by
For more than 35 years I have written on
the topic of America’s religious foundation. I’ve written five books on
the subject, dozens of articles, and participated in a debate with
atheist lawyer Edward Tabash.
The study of American history will show
that the atheists, ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and
State, and Freedom From Religion Foundation don’t have a constitutional
or historical leg to stand on when they file suits against religious
displays, sectarian prayers, monuments, or anything else religious as it
relates to government.
They get away with their legal theatrics because (1) the general population is ignorant on the subject and (2) the courts rule in terms of precedent and not historical verities.
The distorted version of history belongs to Professor Stone as I point out in the essay “University of Chicago Law Professor Attempts to Rewrite America’s Christian History.” It’s available as a free download here.
They get away with their legal theatrics because (1) the general population is ignorant on the subject and (2) the courts rule in terms of precedent and not historical verities.
“During a speech at Colorado Christian University on Wednesday [October 1, 2014], Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit religious references in public places, including schools.”
Anyone who says otherwise on the facts of the case is lying. After
Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” speech delivered at the George Bush
Presidential Library in College State, Texas, on December 6, 2007,[1]
Geoffrey Stone, professor of law at the University of Chicago, wrote
that it “called to mind a disturbingly distorted version of history that
has become part of the conventional wisdom of American politics in
recent years.”[2]The distorted version of history belongs to Professor Stone as I point out in the essay “University of Chicago Law Professor Attempts to Rewrite America’s Christian History.” It’s available as a free download here.
Scalia got to the point with this jab at secular convention:
“I think the main fight is to dissuade
Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be
true: that the separation of church and state means that the government
cannot favor religion over non-religion.”
The dissuasion is made possible because
the religious history of America is not taught in public schools, and
if any part of it is taught, students are told that America is a better
place without a fundamental religious belief system.
Many secularists can lie about America’s rich Christian heritage because they are confident that few people will take the time to research the topic.
Many secularists can lie about America’s rich Christian heritage because they are confident that few people will take the time to research the topic.
For example, Brooke Allen
writes in “The faith of our Founding Fathers definitely wasn't
Christianity. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on
Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player,
and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent.” Nearly all of Allen's
claims are answered by me in in “University of Chicago Law Professor Attempts to Rewrite America’s Christian History.”
As my above referenced essay shows and the numerous books that I and others have written on the subject, this is a big lie. As it’s been said, by Adolf Hitler no less, “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
Scalia quoted the First Amendment, something secularists don’t generally do since is wording disestablishes their claims:
The states wanted the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution to mute the power of the national government on infringing on these four freedoms.
As my above referenced essay shows and the numerous books that I and others have written on the subject, this is a big lie. As it’s been said, by Adolf Hitler no less, “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
Scalia quoted the First Amendment, something secularists don’t generally do since is wording disestablishes their claims:
“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.”
Scalia then asked, is it “freedom of religion” or “freedom from religion”? It’s clear by the First Amendment and the history of our nation that it’s freedom of religion, contrary to the claims of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.The states wanted the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution to mute the power of the national government on infringing on these four freedoms.
No comments:
Post a Comment