Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
The Constitution Is Under Attack as the Right Tries to Establish A State Religion
Conservatives of all stripes have been crying tyranny over the past four-and-years informing that they have little comprehension of what tyranny entails, but this nation has suffered tyranny defined as a “rigorous condition imposed on the people by some outside agency or force” over the past thirty years. The Founding Fathers recognized that without certain guaranteed rights, the people would be subjected to tyranny from outside forces attempting to impose, by government fiat, their own agenda without legal cover, and for the past thirty years a group has violated the Constitution with impunity. The Constitution has been under a sustained attack by forces in, and outside, the government and it was announced on Monday that the Supreme Court will hear arguments to decide if the Constitution’s prohibition on the establishment of religion should be stricken down and whether Americans will live under a theocracy.
The High Court agreed to rule on whether or not Christianity is the established state religion, and if non-Christians are protected by the 1st Amendment. Many Christians have panted to eliminate 1st Amendment protections against religious tyranny, and the issue the Justices will decide on is if government entities have the right to force all Americans to suffer through mandated supplications to Jesus Christ despite the Constitution’s clear directive that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The Establishment Clause has been interpreted as meaning the U.S. government is prohibited from giving one religion preference over another, and yet that Establishment Clause has been desecrated with near impunity in Congress, local governments, and public schools as Christians regularly conduct prayers at school functions, public meetings, and at all levels of government.
Last year, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a New York Town Board violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court by an Arizona-based Christian group, the Alliance Defending Freedom, with support from over 40 Republican members of Congress and 18 state attorneys general who have written separate briefs advocating for eliminating the Establishment Clause. The implications of a favorable High Court ruling will be the first step in establishing Christianity as the state religion and eliminating religious freedom for any American who does not adhere to the Christian religion. It also potentially protects the religious right that often wages campaigns of harassment, intimidation and violence against Americans who support the 1st Amendment’s separation and establishment clause(s), and puts non-believers religious liberty, and their lives, in jeopardy that is typical of harsh Islamic Sharia Law as enforced by the Taliban.
For a religion founded on Christ’s teachings of peace, many of its extreme adherents are guilty of intimidation to force non-believers who adhere to the Constitution to acquiesce to Christians whose efforts to inject Christian doctrine into government are thwarted in the courts. The Freedom from Religion Foundation reports that when non-believers file suit to have religious symbols removed from public buildings, public schools, and stop Christian prayers at public meetings, they often request, and are granted, anonymity to protect themselves and their families from violence and intimidation. In just one out of hundreds of cases across America, plaintiffs begged the court to keep their names out of the public record because they feared retaliation from the community. The court granted their request.
The plaintiffs were threatened on social media (Facebook) with Christians asking “Have the families involved in the lawsuit been identified? Someone needs to send that group back to Wisconsin with several black eyes!” Another commenter encouraged others to seek out the plaintiff’s identity and “slam the shit out of the bitch” who filed the lawsuit. The court granted the plaintiffs anonymity because “this basis upon which the “Does” fear disclosure is substantial and that there is a substantial public interest in ensuring that litigants not face such retribution in their attempt to seek redress for what they view as a Constitutional violation, a pure legal issue.” To give the violent Christians access to the plaintiff’s identity, Republican state representative Tim Krieger filed a bill that would eliminate the right of plaintiffs to sue anonymously over religious symbols on public property so the Christian-Taliban can follow through with their violent threats.
In another case, a high school activist who spoke out against an illegal prayer banner in her public school prevailed in court, and besides violent threats on social media and a handwritten letter, police took the threats so seriously they began giving her a police escort for protection. Another case in 2000 when the Supreme Court struck down school-endorsed prayer at a Texas high school football games in Santa Fe, the school district went on a crusade to determine who the anonymous plaintiff was and it forced the judge to issue an order threatening criminal contempt if there was “any further attempt on the part of District or school administration… parents, students or anyone else, overtly or covertly to ferret out the identities of the Plaintiffs in this cause, by means of bogus petitions, questionnaires, individual interrogation, or downright ‘snooping.’”
