Do Not War against Christianity in America
John R. Houk
© December 20, 2010
Leftists, atheists and non-Christians have wittingly or unwittingly made war on Christianity in America. This odd union of complainers has gone to great lengths to make sure Christian themes and the Christian symbols of Christmas are eradicated from the public and private arena of American culture. The crazy notions given for this attack on Christianity are a faulty interpretation of the disestablishment clause of the First Amendment (in which judicial fiat has tragically upheld) and the notion that what is offensive to non-Christians is an act of discrimination ergo Christian/Christmas symbolism must be sanitized.
The First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Obviously the bold print is added)
The First Amendment has become the cornerstone of Liberty and Civil Rights in America. In the early days of the American Republic the First Amendment was a measuring tool in which State Sovereignty would interpret and apply the Amendment’s meaning. When Constitutional government was ratified and established in 1789 there was a call for a clearer definition of the rights of citizens. Thus the first ten Amendments of the Constitution were formulated which are commonly called the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights (10 of 12 proposed Amendments) ratified on December 15, 1791.
Leftists and atheists in the 20th and now 21st century have the concept of a Jeffersonian letter written to Danbury Baptist Church in Connecticut in which the famous phrase has become a part of American political nomenclature:
“… a wall of separation between church and state”
Even if Jefferson intended the meaning to be that the government should totally stay out of the realm of religion (meaning incidentally Christianity) and that religion stay totally out of government, it was not a shared idea of the other Founding Fathers. Indeed both President Washington and John Adams believed that Christian morality should be the ethical backbone of the American government.
The country's first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams, were firm believers in the importance of religion for republican government. As citizens of Virginia and Massachusetts, both were sympathetic to general religious taxes being paid by the citizens of their respective states to the churches of their choice. However both statesmen would have discouraged such a measure at the national level because of its divisiveness. They confined themselves to promoting religion rhetorically, offering frequent testimonials to its importance in building the moral character of American citizens, that, they believed, undergirded public order and successful popular government. (Religion and the Founding of the American Republic; VI Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1; THE RHETORICAL SUPPORT OF RELIGION: WASHINGTON AND ADAMS)
Frankly it is not clear that Jefferson meant that government and religion should have been separate in an absolute sense (SEE: Original Intent and the Free Exercise of Religion #3). After writing his letter to the Danbury Baptist Church, President Jefferson was a regular attendee of Christian worship that was presented every Sunday at the House of Representatives. This is an indication Jefferson was not interested in separating the mechanics of government from the influence of Christianity.
The pro-Religion Founders and the more secular minded Founders had one thing in common; viz., that the Federal government not Establish any particular Christian Denomination or beliefs as the Federal mandated Church that receives government support via mandatory taxation specifically for an Established Church. The Founding Fathers did not want Religion to be mandated or financially supported on a National level; however the State level was a different matter. Even if Federal money was not to go to a specific denomination in support of the Christian religion, the Founding Fathers very much intended to inculcate Christian principles and ethics into America’s rule of law and the new American culture.
Even after the U.S. Constitution became the rule of law for America many States still had established Churches. The Federal government did not turn the screws with threats of military action to comply a withdrawal from a State support of a Church. Rather over time State’s came to the conclusion that State established Churches infringes on religious freedom of other denominations. Not in sense of discrimination of forbidding religious practices, but in the sense one Church receives taxpayer support while other Churches are excluded financially. States that supported Christianity with State taxes came to an end after the Civil War and 14th Amendment required the States to uniformly treat American citizens in an equal manner. The intent was to even the political playing field for Afro-Americans recently liberated from the bondage of Southern State slavery. However the 14th Amendment was used as the final straw for individual State direct support of Christian Churches on a local level.
Now another situation Leftists, atheists and Secularists have accomplished in recent years is reinterpreting the word “religion” in the First Amendment. Let us revisit the religious clauses of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …
The 20th and 21st century definition of “religion” might run something like this:
1. a. the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of religion)
b. (1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2. a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
Take note the word “religion” today has a general connotation. That generality is fully embraced by the Left and Secularists. Religion can be referenced as the practices multiple religions as in plural. What do you think the Founding Fathers connoted for the meaning of the word “religion” when it appeared in the First Amendment? Here is a hint: “Give me that old time religion…”
To anyone not blinded by anti-Christian thinking, the word “religion” is the practice of Christianity. Many Leftists, atheists and Secularists love to point that a significant amount of the Founding Fathers were Deists and not Christians. The reality is the Deists of America differed greatly than the Deists of Europe. A better appellation for American Deists would be “Christian Deists”. The Christian Deists of America believed in Natural Law and Nature’s God/Creator. That God was the Christian monotheistic God of the Holy Bible. The Christian Deists of America placed reason above faith.
