Christ-o-Fascism, and How The Left Think Missouri Is Going To Establish A Theocracy
Posted on March 4, 2006
The Missouri House is looking at legislation to preserve and respect the Christian heritage of the State.
The media have not been honest in their reporting of this legislation, and…The left are freaking out!
The fascists who bring down America will not be wearing brownshirts and displaying swastikas, but rather they will be carrying Bibles and displaying the cross. Radical Russ.
There is no doubt that the Religious Right, a.k.a. Christ-o-Fascists want to eliminate most, if not all of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
They want to establish America as a Christian Theocracy, in which they can kick-out the non-Christians and revert to some Dark Ages type society. It is long past time for the Christians in America who don’t wish to see their religion perverted into some sort of Fascist theocracy to stand up and be counted. The Supreme Irony
Luckily bloggers like Adam’s Blog, Gateway Pundit, Another Rovian Conspiracy, and Christians Who Think know how to do research before copy and pasting freak outs!
First of all, it is a resoultion, not a bill. It will not affect legislation.
Second: It’s obvious that the purpose of the resolution is not to establish Christianity as an official religion of the State of Missouri, rather, its purpose is to express the sentiment of the Missouri House that things like voluntary prayer in schools and religious displays on public property should be allowed.
Here is the resolution (What the lefties should have sourced)
Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation; and
Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him; and
Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority’s right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and
Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and
Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America.
There is the truth of the legislation, and you can like it, or not, but at least be honest about it. Freaking out calling the right a bunch of brown shirts, and acting like a chicken little screaming that the sky is falling, and Missouri is going to haul off all the non-Christians to gas chambers, only makes the left look even more like idiots than they already do.
» Filed Under Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
14 Responses to “Christ-o-Fascism, and How The Left Think Missouri Is Going To Establish A Theocracy”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
I could go on and on about this but instead I’ll just say three things; Yes people are overreacting, people overreact, that’s what they do. Second, you’re underacting. In the spirit of keeping things short I’d ask you to re-read Animal Farm, particularly the part about how “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”. This clearly sets up a pro-Christian bias which will continue to subtly affect business as usual in that state. Finally, people already have the option to pray in school and decorate for Christian holidays on public property. No one says otherwise unless they’re people overreacting. What you can’t do is have the school endorse a religion over others because it is a secular establishment which is an adjunct to a secular government.
What part of separation of Church and State is SO hard to understand? No one is asking people not to be Christian, they’re asking them to keep school and state school and state and to keep Church, Church. It’s a reasonable request, and it’s what the founding fathers intended, and the rest of this nonsense is just that.
“What part of separation of Church and State is SO hard to understand? No one is asking people not to be Christian, they’re asking them to keep school and state school and state and to keep Church, Church. It’s a reasonable request, and it’s what the founding fathers intended, and the rest of this nonsense is just that.”
Well, actually, Jimmy, you are wrong on the facts.
1.) The First Amendment does not call for or mandate “separation of church and state.” Read it. It mandates that the federal government cannot establish a church or prohibit the free exercise of religion.
2.) The Founders did NOT intend the kind of separation of church and state you believe. Read up on the numbers of States that continued to have State-supported churches and ministers of the gospel long after the ratification of the Constitution. It’ll be an eye-opener for you, I’m sure.
The fact is, some States continued for years to have state-supported churches, quite in agreement with the Constitution and the First Amendment. Others never had such institutions or provisions and still others had eliminated them–usually at the behest of Christians concerned with state influence on religious matters– before the Constitution was adopted. The view that the Constitution, including the First Amendment, in some way prevents the States (and local schools and other local and non-federally funded government institutions) from having a church affiliation, or indeed any religious connections or sentiments at all is one that has slowly overtaken us… along with a concommitant decline in morals and behavior.
And it’s no coincidence that the decline in reading ability and practice (recent studies showing a 50%-70% genuine illiteracy–inability to read and comprehend simple prose–among four-year colleg3e grads, for example) has proceeded along with the ACLU (and the left in general) persuading a generally historically illiterate populace of their false “history” of the Constitution and of the Founders’ intentions.
jimmy,
“What part of separation of Church and State is SO hard to understand?”
Point it out in the “constitution” and I’ll explain it for you.
Now,let me ask you a question.
What is the difference between a “bill” and a “resolution”?
Separation of church and state has nothing to do with “endorse.”
“Finally, people already have the option to pray in school and decorate for Christian holidays on public property”
No, they don’t. I suggest you follow recent (like the last 10 years) cases involving the ACLU.
“No, they don’t. I suggest you follow recent (like the last 10 years) cases involving the ACLU.”
In 1999, The City of Jersey City won a case over the ACLU that allowed the city to continue displaying the nativity scene on City Hall property. Mayor- Brett Schundler.
http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/article/220.html
Have a nice day!
I had to comment on this separation of church and state concept. Obviously, the phrase itself doesn’t appear anywhere in the constitution. There’s no doubt of that.
