jump to navigation

NY Times Anti-Religion Agenda : Boycott NYT November 13, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in First Amendment, news, politics, religion, secularism, Separation of Church and State, Ten Commandments, The New York Times.
1 comment so far

Don Feder, Pres. of Boycott New York Times, published an interesting article by the above title. In it Feder wrote the following:

In its relentless drive to secularize our society, The New York Times continues to distort the First Amendment.

An editorial in today’s paper notes that the Supreme Court is hearing arguments involving Pleasant Grove City, Utah, which has a Ten Commandments monument in a public park but refuses to allow a cult called Summum to erect its own memorial.

Because the City “elevated one religion, traditional Christianity, over another, Summum,” it violated the First Amendment’s prohibition against an Establishment of Religion, The Times maintains. “The founders regarded this sort of religious preference as so odious that they included a specific provision in the First Amendment prohibiting it.”

Like the ACLU, the NYT editors make a false claims about Christianity. The Ten Commandments are not a tenet of Christianity; the Beatitudes found in the Sermon of the Mount are. The Ten Commandments are part of the covenantal text of the Torah or the Hebrew Bible.

Our nation’s founders believed that God’s law–the 10 Commandments–were universally adhered to by all peoples and nations. They saw them as inherent in human nature’s sense of moral justice. Thus the founders saw those commandments enacted in the law of every nation and culture known to them.

Therefore, the claim of the NYT editors that the public display or honor of the Ten Commandments is an attempt to establish Christianity above all others is merely the continuance of secularist strategy to dupe Americans into believing a lie about the First Amendment.

This is further explained by Feder in his commentary.

The New York Times probably thinks the Bill of Rights was drafted by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Madalyn Murray O’Hair.

In reality, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit a state church, like the Church of England. If The Founders thought giving one religion preference was odious, why was Congress’s first official act to hire a Christian chaplain? And why did the first Congress appropriate sums of money for Christian missionaries to the Indian tribes?

What about “In God We Trust” on our currency and “One Nation Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance – which clearly give preference to Judeo-Christian tradition over Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Summumism?

The New York Times gives the game away when it insists that public property “must be open to all religions on an equal basis – or open to none at all” (emphasis added). In other words, a town that chooses to display the Ten Commandments – which are sacred to 90% of the American people and an integral part of our nation’s heritage – has to give equal space to every other faith and New Age sect that’s out there.

Soon, parks and other public places would be overrun with monuments to Shiva, Baal, the Mother Earth, Wicca and the Great Pumpkin. By forcing municipalities to make this choice, The New York Times intends to affect its real purpose – driving religion from the public square and severing our nation from its Judeo-Christian roots.

To read more about Boycott The New York Times, go to boycottnyt.com

Freedom July 4, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in church, Constitution, covenant, First Amendment, freedom, Freedom of Religion, Independence Day, news, politics, religion.
add a comment

by Rev. Dallas E. Henry

“When in the course of Human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men   are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Signed on July 2 and adopted in the Congress on July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence set free the 13 colonies of America from its rule by Great Britain. Richard Stockton, a Quaker from New Jersey, was one of the 56 signers of that declaration. Stockton, in 1758, helped to construct the Quaker Meeting house near his home. Stockton was a prominent lawyer and landowner until the day that he signed that declaration. The English army routed him and his family from their home, and he was imprisoned as a traitor to the crown. As a result of his harsh treatment, his health was broken. After his imprisonment he returned to the burned and sacked remnants of his home and died there four years later at the age of 51. His is only one of the stories of these 56 men- many others tell the same story of men who gave their life for freedom.

Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence:
 5 were captured by the British and tortured before they died.
12 had their homes ransacked and burned.
 2 lost their sons in the war.
 9 either died from war wounds or from hardships suffered in the war.

We conclude from this that freedom is never free.

Rev. Henry goes on to compare the ancient occupation of Israel led by Joshua to our founders and the price they paid for gaining freedom.

The Lord, through Joshua, makes clear that the price of our continued freedom is two-fold:

1) The price is Devotion to God [Joshua 23:6]. Joshua reminded Israel that their continued freedom rested on their willingness to follow God. If they were to turn from God their downfall would surely come. It is true for us today. James Madison, 4th president of the US and one of the framers of the constitution said, “We have staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all our heart.¨ He knew as Joshua spoke so many years before him that freedom and democracy can only be maintained if men walk with God. You cannot write enough laws to govern a godless society. You cannot make enough rules to make moral an immoral nation. Often we look at our nation and become discouraged as we see the continual practice of abortion, homosexuality, same sex marriage, pornography, violence, crime, and hatred. We see it and we become discouraged. We see it; and we hear that the downfall of America is inevitable as God’s judgment comes upon us for our sin. We feel helpless to change our society and our world. But the truth is far different. We are far from impotent to affect the world around us.

