Syte Reitz

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world…….

Browsing Posts tagged Bill of Rights

Impeachment Back in the News

Impeachment is back in the news.
To impeach, or not to impeach?
Articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama were filed just a few weeks ago by a group of black American citizens, the National Black Republican Association (NBRA).
Throughout August, conservative constituents at towns halls have also been pressuring members of Congress to impeach the President.

  • What has Barack Obama done to deserve this public outcry?
  • What did other recent impeachment candidates do to deserve impeachment?
  • How do Barack Obama’s offenses compare with the offenses of the last two Presidents to be impeached?
  • Could impeachment of President Obama succeed, and what would it accomplish?

Blatant Lies and Lost Credibility

At the very least, whether successful or not, impeachment attempts expose the blatant lies and reflect the loss of credibility of a President.

 Obama Impeachment

Blatant lies told by Presidents undermine not only their own authority, but also the Office of President of the United States.
Presidential lies undermine the credibility and moral integrity of our entire nation.

Comparing Articles of Impeachment

The articles of impeachment summarize accusations  made during an impeachment:

.

richard-nixon-pointing

Richard M. Nixon
Articles of Impeachment:

  • Obstruction of Justice
  • Abuse of Power
  • Contempt of Congress

 “He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to ... cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

-Articles of Impeachment against Richard M. Nixon, adopted by the House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Article II, Section 1

Results: Richard Nixon’s impeachment did not go to the House or Senate for trial, because Nixon first resigned in disgrace.

.

index

 

William J. “Bill” Clinton
Articles of Impeachment:

  • Perjury
  • Obstruction of Justice

The judge wrote:
“Simply put, the president’s deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false….”

Results: Bill Clinton was Impeached by the House of Representatives, and acquitted by the U.S. Senate.  He received a contempt of court citation, and a suspension of his Arkansas law license, as well as a suspension from the U.S. Supreme Court bar.
Bill Clinton did not resign, and today seems unashamed of his misdeeds.
Incredibly, half of America seems to have little problem with Clinton’s moral and legal transgressions, as he continues to play a prominent role in the Democrat Party today in 2013, despite the public demolition of his integrity.
.

obama_cropped_blog_main_horizontal

.

Barack H. Obama
Articles of Impeachment filed by a “black American citizens”:

  • Obstruction of Benghazi investigation
  • Disclosure of grand jury material
  • Authorization of DOJ to conduct Fast and Furious
  • Authorization of IRS to release confidential information ot unauthorized individuals and organization
  • Initiation of  discriminatory IRS audits
  • Permission of unjustified NSA surveillance of 300 million average Americans
  • Permission of DOJ to spy on over one hundred Associated Press Journalists and on Fox News Reporter James Rosen
  • Thwarting Congress by failing to enforce laws including the Defense of Marriage Act, No Child Left Behind Act, and Affordable Care Act, and by directing immigrations officers to stop enforcing immigration law when Congress refused to pass his Dream Act.
  • Violations of the Constitution, bypassing the US Senate to appoint 3 members of the National Labor Relations board and to appoint Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection bureau.
  • Intimidation of whistle blowers and bringing twice as many prosecutions against whistle blowers as all prior presidents combined.

WOW

Ten Articles of Impeachment.
That’s a first.
Black Americans accusing the first black President of tyranny and of despotism.
That’s even more of a first.

This nation has been very proud of theObama serious historically significant 2008 Presidential election, in which our first black President was elected.  America prides itself on freedom, on fairness, and on opportunity.  I am the child of poor Lithuanian immigrants, and love America deeply for it’s just (Judeo-Christian) system of government and law, and the resulting opportunities it offers to those who work hard and follow the rules.  My entire family has risen from poor immigrants to successful and prosperous Americans in less than one generation, thanks to the opportunities offered by this country.  Despite my conservative political beliefs, even I was impressed with this aspect of the 2008 Presidential election outcome-a tribute to what children of all backgrounds can achieve in the United States – because we have a fair and just country.

