the editor here is duff Hale.here's his latest editorial
http://www.elliscountypress.com/editorials/10291-religious-intolerance-for-christianity-but-not-islam.htmlReligious intolerance for Christianity but not Islam
By Duff Hale (duffhale@ev1.net) 10/21/2010 11:55:00
Font size:
Just a few weeks ago I wrote a piece explaining why I don’t support or believe in this asinine so-called doctrine of separation of church and state.
I tried to make clear how the whole thing, in my opinion, does not agree with the original intentions of the Framers of our Constitution.
Having researched and studied some of their writings it is apparent to me religion was to be protected from government interference, not the other way around.
I find it ironic the very people who fight for removal of religion from the public arena, who are the most hostile to religion, are those who most loudly protest supposed affronts to Islamic religious expression by those who do not want a mosque placed near Ground Zero in New York City.
The very people who are the most hostile to religion are all too happy to have Christian support on issues such as nuclear disarmament, increased welfare spending, or socialized healthcare.
Yet, let a Christian express opposition to killing the unborn or acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle or gay marriage, then they sneeringly attack Christians like a pack of wild dogs.
Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.
While the left is going bonkers over opposition to the Ground Zero mosque in the name of religious freedom, their assaults on Christian liberties continue unabated.
Here’s a recent example.
There was a ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that memorial crosses erected in honor of fallen state highway troopers and displayed along Utah public roads must be removed as they are unconstitutional.
For everyone’s information, the highway crosses could be considered to have violated any Constitutional provision because, as the court tells us: "We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion."
Well, there you go.
Our politically correct-intoxicated culture is so allergic to expressions of Christianity and its symbols our courts must leap to absurd conclusions to isolate the chief allergen: Christianity itself. Let’s get all the facts on the table.
Those crosses were placed there and are maintained by a private organization, namely the Utah Highway Patrol Association.
So the egregious constitutional violation here is not that the government put up the crosses, which it did not, but the memorials were placed along public roads thereby causing "reasonable" passing motorists afflicted with anti-Christian road rage to assume the government is endorsing the Christian religion.
Holy smoke!
What would those predominantly Christian Founders think?
I don’t get it.
Perhaps I’m just a little dense, but this silly notion expressed by courts today is something I can’t understand.
How does a school district forbidding a valedictorian from expressing faith in Christ during the valedictory address constitute a religious endorsement by the school administration – and thus the state – yet not prohibit freedom of religious expression and free exercise rights, both of which are supposedly protected by the First Amendment?
In the case of the crosses, it’s insultingly offensive for any court to hold such a permissive display of crosses whose primary purpose is to honor the fallen – not to endorse Christianity – is unconstitutional.
No, this ruling is affirmatively harming people and violating their real rights in the name of rights that do not now nor ever did exist.
It’s shameful and unacceptable.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
