“This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome”
“This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome”
Well, well, well! None other than the august Jerry Falwell has a great and encouraging piece in WND detailing how the ACLU just got their filthy arses whipped in a court of law – in none other than the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, to be exact.
At issue was the ACLU’s hysterical and strident objection to any acknowledgment of the Divine in Government places – in this case a Mercer County, Kentucky, "Foundations of American Law and Government" display that contained – among other items – (scary music, please) a replica of the Ten Commandments. You maybe shocked, SHOCKED, to know that the Ten Commandments have actually played and influential role in the way our legal system was established.
You see, the ACLU has this “thing” about crosses, the Ten Commandments, the Bible, and prayer in Jesus Name being displayed, read, or heard anywhere , in this country outside the four walls of a church. In psychology, this kind of “thing” would normally called an “obsession,” as when a man obsessed by an actress begins to stalk her. In sex, such a “thing” is known as a “fetish,” as in, say, a “pantyhose fetish.”
Well, the ACLU stalkers obsessed about their anti-Ten-Commandments fetish in court, yet once again, and – lo, and behold, -- their were some justices that actually took a moment to read the First Amendment and to notice that the ACLU mantra (and another “obsession”) of “separation of church and state” is nowhere to be found there (or anywhere else in the Bill of Rights or in the Constitution proper, for that matter).
In fact, noting that the ACLU was resorting to this hollow refrain of “separation of church and state” just a bit too stridently, the court handed them a stunning rebuke worthy of one to be handed out to a school boy caught up to no good, saying in part, “This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
Amen. I second the motion. In fact, I would say – along with Michael Savage, who calls the ACLU our nation’s premier internal enemy – that the gay-activist-led ACLU itself has become more than a little “worrisome” to the American body politic.
Bravo to the Sixth Circuit Court – and Bravo to the Liberty Counsel that took the ACLU on in court.
Well, well, well! None other than the august Jerry Falwell has a great and encouraging piece in WND detailing how the ACLU just got their filthy arses whipped in a court of law – in none other than the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, to be exact.
At issue was the ACLU’s hysterical and strident objection to any acknowledgment of the Divine in Government places – in this case a Mercer County, Kentucky, "Foundations of American Law and Government" display that contained – among other items – (scary music, please) a replica of the Ten Commandments. You maybe shocked, SHOCKED, to know that the Ten Commandments have actually played and influential role in the way our legal system was established.
You see, the ACLU has this “thing” about crosses, the Ten Commandments, the Bible, and prayer in Jesus Name being displayed, read, or heard anywhere , in this country outside the four walls of a church. In psychology, this kind of “thing” would normally called an “obsession,” as when a man obsessed by an actress begins to stalk her. In sex, such a “thing” is known as a “fetish,” as in, say, a “pantyhose fetish.”
Well, the ACLU stalkers obsessed about their anti-Ten-Commandments fetish in court, yet once again, and – lo, and behold, -- their were some justices that actually took a moment to read the First Amendment and to notice that the ACLU mantra (and another “obsession”) of “separation of church and state” is nowhere to be found there (or anywhere else in the Bill of Rights or in the Constitution proper, for that matter).
In fact, noting that the ACLU was resorting to this hollow refrain of “separation of church and state” just a bit too stridently, the court handed them a stunning rebuke worthy of one to be handed out to a school boy caught up to no good, saying in part, “This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
Amen. I second the motion. In fact, I would say – along with Michael Savage, who calls the ACLU our nation’s premier internal enemy – that the gay-activist-led ACLU itself has become more than a little “worrisome” to the American body politic.
Bravo to the Sixth Circuit Court – and Bravo to the Liberty Counsel that took the ACLU on in court.
posted by GunJam at 7:46 PM
4 Comments:
I agree that the ACLU was wrong on this, because something that is a display of historical antecedents to our system of law is completely innocuous...but the judge went too far in his statement...
"Amendments to the Constitution, Article 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
That does mean separation of church and state. But that is a quite different concept than separation of church and historical displays.
hi, elizabeth! thanks for the visit and the post. lol! you are just sooooooo northeast liberal that it makes me chuckle. let's do two things:take a brief look at historical context; and, second, do a little exercise in basic logic.