Reasons Not to Impeach

What a tragedy and heartache it would be if the first black President abused the office so badly that he had to be impeached.  This is the sentiment that probably prevents most of us from discussing the impeachment of Barack Obama.  Some Obama supporters state candidly that they refrain from opposing the President because he is black.  When black Americans start proposing impeachment, we know this man has really abused the authority granted to him as President. And when liberal black leaders start proposing impeachment, this man has really crossed the line.

If a Lithuanian were ever elected President, I (as a Lithuanian) would be pretty reluctant, pretty ashamed, and pretty hard-pressed to demand his impeachment.

Reasons to Impeach

Slide1Yes, I would be reluctant to impeach a Lithuanian.

But I would demand the impeachment nevertheless, because I know that true equality includes accountability and includes keeping ALL leaders subject to the law, not just some.

Lithuanians, or blacks, or any other group of human beings, are not well served by condoning the misdeeds of one of their members.  Protection of offenders carries the unspoken implication that the entire group is complicit.  Protection sends the message that the entire group is not capable of responsible and accountable behavior. Excusing unacceptable behavior can even carry the bigoted implication that better cannot be expected from this minority person.
Wise minorities, whether Lithuanian or black, would demand accountability from their President, in order to demonstrate that the malefactor is the exception, not the rule, in their group.

And So, Black Americans Accuse President Obama of a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations

National Black Republican Association:
Slide1

We, black American citizens, in order to free ourselves and our fellow citizens from governmental tyranny, do herewith submit these Articles of Impeachment to Congress for the removal of President Barack H. Obama, aka, Barry Soetoro, from office for his attack on liberty and commission of egregious acts of despotism that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

On July 4, 1776, the founders of our nation declared their independence from governmental tyranny and reaffirmed their faith in independence with the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791.  Asserting their right to break free from the tyranny of a nation that denied them the civil liberties that are our birthright, the founders declared:

“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”  –  Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

Comparison of Charges

All three recent impeachment candidates, Nixon, Clinton and Obama, were clearly guilty of lies, and of mis-using the power of the Office of President.
Details of the accusations vary, and some overlap.

All three broke the law.
All three lied.

Slide1

The articles of impeachment above show many MORE accusations against President Barack Obama than against Nixon and Clinton.

They include IRS discrimination, NSA spying, prosecution of whistleblowers, wiretapping of journalists, the torture program and the Benghazi cover-up. Obama’s troubles do not seem to stem from one error as in the case of Nixon or Clinton, but from numerous errors and numerous cover-ups.  The list of articles of impeachment reflect a pervasive and systematically unscrupulous administration.  Phrases like Chicago tactics, Imperial Presidency, and Gangster Government surface in the news.

Bellver Lucifer

Lucifer – Ricardo Bellver, Madrid, 1877

Perhaps this is not so surprising after all, in reference to the man, Obama, who used to teach  Alinksy Tactics (aka Satan’s handbook, or the antithesis of the Ten Commandments) in Chicago.

It is interesting to note that accusations against Nixon did include “income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,” an accusation very similar to the IRS discrimination recently tolerated and probably initiated by the Obama administration.

There has been much discussion of President Obama’s misdeeds and misrepresentations.  One discussion compares President Obama with President Nixon extensively, in an article entitled Obama’s Watergates, in which numerous parallels are drawn between Nixon and Obama.   The author, Victor Davis Hanson,  a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, calls the Obama administration’s methods and aims “Nixonian to the core.”

Hanson predicts that the scandals, beginning with Benghazi, and continuing with the IRS, the Associated Press and James Rosen, as well as with Edward Snowden and the NSA, will not end until “the truth sets us all free.”  He predicts a long-drawn-out and sordid saga.

So Could An Impeachment Succeed?

Theoretically, an impeachment could succeed; this President has left such a “long train of abuses and usurpations” that he has been accused of an Imperial Presidency (characterized by greater power than the Constitution allows).
Obama is even despised by Vladimir Putin; Putin’s is not a respectful dislike, as might be expected toward a competitor, but actually a scorn and contempt towards Obama as a “weak ruler of Sodom & Gomorrah.”  There’s another first – Putin moralizing at the United States!

photo_1378286057088-1-HD

Obama’s extensive collection of offenses, and of domestic and global enemies, certainly makes impeachment seem possible, and even desirable.
Obama’s bad boy résumé is much longer than Clinton’s or Nixon’s, and he seems to be less well liked than Clinton was.  Obama’s popularity has been slipping rapidly this summer, and has particularly suffered during the present Syria crisis.