Christian Deists believed in God but did not believe the Creator was active in influencing the affairs of mankind. Thus Christian Deists denied the existence of Biblical miracles and relegated them to fables or to moral object lessons. Christian Deists were as huge on Christian Biblical Morality as any other orthodox practicing Christian (i.e. the beliefs of standard Christian sects or Denominations). Christians and Christian Deists believed that the absence of Biblical religion would destroy the social fabric of society leading to chaos and debauchery.
The point is the “religion” of the First Amendment is the Christian Religion. I am very pleased that the religious freedom clause has come down today to make the practices of every religion within the frame work of the very Constitution that institutes religious freedom to enable the equal right of all religions to practice.
I pray you noticed the context of religious freedom “within the frame work of the very Constitution that institutes religious freedom”. The caveat is if a religion’s theological tenets run counter to the Liberty and Civil Rights embodied in the U.S. Constitution, those tenets need to be restricted rather than accommodated. Constitutional religious freedom does not nullify the U.S. Constitution. If you read my posts you can guess where I am going with this line of thinking.
I have a specific religion in mind in which its codified tenets establish acts of violence, murder and genocide against those who refuse to follow that specific religion. That religion is Islam which should be described after the name of its founder and be called Mohammedanism. I do realize the term Mohammedanism has been abandoned by academics circa early 20th century notably because the term offends its adherents. Since political correctness is in common usage today, academics conform to adherents and use Islam as an appellation rather than Mohammedanism.
Islam’s founder Mohammed is the heart and soul of the religion he founded. Muslims consider Mohammed the perfect man much as Christians consider Jesus Christ the Son of God as both human and divine as well the only man born without sin since God’s first human creation Adam.
The Muslim’s perfect Mohammed started out fantastically in Mecca; however after winning only around a hundred or so believers in his message, Mohammed began to transform his tenor of tolerance. In essence the Meccan polytheists gave Mohammed the boot. Some of Mohammed’s followers found refuge in Egypt and a significant amount including Mohammed himself found refuge in the close by desert city of Medina (called Yathrib at the time). Mohammed was welcomed with open arms initially probably because thoughts on monotheism had already made its way to Medina via Jews and a few Christians. Mohammed’s earlier knowledge Judaism and Christianity can be seen in his biblical revisionist writings accepted as eternally valid by Muslims. Mohammed thought the Jewish-Arab tribes would embrace him as the newest (and last) of the line of prophets stretching back through the Jewish Patriarchs. Jews and most Christians (the already few in number saw enough closeness in Mohammed’s theology to accept his Prophethood and receive kind of tribal protection at the same time) rejected Mohammed’s claim to Prophethood.
After the Mecca expulsion and the refusal of belief among Jewish-Arabs Mohammed began to show signs of very un-divine jealousy and hatred. In my opinion a good man began to go insane. The danger of Mohammed’s insanity was multiplied by his continual charisma and emerging political-military genius to vanquish foes in subtle growing stages. Eventually Mohammed became the big dog in military might in Medina and the eventual confrontation between Mohammed’s Muslims and Jewish-Arabs came along. Unfortunately for the Jewish-Arabs they lost. The result of Mohammed’s victory was a small genocide of Jewish-Arabs, the sex-slavery of the good looking Jewish-Arab women followed with the eventual expulsion of all Jews from the Arabian Peninsula which included the few residing Christian-Arabs. In essence Mohammed was a bad dude to non-Muslims and was willing to use his Office as Prophet to gain exceptions to the rules he set for his fellow Muslims. An example is the acquiring of other Muslims’ wives to become his wife if they were Arab babes. Allah revealed it to Mohammed. Mohammed shared the revelation. And even if the revelation contradicted previous revelations it must be so since Allah ratified it for Mohammed. I guess this makes Mohammed the Hugh Hefner above the law of the 7th century.
Jesus Christ on the other hand preached “love your enemies.” The Lord was an example of peace in His earthly walk. The most violent thing he did was chase merchants with an improvised whip and tipping over merchandise in the Outer Courts of the Temple because the Temple was for prayer and not for self-aggrandizement with selling for personal gain. Instead of establishing an earthly Kingdom as Mohammed’s aim was, Jesus volunteered to be the spotless sacrifice to Redeem humankind from the darkness of Satan’s realm and Satan’s lease acquired from Adam. As part of that sacrifice Jesus was betrayed by His closest friends, turned over by the Temple authority to the Romans for a death penalty, Roman authority whipped Jesus with spiked cat-o-nine tails ripping the flesh to the Savior’s very bones, then Jesus was forced to carry the instrument of His own execution to Golgotha/Calvary with the last legs of the route the Cross of Christ being aided by Simon the Cyrenian, then the Lord experienced more torture having his hands and feet nailed to the Cross and plopped into the ground to die an agonizing death.
