In Whom Do We Trust?
Religious persecution again: Lawsuit filed to remove crosses from the logo of (get this) "The City of the Crosses". Citizens sound off. More.
Las Cruces City Logo.
These costly lawsuits of intolerance from the militant secularists, isn't really about "Separation of Church and State". The issue shouldn't be about Constitutional interpretation, because I think it's very clear already. We live in a country that is about freedom of religion; not freedom from. It's that simple. The government is not endorsing a single church, simply because we have references to God or Christianity. If Christian symbols and references appear in our popular lexicon overwhelmingly over other religions.......if we swear upon the holy bible in court......if the 10 Commandments appear on government buildings and not the 5 Pillars of Islam......well, this is only natural, given that our country was founded upon religious immigrants who were overwhelmingly Christian. Our national heritage and traditions stem from Christianity. It doesn't exclude the possibility that one day, who knows? With the passage of time, other religious symbols from other religions might also be embraced on government buildings; or city's made with an Islamic or Buddhist name. Why should that offend me? And even if it does, that's my problem; not society's.
It is not proselytizing when a city is named "Sacramento" which is a religious reference to the Sacrament, a Christian rite that mediates divine grace. Since when is it a GOD-given, excuse me, "CONSTITUTIONALLY AMERICAN-given right not to be offended by anything? And that's really the crux of the issue: it's not about religion per se. It's about individuals who are taking advantage of Constitutional interpretation to carry out their own personal grievances and vendettas, that have nothing to do with looking out for national interests and what's good for the country.
To analogize: I hate looking at tattooes and piercings. Does that give me the right to impose my personal affront onto the rest of society? What if there were an article in the Constitution that mentioned the government shall not endorse any one method of bodily mutilations, such as piercings and tattooes. Conveniently ignoring the fact that our ancestors came over here to escape from tattoo and piercings persecution, and meant for a country that would accept all forms and styles of piercings and tattoo art without endorsing one type...such as lip-plates. And what if I, being the body art bigot that I am, decide to take issue of some government building that featured a statue of someone with a lip plate because it makes those without lip plates feel unwelcomed or excluded? So I decide to sue the city, simply because something I find personally offensive, conveniently finds alliance with an interpretation of the Constitution. It's not about diversity and multicultural acceptance. It's about selfish intolerance. It's about shutting down diversity. Since when is it a right to not be excluded from something? If I am a girl, I don't expect to be able to join the Boy Scouts; if I'm a white social worker, I shouldn't demand to be let into The National Association of Black Social Workers organization.
Over a week ago, I posted on the secularist extremists and their ally, the ACLU, and how the Los Angeles County Seal is in danger of having it's Seal altered at the estimated cost of $700,000, all because a tiny cross appears on it. That cross symbolizes the Missionaries that came here over a hundred years ago. Just because it is rooted in religion, does not mean that we should eradicate the historic signficance of it because of religious bigotry and intolerance. It does us harm. Not good. Immgirants flock to this country because of our religious freedom. Muslims don't come to this country because of our persecution and shuttind down of religion from public expression.
I'm not religious, as I've said before; yet I find beauty and comfort in images of angels, the hope that the image of a cross represents; the goodwill and cheerfulness that accompanies the Christmas Season. How culturally impoverished would our nation be, should we banish religious expression from the public square; the Crusade that the ACLU and secular extremists are bent upon is misguided at best; destructive to the very fabric of our being, at worst. Who are the blind devotees of fanaticism, here?
While researching an urban legend, I found this of interest.
I don't have the time to give it the attention it deserves. You can see a picture of this cross in my 9/11 post.
and finally, I received the following in an e-mail foward from a good friend:
I received this from Marie Rollins and thought it an interesting idea - you might too:
WRITE THIS ON THE BACK OF ALL OF YOUR ENVELOPES
You may have heard in the news that a couple of Post Offices in Texas have
been forced to take down small posters that say, "IN GOD WE TRUST".
The law, they say, is being violated.
Anyway, it's been proposed on a radio station show
that we should all begin writing "IN GOD WE 'TRUST "
on the back of all our mail. After all, that is our
national motto, and it's on all the money we use
to buy those stamps. I think it is a wonderful idea.
We must take back our nation from all those people who
think that anything that offends them should be removed.
If you like this idea, please pass it on and DO IT. The idea of writing or
stamping "IN GOD WE TRUST" on our envelopes ! sounds good to me.
I'M HAVING MY STAMP MADE TODAY!
It has been reported that 86% of Americans believe
in God. Therefore, I have a hard time understanding
why there is such a fuss about having "In God We Trust" on our money, and
having God in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Could it be that WE just need to take action
and tell the 14% to "sit down and shut up"?
If you agree with this, pass this on
Las Cruces City Logo.
