Why Liberals Hate God...

[007]

Why Liberals Hate God

By Doug Hagin (08/20/03)

Liberals seem to have a tough time deciphering certain portions of the writings of our Founding Fathers. Specifically, the Bill of Rights really seems to trip them up. For example, they read the Second Amendment protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms to mean a right to carry a gun only if you are in the National Guard.

Now the fact that the National Guard did not exist at the time the Constitution was written does not faze Liberals, they simply dislike what the Bill of Rights says so they create a new definition for it. A definition, which suits their agenda of limited liberties instead of, limited government.

No amendment trips the Left up more often though than the very first one. Especially the first line of this Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Now really this is pretty clear and extremely easy to understand. The Amendment prevents Congress from making any law favoring any specific religion while protecting our right to exercise whichever religion we choose freely.

Truly no free society could ever have it any other way. The First Amendment guarantees no American will be forced to
financially support, or attend any establishment of religion. Yet Liberals have really missed the mark on this one.

To suit their meaning they have construed the First Amendment to mean no religion of any kind, especially Christian religions, in public at all. No Manger scenes at Christmas, no Ten Commandments in a government building, no teaching creationism in schools, no mentioning God anywhere but church or home. Of course this is asinine. The Founders were very clear in regards to the freedom of religion.

A town placing a Nativity scene on a courthouse lawn is not a violation of the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution comes even remotely close to banning this. After all Congress, which the First Amendment prevents from making laws respecting an establishment of religion, has nothing to do with placing the manger scene there does it?

The same applies with teaching creation in schools. Certainly teaching the scientific evidence of Creation and discussing it with students neither curtails the free exercise of religion or forces an establishment of religion on the students.

Certainly a Judge, or any government official placing a copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall of his office is not an act of Congress either so that too is not a violation of our constitution.

Yet Liberal Judges and lawyers and Liberal activists have been allowed to twist and pervert the meaning of the First Amendment to ban any mention of religion in the public forum. They have done this simply to suit their ideology and vision of America.

This vision is one where God and any mention of Him are limited to the privacy of your home or to a church setting. To Liberals God does not deserve a place in our government at all. Despite the fact our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and despite the fact many of our Founders were believers who credited our Creator with the blessings of liberty.

Yet Liberals continue in their fervent desire to erase any mention of God, the Bible, or Christianity in our nation. Why do they campaign so eagerly for God to be escorted out of our schools, government, courtrooms, and public places?

Simply put God is not only our Creator but also the source of all liberty, and the source of our nation’s founding. The Founders made all this very, very clear. And this scenario my friends just does not match the Liberal utopian fantasy the Left wants America to be.

In Liberal think government, run by Liberals of course, is the sole source of liberty and the judge of how much liberty the people can be trusted with. God gets in the way of this since He is the true source of our freedoms. So Liberals must first push God out of the way before they can establish their god, government, as the Supreme Being.

Hence the steady campaign by the Left to remove God as far as possible from as many places as possible.

Now I am sure to get angry emails from God-fearing Liberals protesting this column. And surely there will be those who insist there is a separation of church and state which prevents public displays of religion. But here is the challenge to those well meaning folks. Tell me exactly which religion is established by posting the Ten Commandments or teaching creation? Tell me how Congress has respected an establishment of religion when these things occur?

The fact is I have asked many these questions and never received a satisfactory answer. The First Amendment is very clear and concise. Liberals just do not like what it says.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/2197

 

[MissileMan]

While I personally have no problem with religious symbols in public, except maybe for the judge who had the 10 commandments embroidered on his robe, I have to ask a question: How does leaving creationism out of the class room, or saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, or even on the more radical side, demanding that nativity signs be removed from public buildings constitute preventing you from practicing your chosen religion?

The fact is, it doesn't. Your 1st Ammendment rights are intact.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Why Liberals Hate God

By Doug Hagin (08/20/03)

Liberals seem to have a tough time deciphering certain portions of the writings of our Founding Fathers. Specifically, the Bill of Rights really seems to trip them up. For example, they read the Second Amendment protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms to mean a right to carry a gun only if you are in the National Guard.

Now the fact that the National Guard did not exist at the time the Constitution was written does not faze Liberals, they simply dislike what the Bill of Rights says so they create a new definition for it. A definition, which suits their agenda of limited liberties instead of, limited government.