However, the sentiment expressed by that statement is clearly shared by at least some of the most notable Founding Fathers. Let’s not forget that Madison wrote of a “separation between Religion and Government.” And let’s not forget that in the text of the Treaty of Tripoli that John Adams signed, it clearly stated the US was not in any way founded as a Christian nation. Let’s not forget that Thomas Jefferson went out of his way to write about how the 7th ammendment in no way allows Christian views/morals to be established as law just because they came from English Common Law prior to the Revolution and that religious freedom trumped that.
It’s impossible to know exactly what every person who ratified the Bill of Rights was thinking when they signed it, but we do know the original author of the first ammendment, Madison, was wholeheartedly in favor of the concept of a very strict separation between religion and government.
So I wouldn’t be so hasty as to dismiss separation arguments so quickly.
Now, with regards to Missouri…
The bill of rights was designed to protect the rights of INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE, not groups. Every individual Christian has the right to practice their Christianity. They have to right to get together with other Christians and practice that as well. They do not, however, have an exclusive right to have their local, state, or federal government display their religion for them.
As such, Missouri is very much violating the spirit of the first ammendment, which we established above through Madison’s own writing is to ensure ultimate religious freedom for individual people and to keep government out of those individuals’ lives.
That is why the ACLU will always fight public nativity displays — BUT why they will also defend a little Christian girl’s right to say a prayer to herself or with a small group of her friends at the lunch table at school. In fact, the ACLU did EXACTLY that a couple years ago when a fearful and ignorant principal told her she couldn’t pray at the lunch table, even though she wasn’t trying to make anyone else do it. The ACLU came to her defense, as I would hope they would.
The concept behind what the ACLU fights or protects is very simple: If your civil liberties are in danger, they’ll protect you. If you are attempting to utilize government to display your religion for you, they’ll try to stop you. It has nothing to do with the religion itself; it has EVERYTHING to do with making sure that each individual person in this country gets to do what they want to do as an individual and that those people do not have to witness their government espousing other people’s beliefs over their own.
I’m aware that there are people who will trot out the questionable origins of the ACLU, as though that somehow has any bearing on what they’re doing today. 100 years ago, most Democrats were southerners with a very different political agenda than the Democrats of today. 30 years ago, Republicans championed fiscal responsibility above all else, and in the 80s and today they’ve been running up the highest debts in history. My point? Organizations change how they operate. The ACLU, as it exists today, is just a series of local groups, each operating somewhat independently of the others, trying to make sure that individual people don’t get lost in the shuffle.
And Missouri’s law is not in the interest of individuals, it’s in the interest of Christianity as a concept. Concepts don’t get Constitutional protection: People do.
Regarding the founders carrying Bibles… A lot of them *were* Christian — even a majority of them — but you can be a Christian and realize that the government shouldn’t be reflective of that, which is also something the Founding Fathers did. I believe Madison himself was a Christian, but he also recognized that HIS religion shouldn’t be reflected in an offical way through the government.
That attitude was also shared, of course, but the non-Christian founding fathers and thinkers of the time, people like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine and so on.
“The City of Jersey City won a case over the ACLU…”
Key words: OVER the ACLU.
“Let’s not forget that Thomas Jefferson went out of his way to write about how the 7th ammendment in no way allows Christian views/morals to be established as law just because they came from English Common Law prior to the Revolution and that religious freedom trumped that.”
Lets also not forget how he then turned around and spent government funds on converting Indians to Christianity. Let us also not forget that each time a President is sworn in he is made to swear on the same Holy Bible George Washington did PUBLICLY, a ritual established by the Framers of the establishment clause.
“BUT why they will also defend a little Christian girl’s right to say a prayer to herself or with a small group of her friends at the lunch table at school.”
And they will sue to keep R.A.’s on college campuses from holding private Bible studies in their own dorms and on their own time. They will also sue to keep little girls from wearing red white and blue beaded necklaces in support of the troops in school. (Gang related you see) Removing a Ten Commandments display is not defending anyone’s civil liberties anyway. There is nothing in the Constitution that says people have a right not to be offended.
“Removing a Ten Commandments display is not defending anyone’s civil liberties anyway. There is nothing in the Constitution that says people have a right not to be offended.”
It’s not a matter of being offended or not. It’s a matter of living in a country that does not in any way endorse any religion over another. It has nothing to do with being offended but has everything to do with citizens feeling like they are subject to equal treatment and equal understanding under the law. When anything official from any level of government — be it a law, be it a resolution, be it a public building, be it printing on legal tender — defines the concept of god or seems to promote or value one religion over others, that’s an obvious violation of Madison’s vision of separating government and religion.
As for Jefferson… Was Jefferson trying to convert Indians as some sort of missionary, which is how you make it sound? Hardly. He utilized his Jefferson-ized verion of the Bible, which removed the miracles of Jesus, and tried to civilize the Indians as part of his domestic policies on land expansion and signing treaties with the Indians, who he wrote many times needed “civilizing.” It was a political maneuver, not a religious one.