These costly lawsuits of intolerance from the militant secularists, isn't really about "Separation of Church and State". The issue shouldn't be about Constitutional interpretation, because I think it's very clear already. We live in a country that is about freedom of religion; not freedom from. It's that simple. The government is not endorsing a single church, simply because we have references to God or Christianity. If Christian symbols and references appear in our popular lexicon overwhelmingly over other religions.......if we swear upon the holy bible in court......if the 10 Commandments appear on government buildings and not the 5 Pillars of Islam......well, this is only natural, given that our country was founded upon religious immigrants who were overwhelmingly Christian. Our national heritage and traditions stem from Christianity. It doesn't exclude the possibility that one day, who knows? With the passage of time, other religious symbols from other religions might also be embraced on government buildings; or city's made with an Islamic or Buddhist name. Why should that offend me? And even if it does, that's my problem; not society's.
It is not proselytizing when a city is named "Sacramento" which is a religious reference to the Sacrament, a Christian rite that mediates divine grace. Since when is it a GOD-given, excuse me, "CONSTITUTIONALLY AMERICAN-given right not to be offended by anything? And that's really the crux of the issue: it's not about religion per se. It's about individuals who are taking advantage of Constitutional interpretation to carry out their own personal grievances and vendettas, that have nothing to do with looking out for national interests and what's good for the country.
To analogize: I hate looking at tattooes and piercings. Does that give me the right to impose my personal affront onto the rest of society? What if there were an article in the Constitution that mentioned the government shall not endorse any one method of bodily mutilations, such as piercings and tattooes. Conveniently ignoring the fact that our ancestors came over here to escape from tattoo and piercings persecution, and meant for a country that would accept all forms and styles of piercings and tattoo art without endorsing one type...such as lip-plates. And what if I, being the body art bigot that I am, decide to take issue of some government building that featured a statue of someone with a lip plate because it makes those without lip plates feel unwelcomed or excluded? So I decide to sue the city, simply because something I find personally offensive, conveniently finds alliance with an interpretation of the Constitution. It's not about diversity and multicultural acceptance. It's about selfish intolerance. It's about shutting down diversity. Since when is it a right to not be excluded from something? If I am a girl, I don't expect to be able to join the Boy Scouts; if I'm a white social worker, I shouldn't demand to be let into The National Association of Black Social Workers organization.
Over a week ago, I posted on the secularist extremists and their ally, the ACLU, and how the Los Angeles County Seal is in danger of having it's Seal altered at the estimated cost of $700,000, all because a tiny cross appears on it. That cross symbolizes the Missionaries that came here over a hundred years ago. Just because it is rooted in religion, does not mean that we should eradicate the historic signficance of it because of religious bigotry and intolerance. It does us harm. Not good. Immgirants flock to this country because of our religious freedom. Muslims don't come to this country because of our persecution and shuttind down of religion from public expression.
I'm not religious, as I've said before; yet I find beauty and comfort in images of angels, the hope that the image of a cross represents; the goodwill and cheerfulness that accompanies the Christmas Season. How culturally impoverished would our nation be, should we banish religious expression from the public square; the Crusade that the ACLU and secular extremists are bent upon is misguided at best; destructive to the very fabric of our being, at worst. Who are the blind devotees of fanaticism, here?
While researching an urban legend, I found this of interest.
I don't have the time to give it the attention it deserves. You can see a picture of this cross in my 9/11 post.
and finally, I received the following in an e-mail foward from a good friend:
I received this from Marie Rollins and thought it an interesting idea - you might too:
WRITE THIS ON THE BACK OF ALL OF YOUR ENVELOPES
You may have heard in the news that a couple of Post Offices in Texas have
been forced to take down small posters that say, "IN GOD WE TRUST".
The law, they say, is being violated.
Anyway, it's been proposed on a radio station show
that we should all begin writing "IN GOD WE 'TRUST "
on the back of all our mail. After all, that is our
national motto, and it's on all the money we use
to buy those stamps. I think it is a wonderful idea.
We must take back our nation from all those people who
think that anything that offends them should be removed.
If you like this idea, please pass it on and DO IT. The idea of writing or
stamping "IN GOD WE TRUST" on our envelopes ! sounds good to me.
I'M HAVING MY STAMP MADE TODAY!
It has been reported that 86% of Americans believe
in God. Therefore, I have a hard time understanding
why there is such a fuss about having "In God We Trust" on our money, and
having God in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Could it be that WE just need to take action
and tell the 14% to "sit down and shut up"?
If you agree with this, pass this on
Labels: ACLU, Christianity, church and state, religion
posted by The WordSmith from Nantucket at 9/29/2005 12:36:00 AM
2 Comments:
Wordsmith, over on ER's Blog, he wrote a post lauding the ACLU over Focus on the Family.
I couldn't resist commenting. I said something like this:
Christians are mandated by Jesus Christ to "go into all the world, preaching the gospel to every nation..." It is the first and most important commandment that Jesus gave (not Moses)It is every Christians responsiblity to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ and He didn't say as long as it doesn't offend or as long as it is kept in the government approved placves.
To deny Christians the right to proselitize, the government is in effect violating the provision of the first amendment which states government "shall not prohibit the free exercise thereof" because exercise of the Christian religion is in spreading the gospel.
Great job!
Post a Comment
<< Home