayers of their own choice as well.

I slightly disagree. I think that non-sectarian prayer on government property can result in divisive attitude (adversarial environments) and distract people from the purpose for which they are there. I’m willing to compromise. If we are going to have organized and structured prayer time then, at most, each student should be allowed to use the public address to say his prayer (To Jesus, Mohamed, Satan, the Earth, whatever) without threat of persecution. The teacher is an authority figure and may be an undue influence on children. She serves as an arm of the government and is supported by taxes. It would be inappropriate for her to recite a prayer during school time. She is free to pray as she like on her own, with her family, at her church, or outside of the school time.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I slightly disagree. I think that non-sectarian prayer on government property can result in divisive attitude (adversarial environments) and distract people from the purpose for which they are there. I’m willing to compromise. If we are going to have organized and structured prayer time then, at most, each student should be allowed to use the public address to say his prayer (To Jesus, Mohamed, Satan, the Earth, whatever) without threat of persecution. The teacher is an authority figure and may be an undue influence on children. She serves as an arm of the government and is supported by taxes. It would be inappropriate for her to recite a prayer during school time. She is free to pray as she like on her own, with her family, at her church, or outside of the school time.

If a structured prayer time is set apart to allow for free expression of religion for all, why would you want to gag teachers? Or any government employee? Or representative? The people who represent the people are people with rights too. To deny a teacher her rights would be setting a very bad example in a political sense.

However, I agree with your valid point that any teacher is in a position of power over children and thus may be seen as leading innocent children in a certain direction. Children are not fully mature human beings. That is why I support school vouchers so parents can have a free CHOICE as to which school they wish their children to attend. Then they can choose schools with teachers who would be able to lead their children in Christian prayer (or whatever) in peace without the ACLU breathing down their necks and attempting to yank God out of their schools. I believe that it is without saying that children are taught ethics and morals while in school but that the parents have the right to CHOOSE which ethics and morals are being taught to their children.

 

[eots]

man we are in so much trouble,we are at war but its not with alqueda




Feds Train Clergy To "Quell Dissent" During Martial Law
Shocking KSLA 12 news report confirms story we broke last year, Pastors to cite Romans 13 as reason for public to obey government orders, relinquish guns and be taken to camps during state of emergency
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, August 16, 2007


A shocking KSLA news report has confirmed the story we first broke last year, that Clergy Response Teams are being trained by the federal government to "quell dissent" and pacify citizens to obey the government in the event of a declaration of martial law.

In May 2006, we exposed the existence of a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to "obey the government" in preparation for the implementation of martial law, property and firearm seizures, mass vaccination programs and forced relocation.

A whistleblower who was secretly enrolled into the program told us that the feds were clandestinely recruiting religious leaders to help implement Homeland Security directives in anticipation of a potential bio-terrorist attack, any natural disaster or a nationally declared emergency.

The first directive was for Pastors to preach to their congregations Romans 13, the often taken out of context bible passage that was used by Hitler to hoodwink Christians into supporting him, in order to teach them to "obey the government" when martial law is declared.

It was related to the Pastors that quarantines, martial law and forced relocation were a problem for state authorities when enforcing federal mandates due to the "cowboy mentality" of citizens standing up for their property and second amendment rights as well as farmers defending their crops and livestock from seizure.

It was stressed that the Pastors needed to preach subservience to the authorities ahead of time in preparation for the round-ups and to make it clear to the congregation that "this is for their own good."

Pastors were told that they would be backed up by law enforcement in controlling uncooperative individuals and that they would even lead SWAT teams in attempting to quell resistance.

Though some doubted the accuracy of this report at the time due to its fundamentally disturbing implications, the story has now been confirmed by a KSLA 12 news report, in which participating clergy and officials admit to the existence of the program.



The report entertains the scenario of martial law as depicted in the movie The Siege and states that "quelling dissent would be critical."

Dr. Durell Tuberville serves as chaplain for the Shreveport Fire Department and the Caddo Sheriff's Office. Tuberville said of the clergy team's mission, "the primary thing that we say to anybody is, 'let's cooperate and get this thing over with and then we'll settle the differences once the crisis is over.'"

Such clergy response teams would walk a tight-rope during martial law between the demands of the government on the one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other. "In a lot of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in which they're helping to diffuse that situation," assured Sandy Davis. He serves as the director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.

For the clergy team, one of the biggest tools that they will have in helping calm the public down or to obey the law is the bible itself, specifically Romans 13. Dr. Tuberville elaborated, "because the government's established by the Lord, you know. And, that's what we believe in the Christian faith. That's what's stated in the scripture."



So there you have it - Homeland Security are working with local police departments and religious leaders to prepare for the declaration of martial law and in particular developing techniques they will employ during the crisis to "quell dissent."

Phony Christian leaders are brainwashing their congregations to accept the premise that the totalitarian police state is "of the Lord" and that they should get on their knees and lick jackboots while the round-ups take place as citizens are processed into quarantine zones and detention camps by the National Guard and U.S. troops returning from Iraq.



The precedent for mass gun confiscation and martial law in times of a real or manufactured emergency was set during Hurricane Katrina, when police and National Guard patrols forced home owners - even in areas unaffected by the hurricane - to hand over their legally owned firearms at gunpoint.

This is a clear precursor for the imminent declaration of a state of emergency, a scenario that President Bush codified in his recent Presidential Decision Directive of May 9th, which states in the event of a "catastrophic event" the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.

The scope of the program is so secretive that even Homeland Security Committee member and Congressman Peter DeFazio was denied access to view the classified portion of the documents.