No amendment trips the Left up more often though than the very first one. Especially the first line of this Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Now really this is pretty clear and extremely easy to understand. The Amendment prevents Congress from making any law favoring any specific religion while protecting our right to exercise whichever religion we choose freely.

Truly no free society could ever have it any other way. The First Amendment guarantees no American will be forced to
financially support, or attend any establishment of religion. Yet Liberals have really missed the mark on this one.

To suit their meaning they have construed the First Amendment to mean no religion of any kind, especially Christian religions, in public at all. No Manger scenes at Christmas, no Ten Commandments in a government building, no teaching creationism in schools, no mentioning God anywhere but church or home. Of course this is asinine. The Founders were very clear in regards to the freedom of religion.

A town placing a Nativity scene on a courthouse lawn is not a violation of the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution comes even remotely close to banning this. After all Congress, which the First Amendment prevents from making laws respecting an establishment of religion, has nothing to do with placing the manger scene there does it?

The same applies with teaching creation in schools. Certainly teaching the scientific evidence of Creation and discussing it with students neither curtails the free exercise of religion or forces an establishment of religion on the students.

Certainly a Judge, or any government official placing a copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall of his office is not an act of Congress either so that too is not a violation of our constitution.

Yet Liberal Judges and lawyers and Liberal activists have been allowed to twist and pervert the meaning of the First Amendment to ban any mention of religion in the public forum. They have done this simply to suit their ideology and vision of America.

This vision is one where God and any mention of Him are limited to the privacy of your home or to a church setting. To Liberals God does not deserve a place in our government at all. Despite the fact our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and despite the fact many of our Founders were believers who credited our Creator with the blessings of liberty.

Yet Liberals continue in their fervent desire to erase any mention of God, the Bible, or Christianity in our nation. Why do they campaign so eagerly for God to be escorted out of our schools, government, courtrooms, and public places?

Simply put God is not only our Creator but also the source of all liberty, and the source of our nation’s founding. The Founders made all this very, very clear. And this scenario my friends just does not match the Liberal utopian fantasy the Left wants America to be.

In Liberal think government, run by Liberals of course, is the sole source of liberty and the judge of how much liberty the people can be trusted with. God gets in the way of this since He is the true source of our freedoms. So Liberals must first push God out of the way before they can establish their god, government, as the Supreme Being.

Hence the steady campaign by the Left to remove God as far as possible from as many places as possible.

Now I am sure to get angry emails from God-fearing Liberals protesting this column. And surely there will be those who insist there is a separation of church and state which prevents public displays of religion. But here is the challenge to those well meaning folks. Tell me exactly which religion is established by posting the Ten Commandments or teaching creation? Tell me how Congress has respected an establishment of religion when these things occur?

The fact is I have asked many these questions and never received a satisfactory answer. The First Amendment is very clear and concise. Liberals just do not like what it says.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/2197

Mr Hagin's premise is erroneous. I know many liberals who are also Christian. The primary difference between them and their right-wing bretheren is that they actually try to practice what they preach.

What Dubbyuh HAS done though, is breach the wall of separation between church and state by providing federal funding to religious organizations through his "Faith-Based Initiatives" program. So, we non-christians are being forced to use our tax dollars to support Christian organizations. I guess our Constitutional rights are being violated then. But since we're not Christian, or the right knd of Christian, it doesn't so much matter now, does it?

I could give a fat rat's ass whether or not my city puts ChannuChrismaKwanzzaka decorations on the lawn at city hall. The holiday season has degenerated into nothing more than an annual orgy of mass consumption anyways, so it just doesn't matter.

While liberal, I firmly believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Having hunted since I was big enough to keep both ends of my rifle off the ground, I appreciate how important it is to have firearms available to those responsible enough to use them in a safe and sane manner. And many other liberlas have the same experience.

Once again, you post tripe and swill. Incapable of debating in any sort of meaningful way you smear and attack with unsupported "facts", then belittle those who would dare contradict you. Good day.

 

[5stringJeff]

What Dubbyuh HAS done though, is breach the wall of separation between church and state by providing federal funding to religious organizations through his "Faith-Based Initiatives" program. So, we non-christians are being forced to use our tax dollars to support Christian organizations. I guess our Constitutional rights are being violated then. But since we're not Christian, or the right knd of Christian, it doesn't so much matter now, does it?