In 1981, two women who did not want their children exposed to Baptist preaching on school time filed a lawsuit and faced instant retribution as one woman was assaulted by a school employee who smashed her head repeatedly against a car door, and after being fined for assault, the community came to his defense and raised money to pay the fine. The other woman’s home was burned to the ground, her son’s goats were slashed and mutilated with a knife, and one fine Christian phoned to warn her he would break into her home house, rape her in front of her children, and then “bring her to Jesus.” The school district’s superintendent justified the violence saying, “The only people who have been hurt by this thing are the plaintiffs who chose to create their own hell on earth.” These are not isolated cases by any means, and it is the primary reason many writers, including this author, use pseudonyms to protect their homes and families. Two years ago after being stalked, accosted, and suffering repeated vandalism at home over one article about prayer in public school, the local chief of police advised to write a retraction, repent, and “get close to Jesus or face righteous retribution now and for eternity.”
America has given Christians a sense of entitlement to impose their religion on the entire population, and the government, for too long and it defies the Founders’ intent in the 1st Amendment. When it was announced the Supreme Court would hear arguments on whether or not Christian prayer is the law of the land, advocates for religious tyranny released a statement entitled “Prayer will be heard on high,” and noted there is “unambiguous and unbroken history” of such prayers. Senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom said, “A few people should not be able to extinguish the traditions of our nation merely because they heard something they didn’t like,” and that this “tradition shouldn’t suddenly be deemed unconstitutional.” However, slavery was a tradition, women were traditionally prohibited from voting, gays were traditionally imprisoned, and mixed-race marriages were traditionally prohibited, but those “traditions of our nation” were all Constitutional violations that were struck down. Mandating Jesus prayers at school functions, public meetings, and even in the halls of Congress is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment and the High court has little choice but to strike down the practice with extreme prejudice.
The only reason the religious right feels entitled to force its traditions and beliefs on the rest of the population is because the 1st Amendment’s Establishment and Separation Clauses have never been strictly adhered to at all levels of government. It is why evangelicals attempt to impose their marriage definition on gays, and why women’s reproductive rights are the purview of conservative Christians in state legislatures and the U.S. Congress, and why speaking out for separation of church and state is likely to result in acts of violence. America is not a Christian nation going all the way back to Founding Father John Adams’ statement to Muslims in 1797, and yet Christians are emboldened and empowered to take a blatantly unconstitutional matter before the Supreme Court for adjudication. No American denies Christians the right to pray themselves silly in the privacy of their homes and churches, but when they force Americans to listen to their supplications to Jesus Christ at public school events, city council meetings, or in legislative chambers they are violating the Constitution, imposing religious tyranny, and following Taliban Sharia Law
The Founding Fathers were explicit in the First Amendment's separation and no-establishment clause that ...
Apparently it's ultra-super important for Christian kids to be able to pray at school but not so much for Mu ...
All across the United States this month young people celebrated the end of their high school careers and ...
North Carolina proposes establishing State Religion A lifelong Spanish citizen and wise man raised and e ...
Throughout America's history and in nearly every era, different political groups have attempted to inter ...
Shiva
May. 21st, 2013 at 10:25 am
“The” Religion of Christianity is under attack from incoming religions from emigrants. They have little choice but to make sure that they are protected under all circumstances. I find it horrifying that the Supreme Court is even considering hearing this. If they can overturn this, then I guess we can get the right to own weapons overturned. This can mean that the Bill of Rights can be overturned and the constitution being called null and invalid
But thinking past that and living under a theocracy, ask yourself how that will be done. Just like Muslims in Afghanistan who had men patrolling the streets to beat people who weren’t obedient. How will the Christians enforce their theocracy? Can they use the police? I don’t think so but they can use men in the streets. A woman dressing like a man wearing slacks? Out of the question. A theocracy must be kept in force by force. No theocracy leadership will ever depend on people willingly being submissive or forthcoming with their money.
Worse, Christians and Baptist’s will support this thinking that it is all about them. Boy are they in for a big surprise. According to those who want this overturned, those people aren’t even real Christians
ARWKoppen
May. 21st, 2013 at 10:28 am
Discrimination is not Christian, besides it’s against the human rights of the United Nations.
www.un.org/en/documents/u...
www.un.org/ar/documents/u...
www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pag...
www.boes.org/un/chihr-b.h...
