Another Athiest Attack on Religion

A story today from the Washington Post ("A Court’s Cross to Bear: Memorial Monument or Religious Endorsement?" by Ann E Marimow)  highlights the fight of an atheist group to declare a WWI war memorial in Maryland an endorsement of a single religion by the government. Though I won't go into the specifics of the case, the whole thing just seems to be a whine-fest by a few atheists who are demanding they get their way rather than accommodating a memorial display that has been in public view for nearly a century.

I responded to the article with the following post:

"No one is making the atheists look at memorials; no one is making anyone pray; no one is forcing anyone to believe in anything. A cross is a cross and does NOT endorse a single religion. If one checked, I'm positive that all the men that memorial represents are NOT from a single religion.

The First Amendment has been twisted from its original mean of Freedom OF Religion to Freedom FROM Religion. The intent was to allow all people to worship freely--if they choose, and to allow others to not worship. However, for those that DO worship, they should be allowed to practice their faith without restraint, or fear of retribution or intimidation.

For those who scream 'Separation of Church and State,' I remind everyone that this phrase is NOT FOUND ANYWHERE in the Constitution, Bill of Rights of the Declaration of Independence. In Fact, God is mentioned no less than five times in the Declaration. While God is not reference in the Constitution (aside from the inference in the First Amendment), EVERY State Constitution DOES reference God in some manner. (Look it up for yourself.)

Christianity itself is NOT a single religion, as these groups claim. There are many religions here in the US, as there always have been. The government does in no way endorse a single religion. Therefore, the cross cannot be an endorsement of a single religion, as is forbidden by law; just as the Ten Commandments is NOT an endorsement of a single religion. The Commandments are embraced by most religions as they are a moral compass that makes us all good and decent people. After all, who can argue that murder is bad, that lying is unethical, that adultery can have dire consequences, that treating your fellow man with dignity and respect is a good thing, etc?

I have never told an atheist that they are foolish, or bad or unworthy of friendship or in any way less than anyone else. Can the atheists say the same about those they attack?

Freedom of Religion is not just about those who worship. It is a give and take between those who do, and those who do not. Respecting the "inalienable rights" is vital to both sides; yet the atheists seem intent on destroying the opposing side even though the freedom to worship is guaranteed by law. How is their (the atheists) goal of limiting religion just so they can feel comfortable NOT an impingement of the rights of those who choose TO worship? They demand their "Rights" yet give no leeway so others can enjoy theirs. How is this a fair and equal treatment under the law? If these various atheist groups have their way, Freedom of Religion would be nonexistent  just so they could go about life without having to be subjected to thoughts, ideas, sights and sounds that make them "feel less," or like supposed "second class citizens."

If atheists feel like that, then just maybe they place too much importance on the opinions of others rather than taking it upon themselves to accept the responsibility of respecting the rights and beliefs of others and accordingly, accommodate the Rights of every other citizen.  After all, no one is forcing anyone to believe in religion, no one is forcing them to read the Ten Commandments, step foot in a church, evoke God in any way, to pray or any other invocation, recitation or involvement in or of religion or personal belief.

Both sides of the argument have a point. However, by seeking to restrict Freedom of Religion, the balance is lost and the power of the First Amendment is diminished, and the will of our Founding Fathers is trampled upon. The specifics of the First Amendment were written for a reason. The history behind their inclusion is well documented. All you need to do is read legitimate historical [non-secular revisionist] sources to understand the reasons our Founders placed such importance on "Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Religion, Freedom to Petition the Government, Freedom of Assembly and the Freedom of Speech" (Article III of the First Amendment--NOT in order).

I completely agree that atheist have their rights. However, when they trample of the rights of fellow citizens, then their position is tenuous and the legitimacy of their claims is lessened.

Unfortunately, the Courts will decide the outcome of the argument rather than simply referencing our Founding Documents and allowing the foresight of the Founding Fathers to guide us all."

The Newly Elected President of the United States

Wednesday, 09 November, 2016.

The latest U.S. General Election is finally over. All those months of political bickering and grandstanding are finished. All the lies coming out of Hillary Clinton's mouth are silenced...for now. All the mud smearing television ads are suddenly off the air. America can finally get back to what's most important...
...our families and day to day living.

In the end, the President-Elect turned out to be Donald Trump, the businessman with zero political experience candidate who was unbelievably elected by voters who are sick and tired of the lala land so many D.C. politicians live in that they no longer seem to represent "the people," instead serving up their best legislative efforts for Special Interests, Big Business and just about everything else that works against the best interest of the American people.

As for Hillary Clinton, her loss came at her own hands. All the lies, scandals, selective memory lapses, attacking the Constitution and Bill of Rights, serious healthy questions and so much more; these all came back to haunt the former First Lady, denying her the chance to become the first woman elected as President. In the end, she has innumerable character flaws that voters just could not ignore. While Trump may not have been a good alternative to Clinton, the issues broiling around the Democratic nominee were just too questionable to pass off as the rumors or innuendo of political activists intent of destroying "Killary," as she is called in various political videos produced to deny her the presidency.

In Congress, the Republican party is enjoying dominating both Houses for the first time in years. Along with a Republican in the White House, it will be quite interesting to see the cooperation between the two on partisan legislation and possibly getting this country back on the right track following the disastrous eight years of King Obama's reign.

While the Republican Majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate may not be a huge number, the fact that a single Party controls Congress is great for the American people who have seen nothing but bipartisan bickering on every issue since Obama was first elected.

This election cycle will also have a very long-lasting impact on the US Supreme Court. With one judge already missing, and six more who are over the age of 80, the next President will shape the future of the United States by their selections of Supreme Court Nominee's and their political leanings. With an Obama nominee already selection awaiting possible confirmation hearings, the likelihood of the Senate even convening for the Hearings is minuscule, at best.

President-elect Trump must make a selection as soon as he is sworn in, as the Confirmation Hearings can take months to complete.

Then, sometime in the next four years, President Trump will be called upon to nominate up to six more men a/o women to fill the vacated seats. If these nominees were all liberals, we could expect a High Court that regards the Constitution as a so-called "Living Document" that changes with the times and takes in the societal mores that most citizens rebuke, but a few of whom would push their personal agendas on the whole Country via what I term, "Legislation through Litigation."

By nominating Conservative-leaning judges to fill any seat of the US Supreme Court, President Trump will be returning to the days when the rule of law actually meant something, and the Supreme Court upheld the principles the United States was Founded upon, laying aside agendas and Legislation through Litigation.

This election, once thought to be historic with the possible election of a female President, is still historic in nature...it's just not how most everyone assumed it would be; instead potentially historic in cooperation and legislation between the White House and the Capitol building, and in the legal landscape decades from now through careful nomination and selection of Supreme Court Justices.

Now, more than ever, we need the blessings of Almighty God to rain down upon us to straighten our course, reaffirm our national priorities and set us once again firmly atop the pillar above the world upon which the Government "of the people, by the people and for the people" will continue to thrive, and the Republic which was founded so long ago, will regain its strength and purpose and elevate all men in ways we cannot comprehend.