For Christians the Good News is that Jesus the Christ the Son of God and the son of Mary arose bodily after three days of entombment to a glorified body give the God-kind of Life to all that believe in the Redemptive Resurrection act of Christ Jesus.
Islam is absolutely incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. Sharia Law calls on Muslims to be intolerant and justifies punishment that is cruel and usual according to the U.S. Constitution. Many Muslim apologists will point out that the punishments prescribed for criminal violations are no longer followed by most Muslim nations. Incidentally the word “most” means there are some Muslim nations that still utilize punishment which under America’s Constitution would be cruel and unusual.
The 8th Amendment specifically lays it out that “cruel and unusual punishment” should not be used within the legal code to punish convicted individuals for their crimes.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. (8th Amendment of U.S. Constitution)
Here are some excerpts from FindLaw.com annotating the “cruel and unusual punishment” phrase of the 8th Amendment:
“Difficulty would attend the effort to define with exactness the extent of the constitutional provision which provides that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted; but it is safe to affirm that punishments of torture [such as drawing and quartering, embowelling alive, beheading, public dissecting, and burning alive], and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by that amendment to the Constitution.” (FindLaw.com)
… the Court explained that the cruel and unusual punishments clause “circumscribes the criminal process in three ways: First, it limits the kinds of punishment that can be imposed on those convicted of crimes; second, it proscribes punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime; and third, it imposes substantive limits on what can be made criminal and punished as such.” 182 These limitations, the Court thought, should not be extended outside the criminal process. (FindLaw.com)
Sharia Law is quite different and is encoded as Muslim holy law even if a majority of Muslim nations do not officially follow Sharia punishments.
… Sharia is a Muslim code of behavior - for the individual and for society. In many Muslim countries, its provisions on family issues - like divorce and inheritance - are incorporated into secular law. But its application in criminal law is less common…
In reality, most Muslim countries do not use traditional classical Islamic punishments. But they do not [openly announce that] because it's a politically sensitive [topic]; they just avoid situations where the maximum punishment for stealing is chopping off the hand or the maximum punishment for adultery is capital punishment. …
But there are exceptions - such as Sudan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia. These countries use the criminal provisions of Sharia that may lead to amputation for stealing or flogging for adultery. (Excerpts GlobalSecurity.com – Read the whole article)
I am not even going to take the time to write about the deficiency in Liberty and Civil Rights for non-Muslims, Muslim females and Muslim apostates. In my opinion you get the idea with the encoded Sharia punishments.
Certainly you get the point that Islam as a religion when followed to the fullest extent of what all Muslims consider to be absolute divine perfection is not compatible with the American Founding Father documents leading to the Constitution and definitely Islam is incompatible with Constitutional law. And yet, Muslim activists in America utilize the U.S. Constitution to practice their religion with impunity even if the practice is unconstitutional.
ACT for America has pointed out an incidence in which a Muslim gal is demanding the right to perform the Muslim Hajj to Mecca. No problem right? Actually the Muslim gal is a Public School teacher and the time she has chosen for the Muslim Hajj is in the middle of the school year. The school denied her request for obvious reasons. It is irresponsible for a Public School Teacher to take time off other than the holidays already set up by the School District.
Here is the thing: the Muslim gal is screaming that her religious freedom was infringed upon according to the First Amendment. And check this out! It is not the ACLU or (the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas oriented) Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that are filing on behalf of the Muslim gal. Eric Holder and the Justice Department are filing a complaint that the School District infringed upon Safoorah Khan’s religious freedom.
What is a Hajj you may ask. It is one of the Five Pillars of Islam to visit Mecca at least once in a lifetime. The ritual of the Hajj predates Islam; however Islamic tradition bastardizes the Biblical account of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar and Ishmael. The Quranic account Arabizes names; thus in the same order only in Arabic the names are Ibrahim, Sarah, Hajira and Is’mail (or Ismail).