(*Discrimination reminds us of *)
www.verhoevenmarc.be/PDF/...
So stop discrimination!
ARWKoppen
May. 21st, 2013 at 12:58 pm
And who were the ones that ended World War II?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All...
Among these were:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buf...
robt.shepherd.tripod.com/...
Charlie F
May. 21st, 2013 at 10:42 am
I have had concern for many years of Christian Conservatives wanting to bring down separation if church and state in this country. What we are seeing is the result of a 40 year effort.
I wrote about my concerns a few years ago.
thepoliticalcarnival.blog...
djchefron
May. 21st, 2013 at 10:51 am
Article Five of the United States Constitution
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
What am I missing here?
Churchlady320
May. 21st, 2013 at 1:19 pm
Nothing. They are.
PSzymeczek
May. 22nd, 2013 at 3:19 pm
Article VI:
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Cyndi
May. 21st, 2013 at 11:13 am
I don’t understand why it even is getting to the supreme court. It should have been thrown out in the first court it encountered. The constitution is very clear about this. d
On another note, where are all the “god is punishing the sinners” people that come out of the woodwork every time there is a natural disaster somewhere. Seems to me that god is not happy with the bible belt right about now if we are going to blame god for these sorts of things.
nabsentia23
May. 21st, 2013 at 11:52 am
I don’t think they will get anywhere with this lawsuit. Although the seperation of Church and State has never been uniformly applied, if any of the SC justices want to take on Thomas Jefferson, then go right ahead.
As for the rightwingers involved with this, they’ve just demonstrated how their “fondness” for Jefferson is empty and hollow. It’s Jefferson’s letter to Southern Baptists that is used in interpretating the First Amendment.
What other American historical figures are the Right going contradict despite their so-called “respect” and “reverence” for them? Distortion is not the same as respect. Most know this. The same can’t be said for the Right. I’m not a Jefferson fan, but I know that if he were alive today, he would be opposed to this lawsuit. End of story!!!!
Besides, all of this reminds me of something I’ve always believed. I’ve got no issues with Jesus. It’s is his followers who drive me insane and the rest of the world…
Mary James
May. 21st, 2013 at 12:02 pm
The domestic taliban want to force their bigoted hate-filled agenda on everyone. DREAM ON
Barry Roope
May. 21st, 2013 at 12:56 pm
How in the World did this case ever get to be heard in the Supreme Court, what lower courts were so stupid as not to be informed of one of the most basic and well understood articles of our Constitution. This should have been easily thrown out in the lower courts, based on well established precedant and the very clear and concise wording of our 1st addmendment in the Constitution. Why did the Supreme Court agree to hear this case? They are petitioned with thousands of cases that people want heard and decided, the Court is only able to hear a few hundred a year, why would they decide, that this is one that needs to be re-visited, I’m not the paranoid sort, but maybe they are wanting to make a National religion, I wonder what would the Right-wing do if they decided we needed a National Religion, and the Court made that Religion, Islam. If the Sup. Court decides it, there is no appeal process, the country would by law have to be an Islamic Republic, wonder,if they thought this though?
nabsentia23
May. 21st, 2013 at 1:19 pm
Just as my previous points said. If the SCOTUS wants to take on Thomas Jefferson then let them.
In the meanwhile, we get to see rightwingers try to explain why their hero’s intepretation of the First Amendment is less important than their own.
Larry
May. 21st, 2013 at 12:57 pm
The constitution guarantees you the right to pursue YOUR religion, but prohibits the government from establishing any religion. When new immigrants come into the US with THEIR religion, you are not required to follow their religion any more than they are required to follow your religion. This is what the constitution is saying. But there are those that claim this to be a christian nation and that Christianity is the nations religion. They try to implement laws and traditions that follow their religious views. They keep citing the bible as their justification for such a law. But the fact remains that as soon as you cite the bible as justification it also make such a law unconstitutional. It is like abortion. Abortion is legal because it does not violate any constitutional law and allows all to follow their religious views. Their justification for not allowing abortion is routed in their bible to be forced on all citizens. Therefore making their justification unconstitutional.
