War On Christianity: No Christian Present

So the claim is that there’s a “war on religion” going on.  And when you hear that you can safely substitute “religion” for “Christianity.”  I’m not sure that war is the right word, but there is clearly an over-reach by the left when it comes to the separation of the church and the state.

We know what they meant when they crafted the nation.  They meant that the “officers” of the church were not to be the “officers” of the state.  The two couldn’t be the same.  They most certainly, and clearly, did NOT mean that there was to be no religion in the state.

But that’s how it’s being interpreted these days.  Prayer in school?  Banned.  Prayer before a game?  Banned.  Invocation at graduation?  Banned.

That’s bad enough.  However, it’s just that, an interpretation.  While I don’t like it, I get that I don’t ALWAYS get to be right.  Or get my way.

Where I become frustrated is when the objection isn’t consistent.  For example, if you believe in body piercing you get to flaunt the school rules prohibiting excessive piercing.  If your religion requires knives, you get to bring knives to school.

And now, apparently, if you are Muslim you get to attack atheists who are, in my opinion, acting like asses,  any ol’ way you wantvia Rio Norte Line

 

The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.

The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.

The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death

We’re so SO concerned with the feelings of the minority that we afford them injustices, or directions, that we would never allow Christians.

THAT’s my war on Christianity.

11 responses to “War On Christianity: No Christian Present

  1. This ruling is absolutely outrageous. How does something like this happen in this country?

    • How does something like this happen in this country?

      I have no words for that. Perhaps Mr. Martin generated a respect for the Islamic faith while serving in Iraq? I’m not sure.

      However, it seems that a careful listen of the audio involved shows that the judge is NOT a Muslim convert but rather sympathetic.

      Anyway. Jeepers.

  2. Lovegrove, my Progressive friend, actually had an interesting article posted on church and state laws…..story from a long time ago, but it proves a point…..let’s see if I can find it…. here we go:

    http://lovegrove.xanga.com/759297826/seperation-of-church-and-state-an-old-question/

  3. Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We 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. Given the norms of the day, the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.

    It is important to distinguish between the “public square” and “government” and between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–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.

    Nor does the constitutional separation of church and state prevent citizens from making decisions based on principles derived from their religions. Moreover, the religious beliefs of government officials naturally may inform their decisions on policies. The principle, in this context, merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion; in other words, the predominant purpose and primary effect must be nonreligious or secular in nature. A decision coinciding with religious views is not invalid for that reason as long as it has a secular purpose and effect.

    • Given the norms of the day, the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice.

      I agree. Which is why we like our leaders religious but our government not.

      The principle, in this context, merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion; in other words, the predominant purpose and primary effect must be nonreligious or secular in nature.

      Right. So even though the religion dictates attacking the atheist, the government cannot advance that religious idea and should act to protect the victim of assault.

      • Pino,

        I agree with you that this judge abused his position and utterly failed to uphold the law. He plainly does not “get” the First Amendment.

  4. Doug, just out of curiostity; don’t you think the Catholics are getting screwed? I mean, it works both ways, right?

    Do you know they actually wrote an entire post on you at TRNL? ….must be the shovel.

  5. I think this case is, if anything, an argument for why we need separation of church and state. If we have it and protect it, it protects practicioners of all religions and atheists. The danger lies when government starts favoring a particular religion, as this judge did here.

    I find it puzzling the way a certain segment of the right is both (1) terrified of shariah law and (2) opposed to separation of church and state. #2 protects us against #1 (not that I think shariah law is at all likely).

    • I think this case is, if anything, an argument for why we need separation of church and state.

      100% agree. Hmmm, I may have to go watch NASCAR this afternoon; me agreeing with such a Liberal mind 😉

      I find it puzzling the way a certain segment of the right is both (1) terrified of shariah law and (2) opposed to separation of church and state.

      Yup. I am curiouser and curiouser about how we “need to make sure” there’s no #1, but Santorum can go say the things he does.

Leave a Reply to Pino Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *