Recently, the judges of the 9th Circuit ruled that a war memorial cross was unconstitutional due to the separation of church and state. However, Islam, Summum, and a host of other evil or strange religions have been protected by the government, and even been ruled as part of it. For example, the United States government won’t allow the Ten Commandments to be shown in our court buildings, though that is what our legal system was founded on. But courts have recently ruled that Sharia law must remain part of our legal system, though last time I checked we weren’t an Islamic state.
The first question I have concerning the recent federal court decision is: what are we going to do with all those little white crosses in Arlington cemetery? Crosses are used as a way to remember the dead and mark their burial site. The use of memorial crosses is not a surreptitiously organized conspiracy by Christians across the country, yet judges are actually deciding cases concerning it. Yet these judges are releasing Muslim terrorist recruiters living in America on bail, even after they bite and assault FBI agents. These judges need better clerks to organize their priorities. A cross in a cemetery won’t kill you, terrorist suspects very well might.
Joe Infranco of the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, stated in response to hearing the decision in this case, that “the memory of those who sacrificed their lives for our freedom shouldn't be dishonored because the ACLU finds a small number of people who are merely offended.” I agree whole heartedly, because lots of things offend me, but I can’t do a thing about that. Hell, building a center with a mosque in it near ground zero offends me, as does allowing Muslims to beat their wives because of their religion (S.D. v. M.J.R., 2010), but most judges would just ignore my complaints. And what about the Korean War veterans, do their feelings not get taken into consideration. If American war veterans want a cross, how can a minority tell them they can’t have it? What has that minority done for the country?
But crosses are not the only thing being targeted. The Christian, and sometimes also American, way of life is being threatened. This is because of the kulturkrieg – culture war – led by the Muslim, Summum, Atheist, and whack job minorities in this country.
When Germany’s Angela Merkel said, “those who don’t respect our values, don’t have a place here,” she was right. Well, the minorities in the United States do not want to join us or respect our values, so they’ve decided to try to beat us. They take us to court over long established traditions, while forcing their new radical culture on us. They justify their extreme beliefs in courts built on Christian values. The United States federal government recently sued a Chicago school for refusing to grant a Muslim teacher unpaid leave to take a trip to Mecca for the Hajj. The contract the teacher signed did not provide for extra vacation days, but the government said that they had to give in to her demands anyways. However, if I wanted to take a trip to Cumorah, a Mormon holy site, I’m fairly certain that the federal government would not fight a legal battle on my behalf. If a Catholic teacher wanted to go to Rome to see the Pope, I doubt the ACLU attorneys would get outraged and call dozens of press conferences.
Outside of court, minorities use their status as a growing minority to change our way of life. Movie producers, CEOs, and other people are afraid to honor God, because they don’t want to offend customers, especially atheists and Muslims. Now some businesses have started catering to Muslims, changing their menus and store schedules. McDonald’s and KFC both released Muslim friendly menus. Slaughterhouses have started to follow halal standards. Best Buy even recognized Eid al-Adha. This is unacceptable. These businesses are aiding the enemy in this kulturkrieg.
I pray to God the next round of federal judges are appointed under a conservative president, that Christians file more of their own suits, and that businesses recognize that appealing to a minority may not be such a good idea if you shun a large group of people in doing so.
Decisions of courts concerning crosses, the Ten Commandments, and other symbols are hardly as uniform and simplistic as you seem to suppose. Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
ReplyDeleteThat said, I join you in affirming that the constitutional principles should be applied across the board and share your concern that government and courts sometimes fall short in this regard. That said, I am also concerned by the increasingly expressed impression that Christians in particular are being persecuted.
Christians have always been and today remain the dominant religious influence in society and politics in the United States. While I have no doubt that Christians can be counted among those who have been the victims of ill treatment now and then, complaints of widespread discrimination against Christians bring to mind the image of a privileged child accustomed to getting his way who, faced with the prospect of treatment akin to that experienced by others, howls in pained anguish at the injustice of it all and pines for the good old days.
As for the impression that Muslims are allowed more freedom to pray during work and school, there are at least two answers. First, they have no more freedom than Christians in this regard. Second, under various statutes, employers are obligated to make “reasonable accommodations” for the religious practices of employees. Because certain daily rituals are integral to Islam and differ from the routine practices of Christians, accommodations of those rituals may stand out more to you.
As an atheist, I know how it feels to hold views not shared and even reviled by many in the dominant religion of our society. You may understand then how alarming it is to hear members of that dominant group speak of their sense of persecution. History often reveals dominant groups working themselves into a lather about perceived wrongs against them before they lash out to "restore" matters as they see fit.
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. 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. 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.
Thanks for your input, I love seeing others' views.
ReplyDeleteAs a Mormon, and former atheist, I understand what you are saying. The last part about standing is a good point, too. I still have to stand by my assertion that cemetery crosses do not "promote" religion.
Also, the 1st Amendment was written in a time when the majority of people were Christians (ones that actually attended church every Sunday and cared about one another) so I don't think it was "intended" as a method to remove memorial crosses (and the intention of legislation matters quite a bit; Alaska v. Venetie is a great example if you are into Indian law like I am, as it concerns ANCSA and the intent of Congress). Islam, with its Sharia law, was not present in 1776 America, either.