What you failed to point out is that the government gives equal opportunity to all faith-based organizations, both Christian and non-Christian. It just so happens that most faith based groups in America are Christian, because Christianity is the predominant religion in America. But under the law, a Buddhist organization has the same treatment under the law as a Christian one.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

While I personally have no problem with religious symbols in public, except maybe for the judge who had the 10 commandments embroidered on his robe, I have to ask a question: How does leaving creationism out of the class room, or saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, or even on the more radical side, demanding that nativity signs be removed from public buildings constitute preventing you from practicing your chosen religion?

The fact is, it doesn't. Your 1st Ammendment rights are intact.

Still the fact remains, leftists who claim there must be no religious expression on public property are constitutionally in the wrong.

I say we err on the side of allowing religous expression and celebrating the various cultures of humanity.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

For example, they read the Second Amendment protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms to mean a right to carry a gun only if you are in the National Guard.

I believe there has been a huge misunderstanding about the Second Amendment. You see, in the days of the founding fathers, bear arms were a delicacy. It was very difficult to kill bears, cut off the arms, and then serve them for dinner. Since the founding fathers wanted the people to have delicacies, they ensured that everyone would have rights to the biggest delicacy available at the time (bear arms) by putting it in the Constitution. Conservative neo-fascists twisted the original intent of the Second Amendment into "the people should have the right to own assault rifles capable of mowing down 100 people in 1 minute". Amazing how the Second Amendment went from guarenteeing a food item into guarenteeing the right to easily kill lots of people!

*Disclaimer: since sarcasm doesn't translate well on the internet, please rest assured that my post is 100% a joke. Have a nice day!

 

[no1tovote4]

I believe there has been a huge misunderstanding about the Second Amendment. You see, in the days of the founding fathers, bear arms were a delicacy. It was very difficult to kill bears, cut off the arms, and then serve them for dinner. Since the founding fathers wanted the people to have delicacies, they ensured that everyone would have rights to the biggest delicacy available at the time (bear arms) by putting it in the Constitution. Conservative neo-fascists twisted the original intent of the Second Amendment into "the people should have the right to own assault rifles capable of mowing down 100 people in 1 minute". Amazing how the Second Amendment went from guarenteeing a food item into guarenteeing the right to easily kill lots of people!

*Disclaimer: since sarcasm doesn't translate well on the internet, please rest assured that my post is 100% a joke. Have a nice day!

I always thought that it protected the right to short-sleeved shirts.

 

[MissileMan]

Still the fact remains, leftists who claim there must be no religious expression on public property are constitutionally in the wrong.

I say we err on the side of allowing religous expression and celebrating the various cultures of humanity.

And while to err is human, why err if it can be avoided?

The gist of the article was that the efforts by the left to remove religious reference from state institutions equals denying Christians freedom of religion. This simply isn't true.

 

[no1tovote4]

And while to err is human, why err if it can be avoided?

The gist of the article was that the efforts by the left to remove religious reference from state institutions equals denying Christians freedom of religion. This simply isn't true.

The article did speak of Christians, but not only of Christians.

"Yet Liberal Judges and lawyers and Liberal activists have been allowed to twist and pervert the meaning of the First Amendment to ban any mention of religion in the public forum. They have done this simply to suit their ideology and vision of America. "

It clearly is speaking of all of them and using the author's religion as a point of reference.

Now as for removing all reference to religion from the public forum it clearly is a denial of the right of free expression. If a community chooses to express their religion on the doorstep of their Capital building if you are attempting to have the Federal Government remove that expression then that is a violation of their right of free expression.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

In Liberal think government, run by Liberals of course, is the sole source of liberty and the judge of how much liberty the people can be trusted with. God gets in the way of this since He is the true source of our freedoms. So Liberals must first push God out of the way before they can establish their god, government, as the Supreme Being.

Let's face the truth: liberals today are nothing but commie-lites.

 

[freeandfun1]

I haven't yet read through the thread, but in my opinion, Liberals hate G-d becauase G-d DEMANDS accountability.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

I always thought that it protected the right to short-sleeved shirts.

Bear arms, not Bare arms.

 

[no1tovote4]

While I personally have no problem with religious symbols in public, except maybe for the judge who had the 10 commandments embroidered on his robe, I have to ask a question: How does leaving creationism out of the class room, or saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, or even on the more radical side, demanding that nativity signs be removed from public buildings constitute preventing you from practicing your chosen religion?

