The Left is forever lecturing Conservatives and Christians
to not ram our beliefs and values down their throats. No less is so than the
"new atheists" whose level of bigotry and intolerance is worthy of
Lenin and Stalin.
At one time being an atheist meant not believing in God and
that was the end of it. Now they proselytize in a way worthy of Islamofacists. Since they have no moral argument, and regular
citizens don't pay so much attention to them, they use the communist front group
ACLU to bully and berate legislators to pass laws excising religion from the
land.
One could say this is unconstitutional since it violates the
establishment clause; the government can't force a religion on the citizens.
They've been working forever to get the cross taken down
from Soledad Mountain
in San Diego Joshua National Park
Adding to this in the past few weeks are some more attacks,
showing yet more intolerance and bigotry.
Prudhomme’s Lost Cajun Kitchen in Columbia ,
Lancaster County , PA
In England
Chosen 300 is a religious charity that feeds the homeless in
Philadelphia
The Freedom From Religion Foundation raises its head again
in this third and final story. Steubenville ,
Ohio
While Leftist hate groups like Freedom From Religion Foundation and Leftist
gay groups claim to be all about tolerance, their actions prove they are not.
They are willing and able to bankrupt cities and drive companies out of
business, causing people to loose their jobs. The biggest example of this is
Leftist attack on Chick-fil-a, trying to drive them out of business because the
CEO said he believes in the Biblical definition of marriage. There it is. He's
a Christian, so his company must be destroyed, he must be destroyed, and all
the citizens that work for the company must be force into unemployment. Just
because they don't agree with Atheist\Secularist's belief system.
Yet they are blind to their own hate and intolerance. It's
the plight of Leftists everywhere. I've said before in this blog, if leftists
say the opposition is doing it, or thinking it, then in fact they are the
guilty ones, and lack the self honesty to admit it.
1 comment:
Why some would direct their ire at someone like the folks at FFRF who seek to uphold the Constitution, rather than those flouting it is not apparent. It is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. 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 and principals hanging banners in schools), 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.
A word should be added about the common canard that this is all about people easily offended. We’re not talking about the freedom of individuals to say or do something others find offensive; each of us has that freedom. We’re talking about the government weighing in to promote religion. Under our Constitution, our government has no business doing that–REGARDLESS of whether anyone is offended or whether a majority approves or disapproves. While this is primarily a constitutional point, it is one that conservatives–small government conservatives–should appreciate from a political standpoint as well. While the First Amendment thus constrains government from promoting (or opposing) religion without regard to whether anyone is offended, a court may address the issue only in a suit by someone with “standing” (sufficient personal stake in a matter) to bring suit; in order to show such standing, a litigant may allege he is offended or otherwise harmed by the government’s failure to follow the law; the question whether someone has standing to sue is entirely separate from the question whether the government has violated the Constitution.
Post a Comment