I know a lot of people are afraid of America becoming a theocracy. But I wonder what is worse. A pro-Christian bias which reflects morality and love of people or an anti-Christian bias reflecting hatred of everything good and decent. Whether they admit to it or not, the liberal left wants a theocracy as well. A theocracy in which atheism is the dominant religion and Christians have no rights under the Constitution. It is the liberal left, not the religious right, which would do away with the first amendment. And separation of church and state? That was the idea of a group of Baptists to prevent the state from meddling in the church’s business. I would not want a Christian theocracy because I know it violates the first amendment. But at least give us the same rights. If a picture of Mohammed or Buddha was in the classroom of that Spanish teacher, the ACLU would fight for that teacher’s right to worship as he wishes. But because it was a Christian, he was told to remove anything pertaining to religion…even the father of our country! We just want equal rights.
They will also sue to keep little girls from wearing red white and blue beaded necklaces in support of the troops in school. (Gang related you see)
Apostle, do you have a source for this?
“but we do know the original author of the first ammendment, Madison, was wholeheartedly in favor of the concept of a very strict separation between religion and government.”
James Madison’s religious views and activities are numerous, as are his writings on religion. An understanding of Madison’s religious views is complicated by the fact that his early actions were at direct variance with his later opinions. Those who would use Madison as an authority in secularizing the public arena misrepresent his historical role in framing the First Amendment and ignore the views and importance of other prominent Founders.
Madison’s proposed wording for the First Amendment demonstrates that he opposed only the establishment of a federal denomination, not public religious activities. His proposal declared:
” The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.”
In 1789, Madison served on the Congressional committee which authorized, approved, and selected paid Congressional chaplains.
In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided a Bible Society in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
Throughout his Presidency (1809-1816), Madison endorsed public and official religious expressions by issuing several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving.
These were the early actions of Madison. In later life Madison retreated from many of these positions, even declaring in his “Detached Memoranda” his belief that having paid chaplains and issuing presidential prayer proclamations were unconstitutional. Recent Courts have made a point of citing Madison’s “Detached Memoranda” in arguing against public religious expressions.
Significantly, the “Detached Memoranda” was “discovered” in 1946 in the papers of Madison biographer William Cabell Rives and was first published more than a century after Madison’s death by Elizabeth Fleet in the October 1946 William & Mary Quarterly. In that work, Madison expressed his opposition to many of his own earlier beliefs and practices and set forth a new set of beliefs formerly unknown even to his closest friends. Since Madison never made public or shared with his peers his sentiments found in the “Detached Memoranda,” and since his own public actions were at direct variance with this later writing, it is difficult to argue that it reflects the Founders’ intent toward religion.
There were fifty-five individuals directly involved in framing the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention, and an additional ninety in the first federal Congress that framed the First Amendment and Bill of Rights. Allowing for the overlap of nineteen individuals who were both at the Constitutional Convention and a part of the first Congress, there were one hundred and twenty-six individual participants in the framing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The records of the Constitutional Convention demonstrate that James Madison was often out of step with these Founders. The other delegates rejected Madison’s Virginia plan in preference for Roger Sherman’s Connecticut plan and voted down 40 of Madison’s 71 proposals (60 percent). Nevertheless, today Madison is cited as if he is the only authority among the Founding Fathers and the only expert on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights.
Was Madison responsible for the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights? Definitely not. In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, it was Virginian George Mason that advocated that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution, but the other Virginians at the Convention – including James Madison – opposed any Bill of Rights and their position prevailed. Consequently, George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, and others at the Convention refused to sign the new Constitution because of their fear of insufficiently bridled federal power.
**************************
The cornerstone of the Capitol was laid by President George Washington in 1793.
Then, on December 4, 1800, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building.
The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, Jefferson’s approval came while he was still officially the Vice- President but after he had just been elected President.
Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President and also throughout his presidency. The first Capitol church service that Jefferson attended as President was a service preached by Jefferson’s friend, the Rev. John Leland, on January 3, 1802. Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor.
However, regardless of the part of the building in which the church met, the rostrum of the Speaker of the House was used as the preacher’s pulpit; and Congress purchased the hymnals used in the service.
The church services in the Hall of the House were interdenominational, overseen by the chaplains appointed by the House and Senate; sermons were preached by the chaplains on a rotating basis, or by visiting ministers approved by the Speaker of the House. As Margaret Bayard Smith, confirmed: “Not only the chaplains, but the most distinguished clergymen who visited the city, preached in the Capitol” and “clergymen, who during the session of Congress visited the city, were invited by the chaplains to preach.”
This does not look like the “separation of church and state” that we hear so much about today.
sixpsck: Jefferson’s motives are irrelevant to your arguement. It was still clear endorsement of Christianity. Whether or not Jefferson or any other Framer were truly Christian is not relevant, and you can debate that another time. What is irrefutable is the clear ENDORSEMENT of Christianity by the Framers themselves. This gives clear indication as to the intent the Framers had for the establishment clause, otherwise, you are claiming that they violated their own laws that they themselves Framed.
They will also sue to keep little girls from wearing red white and blue beaded necklaces in support of the troops in school. (Gang related you see)
Actually, Apostle, this statement of yours is the exact opposite of the truth. The ACLU took the girl’s side in this case. (source) Why did you misrepresent the ACLU’s position? Isn’t there something in one of the commandments about bearing false witness?