Jim Faubel
May. 21st, 2013 at 2:01 pm
After their disastrous Citizens United decision, if the Supreme Court tries to annul the Establishment Clause, this will expose them as THE MOST ACTIVIST COURT IN HISTORY and should lead to the IMMEDIATE IMPEACHMENT of these so-called “conservative” justices.
phooeyrat
May. 21st, 2013 at 3:52 pm
So in the name of someones religion it could soon be totally legal, in the United States of America, too stone, kill, imprison and crucify anyone of it’s citizen’s who are considered too be “non-believers” of this religion at the whim or will of some radical religious believers; if our (biased) Supreme Court decides in their favor. Satan himself must be directing this scenario (and feeling very proud). In my opinion.
Shiva
May. 21st, 2013 at 4:02 pm
A theocracy can only be enforced by force. See Islam
phooeyrat
May. 21st, 2013 at 4:11 pm
Does the majority of the United States Supreme Court speak for any specific religion or god when they are hearing their cases today? If so, they should recuse themselves from this case. In my opinion.
Shiva
May. 21st, 2013 at 4:12 pm
They speak for the Koch
phooeyrat
May. 21st, 2013 at 6:07 pm
“The Koch” then could also considered too be working as one of “Satan’s” (if Satan does truly exist) partners on this project (along with the majority of the SCOTUS) too place under a strict religious rule (theocracy) 99% of our nations citizens. They can always say that the “Devil” made them do it for an excuse, if things back-fire on them, because a truly “loving-God” would not do this too anyone. In my opinion.
Shiva
May. 21st, 2013 at 6:10 pm
I dont buy into the satan thing, but I do know there are good actions and bad. Good thoughts and bad.
Dont buy into the god thing either :)
I can tell you satan was created when the Israelis went from multiple gods to one god. You see, they couldnt have a god that did evil things. SO they created someone to blame
ARWKoppen
May. 21st, 2013 at 4:26 pm
Just only the following hyperlink has all rules for all humanity:
www.un.org/en/documents/u...
KR.
A.
(*proof*)
Just about every country (yes, even china and russia have signed).
♥ U ALL. A.
Gene Blodgett
May. 22nd, 2013 at 3:50 pm
Excellent hyperlink.
NativeSonKY (@NativeSonKY)
May. 21st, 2013 at 5:27 pm
I know that Aaron Sorkin wrote it in a drama on TV, but it is all too true; GOP = American Taliban.
Brian Loudermilch
May. 21st, 2013 at 6:24 pm
Just wait until the Wingnuts try to Enforce
their Theocracy on Non-Believers.
We had a Civil war over slavery.
Anyone care for a Civil war to decide which
“God” we will be Forced to Pray to?
djchefron
May. 21st, 2013 at 6:30 pm
Well the CONS are having a dress rehearsal in Iraq as we speak
phooeyrat
May. 21st, 2013 at 6:47 pm
A truly “loving God” would not allow this kind of shit too happen too anyone. The “Devil” made me do it, will be their excuse when their crimes against humanity back-fire on them (and then “their” loyal priests will forgive them). In my opinion. The question is, shall we the people forgive them? Who do these people really think they are? Do they believe that they are “Gods” gift too man?
Mitzi Hammond Perkins
May. 22nd, 2013 at 2:38 pm
Oh good grief! What next? The Crusades? The Inquisition? Witch burnings? Smallpox infected blankets? I propose separation of Republicans from government!!!!
ed-words
May. 22nd, 2013 at 4:31 pm
They can pray all they want in public,
on the playground,in the football stands,
in after-school clubs. They can put Jesus in their
lockers, on t-shirts, or wear a 10 Commandments
hat, ON THEIR OWN without a captive audience.
Misha Dennis
May. 22nd, 2013 at 7:15 pm
Having read the 2nd Circuit’s opinion, I cannot help but wonder what groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom has to do with this matter. The Court simply suggest that the Establishment Clause required that the Town Council (in this case) was obliged to tell their monthly prayers that this was not the place to convert or proselytize, or to disparage other beliefs or non-beliefs. Their selection process for those delivering the prayers was very much discriminatory against non-Christian groups. The Court did not tell the council that they could not begin with a prayer. They did not tell them that they had to prescribe the contents of the prayers. What the court decided was far more nuanced than that and anyone who is interested should read the court’s decision.