First, the historical context: The context is that "religion" in the context of the First Amendment was "Christian denomination." You are perhaps too young and too northern to remember a not-so-common-any-longeer turn of phrase that was still used in the southern part of this country in my youth, when one person would ask another, "what religion are you?" No one was asking if you were Hindu or Buddhist. What they were asking was, "are you baptist, methodist, or catholic?" In other words: "what brand of christian are you?" Remember that, at the time of the framing of the Constitution, there WERE, (in some cases) "state religions" at the STATE level: to wit, Catholicism in Maryland, Episcopalianism in Virgina, Baptist in Connecticut, etc. This state-level church-statism was NEVER even addressed by the framers. The only level they were concerned about was at the Federal level. What they were trying to prevent was the naming of one denomination as THE approved federal state church (e.g., as Anglicanism in England or Lutheranism in Norway). Okay, that is the historical context.
Next, a lesson in logic: Because no single denomination has been permitted to be dubbed "the national religion" in NO way requires the Government to "divorce" itself from religion. For all but the ACLU-brainwashed, there is PLAINLY a great deal of room to maneuver between "state-churchism" and ACLU-style court-imposed atheism. For instance, Congress in its early days appropriated funds for the printing of Bibles. This was not seen as a violation of the first amendment, as many denominations use the Bible. Similarly, funds were also appropriated to fund Roman Catholic missionary outreaches to the American Indian tribes in the western territories. Again, this was not seen as a violation of the First Amendment, as no one was saying Protestants could not also reach the Indians with their missionaries, as well.
What this means, dear Elizabeth, is that the founders not only did NOT forbid, would have expected the US Federal Government to recognize both God and the Bible and Christianity as prevailing truths accepted by some 95% of Americans in the days of its founding.
Surely you are not too educated not to realize that the very structure of the Government laid out in the Constitution was informed by Scriptural principles. It was assumed that Government leaders would acknowledge God and respect the practice of (Christian) Religion. Thus, we see that in courts, people are sworn in on Bibles and that court and congressional sessions are opened by prayer, and that both Congress and the military have Government-funded chaplains. (The recent addition by the miliary of Buddhist, Muslim, and Hindu chaplains is at odds with this country's Judaeo-Christian heritage, by the way -- and a very dumb t hing to do, i would humbly submit.)
So, no, County courthouses are (Constitutionally-speaking) on more than safe ground in posting copies of the Ten Commandments or Bible displays (with or without accompanying secular historical documents).
Remember: Re-Read the First Amendmdent. What is proscribed is the passsing of certain laws by Congress. I defy anyone to show how that verbiage can be used to proscribe a County Judge from erecting a one-ton granite display of the Ten Commandments in the foyer of the County Courthouse -- that is, anyone, who is not a mind-numbed ACLU robot, elizabeth (that, or a denizen of Babylon-on-the-Hudson ;-)). -- gunjam
gunjam, I was basically AGREEING with you...at least as far as your comment on the ACLU goes...
but as far as your belief in a strict adherence to practices from 200 years ago--do you also believe we should give up cars and use the horse-and-buggy like our ancestors in the 18th century did? The world, and the U.S., have changed quite a bit. We now have many inhabitants who are not Christian, and that's the way it's going to continue to be. So the history lesson is interesting, but it isn't really relevant.
btw, I LIKE living in Babylon-on-the-Hudson. You should visit sometime!
And I'm not really a "Northeastern liberal." What I really am I'm going to keep a secret for now...
hi, elizabeth! I do appreciate your AGREEING with my post -- at least to a degree. My tirade was directed towards your area of disagreement.
Your interpolation into the meaning of the First Amendment in your first comment on this thread is disturbing: Courthouse displays an Act of Congress do not make. Moreover, the absence of a Congressional Law establishing Church X as the official church, logically speaking, hardly calls for a total removal of all traces of the Christian religion from places of Government.
You lost me on your horse-and-buggy comment. Things have changed, of course, but the Constitution has not (other than Amendments to it), nor has the historical crucible in which it was birthed.
If you are trying to insinuate that America is no longer a Christian country, I will respectfully take issue with that statement. Israel, at apprx 87% Jewish, is called a Jewish nation; Malaysia, at apprx 70% Muslim, is called a Muslim country. The US, and apprx 70% christian, is surely a Christian country (both in history and in present tense) -- all histrionic ACLU protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
As regards visiting NYC: Thank you for the invitation! Currently, I have no plans to do so -- but stranger things have happened.
I apologize for erroneously assigning you to the "northeastern liberal" phylum. I look forward to someday learning more about your true political outlook and orientation.
Post a Comment
<< Home