Rev. Henry says we can make a difference. It does not begin with them but with ourselves. That is, changing our world begins with reforming the Church. He quotes the familiar scripture: “If My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” Many who use this verse imply that if the Christians repent then God will heal and restore America to its former goodness. The implied magic is not part of Rev. Henry’s view.

Like Israel, America was founded as a nation upon a national covenant with God. Read the entire Declaration of Independence for what it actually states and not as your particular political bias dictates. The Church is not synonymous to the whole of America. Nevertheless, the biblical law and morality is synonymous with freedom and the natural law basis of the Constitution. That is why Rev. Henry goes on to say:

Revival will not come to a nation until reformation comes to the church. We must be willing to pay the price. The saddest commentary on our society today is that in all its decay and decadence no one seems to care. The people revel in their debauchery and the church remains silent. It’s as if people shut their windows and doors and refuse to become a part of the national debate. For far too long we have shut ourselves out of the arena of ideas and our Nation and our churches have suffered for it. The fact is that if we don’t fight for what is right no one will.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “All it takes for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing.”

2) The second price of continued freedom is vigilance. We must be vigilant. We must protect the right. We must demand better than we have. James Garfield, the twentieth president of the United States, wrote this in 1877: “Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”

Rev. Henry seems to assume everyone realizes that out religious liberty is eroding away. Gay rights, abortion rights, the spread of public corruption makes it obvious. However, I think many people’s view of religious liberty has become fuzzy. It is not just the erosion of actual liberty but the erosion of our view of what religious liberty is. The so-called Separation of Church and State defined and defended by the secular Left is not the same as it was defined and defended by our mostly Christian founders. The divorce of Christian religion from public and political life was never intended by those who established wrote the final draft of the Declaration or the First Amendment. There was a very good reason Congress intentionally left out the wall of separation clause and why in the 1870s Congress rejected it again. Secular neutrality represented by the Lemon test did not exist until the 20th Century secularists gained political power. The Ten Commandments in U.S. the Supreme Court chambers is proof.

Rev. Henry concluded his commentary saying,

If our nation’s leadership has become dominated by liars, adulterers, cheats, and nare-do-wells, then it’s time we use the power of the voting booth and vote them out. It’s time Christians begin to run for office and take back what has been taken from us. Our nation’s pride, morality, and freedom are at stake; and we must not be shut out of the arena of ideas. We must stand up and be counted as those willing to pay the price for freedom.

Source: Christian Civic League of Maine.

See also Declaration of Independence Banned from Calif School classroom. [From banning the Declaration and Nature’s God]; The Real Issue [to embracing fascism and gay sexual politics.].

The Plan to Restore Constitutional Order June 25, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Constitution, First Amendment, freedom, news, politics, Right to Petition for Redress.
2 comments

June 30, 2008 may be remembered in history as the day Americans began, in earnest, the moral and solemn process of holding their (servant) Government accountable to the Constitution — under threat of withdrawal of allegiance, support and tax money.

To secure this end, the People have begun to claim and exercise a little-known, but unalienable, “Right of Redress,” rather than depending upon the will of the majority as defined by precinct voters, those who cast votes on Capitol Hill, and those that vote from the inner sanctums of our Courthouses.

Most do not know that this profound natural Right, first articulated 800 years ago in Magna Carta, is embodied and protected by the Petition clause of the First Amendment — the same Amendment which protects your voice in the defense of Freedom. Very importantly, academic research since 1986 makes clear the Right to Petition for Redress is NOT a redundant statement of the Right of Speech. It is in fact, the individual exercise of Popular Sovereignty.

To be sure, the widespread exercise of this Right holds significant implications for our nation and are most worthy of your interest. Here’s what the Founders sitting as the first Congress had to say:

“If money is wanted by Rulers
who have in any manner oppressed the People,
they may retain it until their grievances are redressed,
and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised
petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.”

Journals of the Continental Congress, 1:105-113

On June 30, 2008, approximately 1200 American citizens will begin the process of exercising the Right by formally serving a Legal Notice and Demand for Redress upon the President, the Attorney General and every member of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate at their local district offices.