The fact is, it doesn't. Your 1st Ammendment rights are intact.

If a community chooses to express their religion regardless of where it is expressed, then they collectively have the same right as the individual. The Government has no right to come in and tell them what they can express or where it can be expressed. It clearly is a violation if the Federal Government tries to tell communities how and where they can express their religion. Also by telling them to express secular humanist expressions they would be in effect not only denying them religious expression but de facto establishing secular humanism as the religion of the land.

 

[no1tovote4]

Bear arms, not Bare arms.

You see, back then spelling was not an exact science, this mistake was easily made.... Yeah, back then..

 

[Hobbit]

The point I thik a lot of people are missing is that the federal government oversteps its bounds when eliminating religion from public property. Unless the property is federally owned, they have no right to regulate it. Their power is derived from the the Constitution. The Constitution gives them no right to regulate non-federal property and specifically states that powers not granted to the federal government go to the state by default. The federal government has no more right to take a nativity scene off of a city hall than it has the right to fire a New York D.A. It's up to the state or local jurisdiction.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I haven't yet read through the thread, but in my opinion, Liberals hate G-d becauase G-d DEMANDS accountability.

The very act of living demands accountability. Whether we choose to acknowledge that accountability is another thing entirely though. If you wish to ascribe that to a supernatural entity, that is your choice, not mine.

 

[Bullypulpit]

While I personally have no problem with religious symbols in public, except maybe for the judge who had the 10 commandments embroidered on his robe, I have to ask a question: How does leaving creationism out of the class room, or saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, or even on the more radical side, demanding that nativity signs be removed from public buildings constitute preventing you from practicing your chosen religion?

The fact is, it doesn't. Your 1st Ammendment rights are intact.

Your other issues are moot, but giving creationism, a patently religious doctrine, equal standing in the classroom with the theory of evolution is not.

Evolution is not simply a set of unconnected, unsupported, unproven hypotheses. It is a comprehensive and well supported body of knowledge that is the active foundation of biological processes. Dismissing evolution as "just a theory" is no different from dismissing gravity as "just a theory".

Evolution is well supported by a massive body of both fossil and empirical evidence. Creationism is supported by...well...nothing, unless you count religious doctrine. The teaching of creationism is nothing more than religious indoctrination and has no business being taught in public schools. If parents want it taught to their children, they should take it upon themselves to teach it at home, or send their children to a religious academy.

 

[no1tovote4]

Your other issues are moot, but giving creationism, a patently religious doctrine, equal standing in the classroom with the theory of evolution is not.

Evolution is not simply a set of unconnected, unsupported, unproven hypotheses. It is a comprehensive and well supported body of knowledge that is the active foundation of biological processes. Dismissing evolution as "just a theory" is no different from dismissing gravity as "just a theory".

Evolution is well supported by a massive body of both fossil and empirical evidence. Creationism is supported by...well...nothing, unless you count religious doctrine. The teaching of creationism is nothing more than religious indoctrination and has no business being taught in public schools. If parents want it taught to their children, they should take it upon themselves to teach it at home, or send their children to a religious academy.

Amazingly here Bully and I agree. However teaching intelligent design along with evolution actually makes sense but still would be religious indoctrination. Those type of classes would be better left to philosophy discussions when children reach that level.

 

[MissileMan]

The point I thik a lot of people are missing is that the federal government oversteps its bounds when eliminating religion from public property. Unless the property is federally owned, they have no right to regulate it. Their power is derived from the the Constitution. The Constitution gives them no right to regulate non-federal property and specifically states that powers not granted to the federal government go to the state by default. The federal government has no more right to take a nativity scene off of a city hall than it has the right to fire a New York D.A. It's up to the state or local jurisdiction.

It is the local and state officials telling them to remove these things, not the feds.

 

[MissileMan]

If a community chooses to express their religion regardless of where it is expressed, then they collectively have the same right as the individual. The Government has no right to come in and tell them what they can express or where it can be expressed. It clearly is a violation if the Federal Government tries to tell communities how and where they can express their religion. Also by telling them to express secular humanist expressions they would be in effect not only denying them religious expression but de facto establishing secular humanism as the religion of the land.

If a town votes to allow nativity scenes at town hall for instance, and the measure passes, great! But if the measure fails and they disallow it, noone's religious freedoms have been impinged.