Framing the Dialogue

Liberal Alters – Religion

I know what you are thinking…Liberals seem to abhor religion and will stop at nothing to denigrate the beliefs of others.  Their absolute worship of the anti-religion in and of itself is a religion.  I cannot say that they are atheists outright, but many of them maintain only loose ties to the religion in which their parents raised them.  I differentiate those from people like me who are believers and live the faith, but don’t like to go to church.  I wouldn’t call myself a religious person, but I believe in God and work to live my life according to my Catholic faith…except for the whole going to church every Sunday.  I also believe (and am counting on) that God is merciful and forgiving and understanding and forgiving.

I really don’t care if you believe, but it really ticks me off when you (the liberal them and not those who read this blog) demean, trivialize, denigrate, or poke fun at other people’s faith.  I happened to watch a part of The Daily Show and caught the host denigrating the beliefs of Sarah Palin (I think that’s who it was).  The cool, hip Stewart couldn’t help but snicker about some stereotype belief that humans have only existed for 6,000 years.  Why does it matter to him?  Why is that funny?  Actually it is not really funny.  I’d like to see him poke fun at a religion that believes in stoning women who are raped, beheads non-believers, and have a particular hatred for Jews.  Perhaps Mr. Cool is a little afraid of that peaceful religion.  But I digress…

Liberals, however, mask their disdain for religion as some type of self-righteous effort to uphold the Constitution.  It’s funny that the Constitutional phrase they like the best, “separation of church and state” is not actually in the constitution.  For some reason they refuse to consider the context in which our Founding Fathers wrote our founding documents.  They were the direct descendant of people who fled here from state religions and did not want an establishment of a religion which supports their separation argument, but they forget the next part of the First Amendment, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

When a group of students wants to say a prayer before a big game or event and is told that they cannot; isn’t that prohibiting the free exercise thereof?  They are taxpayers who support those institutions and should have the right to say their prayer.  Groups like the ACLU who routinely sue local governments and schools over “separation” issues (i.e moments of silence, Christmas parties, mangers on public land, crosses on public land) are establishing their religion; the religion of atheism.  When our money can no longer say “In God We Trust,” when the President leaves “Under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance and no one really take note, when schools no longer have Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving breaks.  After all who do we give thanks to if not a higher being?  Perhaps Gaea? 

I feel like I am getting caught up in the really complex issues regarding religion when my point is rather simple.  The left have their own religions that they have established.  They may not be called religions, but when you look how they are worshiped by the left to almost fanatical heights they are religions.  Consider the Man-made Global Warming Religion and how “heritics” who do not accept the religious precepts are treated.  The left even uses similar phrases like “deniers” to describe people who do not believe as they do.  

Their true God is atheism!  They may deny it.  They may not believe it.  They may belong to a church.  They may go to church.  They may give money to churches.  But all one has to do is look at their actions to come to that conclusion.  Their faith in another religion is secondary to their faith in liberalism.  How else can you explain why such a high percentage of Jewish voters supported and still support Barack Hussein Obama who has an unmistakable antipathy toward Israel?  The path for our country was laid out very succinctly by our Founders and we should adhere to its construction…

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

4 CommentsLeave one

  1. Doug Indeap says:

    The principle of separation of church and state is NOT an atheist concept. It is derived from the Constitution (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office and the First Amendment provisions constraining the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.

    James Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

    The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.

    Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx

  2. Greg says:

    I went back and reread my post. I never said that the separation of church and state was an atheist concept and I never advocated a state religion. I do believe that the left and atheists use that part of the Constitution in an attempt to secularize our country and to scrub away the historical fact that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values.

    I have no doubt that interpretations of the law as “caricatured” by courts support the need to forbid Christmas breaks, use of red and green decorations around the end of December, moments of silence, forbidding religious clubs in schools, etc. Those of us in the blogosphere are tired of the PC as others try to achieve the impossible task of trying to please every single disgruntled person at the expense of the vast majority. A Gallup Poll in 2009 showed that 77 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian.

    My point is that there are those who desire to eliminate one faith in favor of their faith – atheism.

    Thanks for your comment.

  3. Doug Indeap says:

    It is important to distinguish between the “public sphere” and “government” and between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public sphere–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.

    The principle of separation of church and state is sometimes misunderstood or misused, as you note, by some on both “sides”–to stretch it to cover situations it properly doesn’t or to restrict it from covering situations it properly does. Properly applied, the principle serves to protect the freedom of all individuals to exercise their religions whether theism, atheism, or other. By remaining neutral in matters of religion, the government is hardly promoting atheism.

    A word should be added about the commonly heard ideas that this is all about people easily offended or majority and minority rights. We’re not talking about the freedom of individuals to say or do something others find offensive. We’re talking about the government weighing in to promote religion. Under our Constitution, our government has no business doing that–regardless of whether anyone is offended and regardless of how many like or dislike any particular religion. While this is primarily a constitutional point, it is one that conservatives–small government conservatives–should appreciate from a political standpoint as well. While the First Amendment thus constrains government from promoting (or opposing) religion without regard to whether anyone is offended, a court may address the issue only in a suit by someone with “standing” (sufficient personal stake in a matter) to bring suit; in order to show such standing, a litigant may allege he is offended or otherwise harmed by the government’s failure to follow the law; the question whether someone has standing to sue is entirely separate from the question whether the government has violated the Constitution.

  4. Greg says:

    I feel like we’re playing message tag here. I basically don’t disagree with your comments, however, I wasn’t suggesting advocacy of religion. My basic premise is that atheism is a religious belief albeit one of disbelief, but practicioners are as adamant in their precepts as others who practice other faiths. My concern is that we do not purge prayer from the public square

    I do not believe that government officials are being “neutral” when they impose restrictions on “silent” prayer at sports events. What would happen to a coach who joined in her team’s athletes when they decide to form a circle for prayer? How long would they have a job?

    I did not suggest that government neutrality promotes atheism. I am saying that atheists are subverting the Constitution to promote atheism. Atheists are forcing government to be anti-religion in the guise of neutrality.

Leave a comment

Use basic HTML (<a href="">, <strong>, <blockquote>)