Demanding an official response within forty (40) days, the Notice includes seven (7) Petitions for Redress of Grievances regarding substantial violations of the Constitution:

1. The Iraq invasion in violation of the war powers clauses.
 
2. The Federal Reserve System’s violation of the money clauses.
 
3. The USA Patriot Act’s violation of the privacy clauses.
 
4. The direct, un-apportioned taxes on labor in violation of the tax clauses.
 
5. The federal gun control laws in violation of the Second Amendment.
 
6. The failure to enforce immigration laws in violation of the “faithfully execute clause.”
 
7. The construction, by stealth, of a “North American Union” without constitutional authority.

We the People cannot elect our way out of tyranny. Any assertion that by electing either McCain or Obama we can cure the ills that now plague America is simply naive or based on a lack of information regarding the corrupting forces that truly influence and control our government and political process.

If Liberty and Constitutional Order are to survive in peace, it is imperative that the People learn about and exercise the unalienable Right of Redress. For details about the Plan to Restore Constitutional Order, visit: www.GiveMeLiberty.org/revolution.

Day of Silence Day of Truth April 24, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in crime, discrimination, education, First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, gay politics, hate crime, humanism, law, politics, public schools, religion, totalitarianism, violence, youth.
2 comments

LGBT Day of Silence is a day of gay political activism. The Day of Truth is simply a day of counter-cultural political activism. A day of silence would almost be okay if it was about all bullying, all intolerance, and all discrimination, but it is not. What about the harassment of the goofy looking guy with glasses, or the person with a big wart on her neck, or the one with too many ugly pimples, or wimps, or nerds, or those who wear black cloaks and look like gangsters, or all the others who are often harassed because of appearance or speech problem or whatever? Gays are certainly not the only ones silenced, harassed, bullied, alienated, or isolated. A lot of kids have been murdered by other kids because of being harassed before and since the Columbine massacre. Why is their not a national day of protest for them? (more…)

Totalitarian Gays Left Wants to Silence OK Rep. Sally Kern April 1, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in American history, children, Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Exodus, First Amendment, gay politics, God, hate crime, Jews, law, morality, news, politics, religion, secularism, Separation of Church and State, socialism, totalitarianism, violence.
8 comments

The gay community across the land is in an uproar about Oklahoma Representative Sally Kern’s recent speech in which she said,

“The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation, OK, it’s just a fact…. Studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted, you know, more than a few decades. So it’s the death knell in this country. I honestly think it’s the biggest threat that our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat.”

According to the gay Human Rights Campaign, “A secret recording has just emerged of State Rep. Sally Kern speaking to a Republican group in January, where she equates both sexual orientation and religion with terrorism. She thought no one was listening. Now hundreds of thousands are. And despite her refusal to apologize, we won’t let her get away with this.”

Did you notice the tactic: “A secret recording” and “no one was listening?” What secret? She was speaking in the open outside the Capitol building to a group of fellow Republicans. It appears that she didn’t care who was listening. If she did, she would taken the group inside the Capitol building to a darkened room where totalitarians like those of the gay Human Rights Campaign could have bugged the room in order to hear some criticism that could be used to silence their outspoken opponents like Rep. Sally Kern.

Following this sucker’s ploy, the gay Human Rights Campaign plays (more…)

Hawaii liberal legislators seeking to secularize religious medical providers February 25, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in abortion, culture war, First Amendment, health care, law, legislation, liberals, morality, news, Planned Parenthood, politics, religion, secularism, socialism.
Tags: ,
1 comment so far

In 2003, Hawaii legislators passed the exact same bill as the one making its way through the House Finance committee. Governor Lingle vetoed the bill in 2003. I hope that she will do so again if it is passed.

What could be so bad about hospital informing rape victim of the possibility of pregnancy and abortion. The one the bill requires all hospitals to provide is emergency contraception. As was explained in a previous post, emergency contraception is actually is an abortifacient.

No one can blame rape victims wanting to prevent the possibility of pregnancy. (more…)

Should Americans Sue Freedom From Religion Foundation? February 1, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Constitution, First Amendment, Freedom of Religion, God, religion, secularism, Separation of Church and State, Supreme Court.
6 comments

Should Americans sue the anti-American organization Freedom from Religion Foundation? I know such a statement smacks of the ridiculous, but is it ridiculous. Should not we who are offended by the efforts of Freedom from Religion Foundation (and ACLU) to rob us of our religious national heritage and our connections to the God of our independent statehood sue them for violating our freedom and rights guaranteed us by God as well as the Constitution? Should we accept the repression of our rights to enjoy the benefits of displaying public symbols of that heritage? I do not think so. I cannot believe the millions of Americans who seem to like their heritage should allow the Freedom from Religion Foundation, ACLU, federal government, or state governments to rob us of it. (more…)