The Biblical account is Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to produce a son. The reason being Sarah had been barren but Abraham was promised a son to be his heir by God Almighty (not Allah). The outcome was that Ishmael was born to the Egyptian slave Hagar who was a servant of Sarah. Hagar took advantage of being the mother of Ishmael who at the time was the only son of Abraham. Hagar began to scorn her mistress Sarah. God Almighty had to get Abraham’s attention and tell him the promise of a son was between Abraham and his wife Sarah. Sarah eventually bore the child of promise Isaac. Then Hagar began to be puffed up as the mother of Abraham’s oldest son Ishmael. Ishmael the son of a slave began to be abusive to Isaac the child of promise. Sarah complains to Abraham and says this slave and her son cannot remain. Thus Sarah by Abraham’s permission gives Hagar and Ishmael the boot. God Almighty promises Abraham that Ishmael will be protected and become the father of 12 strong princes. Biblically this is the origin of the Arabs.
The Bastardized Quranic account (or tradition) is that Abraham and Hagar (Hajira) hook-up to bear the Abraham’s oldest son Ishmael (Ismail). In fact the test of faith between Abraham and Isaac is bastardized in the Quran to be Abraham and Ishmael. The Angel of God saves Ishmael rather than Isaac in confirming Abraham’s faith and obedience to God Almighty. The Quranic story further bastardizes the Abraham, Sarah, Hagar and Ishmael account by Abraham delivering Hagar from Sarah’s wrath by personally taking Hagar to the desert (Arabia). Then Hagar and Ishmael discover underground water which is turned into a well. Hagar and Ishmael prosper by selling water to merchants on a caravan route. Abraham returns to Hagar and is pleased that things are going well for her.
The Prophet Ibrahim was told by Allah to build a shrine dedicated to him. Ibrahim and Is'mail constructed a small stone structure - the Kaaba or Cube - which was to be the gathering place for all who wished to strengthen their faith in Allah.
As the years passed Is'mail was blessed with Prophethood and he gave the nomads of the desert the message of surrender to Allah.
After many centuries, Mecca became a thriving city thanks to its reliable water source, the well of Zam Zam.
Gradually, the people began to adopt polytheistic ideas, and worship spirits and many different gods. The shrine of the Prophet Ibrahim was used to store idols. (Info and quote from: BBC - Hajj: pilgrimage to Mecca)
The Hajj the fifth Pillar of Islam is the reason a Christianity vs. Islam legal jihad is brewing in Chicago.
Attorney General Eric Holder is stepping into a Chicago School District’s decision to not accommodate Muslim Safoorah Khan to defect from her school teacher job to perform the Islamic Hajj and expect to have a job when she returns. Khan complained to U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that she was being discriminated because of her religious beliefs. The EEOC probably saw a brouhaha in the making and sent the complaint to the Justice Department that then was filed with the Federal Court on behalf of Khan.
Can you see where this is going?
Public Schools have a break or vacation in December which falls within the Christian Holy Day of Christmas. Christmas has been diminished due to Leftists, atheists and Secularists. This triumvirate of hatred toward Christmas and Christianity has nearly succeeded in removing the thought of Christmas vacation and replacing it with the thought of Winter Break or Winter Vacation. Even after this dilution by the war on Christianity triumvirate it is evident that Safoorah Khan intends to demand equal time for a very slim minority of Muslims in America over the Christian cultural heritage that has been in America from its early Colonial beginnings. To drive this point home Islam ONLY makes up .06% of Americans. The number is extremely miniscule. Thank God for that miniscule amount because Islam tenets are anti-American and anti-Constitutional.
For the sake of the Muslim Apologists who legitimately believe they are moderate Muslims I have to say this. Currently the majority of Muslims in America are moderate which means they practice a form of Islam that betters the inner being of a person rather than follow the tenets of Islam to force conversions, delegitimize a person’s humanity or death. And before the defenders of Islam jump down my throat about the Quranic dictum that there is no compulsion in religion; I state that this a misleading tenet. If there are three choices of convert, dhimmitude or death then a person chooses rather than is compelled. In the Western mind this indeed is compulsion; however in the dualistic theology of Islam in which contradictory dictums can both be valid and Islam is offering the choice, then the person is not compelled.
In America there definitely is a war against Christianity. The war becomes very apparent during the Christmas season. The Obama Administration is a Left Wing Administration. Part of Obama’s Leftism is to be critical of Biblical Christians as a 2008 Presidential campaign phrase indicates about the implied ignorance of those who cling to their guns and bibles. And now the Obama Administration through Attorney General Eric Holder will further disembowel Christianity by making it an issue for Safoorah Khan to be the victim of religious rights infringement when in reality there was simple common sense used that was to benefit Chicago kids in school.
No comments:
Post a Comment