Yet, impeachment is not likely to go forward.
In addition to our collective and bipartisan reluctance to impeach the first black President, an impeachment is also likely to fail for the same reasons that Clinton’s impeachment failed in the Senate.

Not because Clinton or Obama are innocent of charges made against them, but because the Democrat party seems to have redefined moral standards in recent decades, and now the Democrat-dominated Senate is not likely convict a member of their own party, no matter how heinous his offense.

Democrats have forgotten the principle that all authority must be held accountable to the law.
Democrats  have substituted in it’s place the principle “the ends justify the means.”

Morality Redefined

The Democrat Party, previously commended for some virtuous policies including concern for the poor, and previously not in favor of abortion, seems to have abandoned numerous traditional Judeo-Christian ethics in recent years:

6a011570579907970b017742bf5159970d-800wi

  • The word GOD was almost struck from the Democrat party platform in 2012.
  • Abortion, the killing of pre-born citizens, is now prioritized and actively promoted by the Democrat party.
  • Redefinition of marriage is now favored by Democrats.
  • Our nation’s work ethic has now been damaged by excessive Democrat handouts, which surpass relief of poverty and resemble more the purchasing of votes.
  • Taxation and governmental control of all aspects of society have been taken to new heights, which border on totalitarianism, and violate the principle of subsidiarity, a founding principle of the United States and today a founding principle of the European Union.
  • Under Democrats we have recently suffered attacks on religious liberties of Americans, which border on Communism and which violate the moral principle of tolerance.
  • Totalitarianism and religious persecution in the name of government are incompatible with the definition of democracy.
  • Gangster methodology seems to be in routine use now by the Obama Administration, a methodology in direct conflict with the Constitution, with the laws of the United States, and with Ten Commandments.

This redefined morality is outlined in Saul Alinsky’s  book  Rules for Radicals.  Alinsky’s book was dedicated, in fact, to Lucifer, a alternate name for Satan. Incidentally, Barack Obama taught Alinsky tactics in Chicago.

Alinsky dedication
The Alinsky method welcomes dishonest tactics, unlawful behavior, perjury and obstruction of justice in the service of furthering one’s political goals.

Yes, morality HAS been redefined.

Morality Inversion

We now have a  Morality Inversion, the substitution of Democrat/Alinsky morality for traditional Judeo-Christian Morality.Slide1
Under morality inversion, something is wrong only if you think that it is wrong, and you are allowed to prioritize your own agenda above the law.
Under a morality where unlawfulness is allowed, the only order is the order chosen and imposed by those in power. i.e. totalitarianism.
Half of America seems to be on board with this.
They don’t seem to realize that granting dictatorial powers to a President you like today will also extend dictatorial powers to the President you DON’T like tomorrow.

With Morality Inversion, Impeachment Becomes an Oxymoron

Morality Inversion says that it’s O.K. to break laws when it feels right.
Impeachment says the opposite, that you remove officials for breaking laws.
So which is it to be?
You cannot have both.
You cannot impeach a President for lying and breaking laws if it’s O.K. to lie and break laws.
That’s why the Senate, dominated by Democrats (who have actually become radical Progressives in recent years), failed to convict Clinton during Clinton’s impeachment, and are almost certain to acquit Obama if impeachment were attempted.  The House, dominated by Conservatives, did impeach Clinton for his offenses.

santa_claus_patriarchal_morality_630495If Judeo-Christian morality is already on it’s way out, and the Senate refuses to impeach a President who has broken laws and who has not upheld the Constitution, then impeachment becomes an oxymoron and a contradiction.
So impeachment is not particularly useful at this moment in history; restoration of morality is needed first.
And that’s what our Pope is working on.

Bottom Line

The bottom line is that half our nation now tolerates and votes for people who lie and who break laws.
Whether it’s intentional or not, that half of our nation is tolerating anarchy (lawlessness).
They like what President Obama is decreeing now: handouts and lollipops for everybody, just vote for me!
For now, those receiving handouts will not tolerate impeachment, and impeachment is not likely to succeed.

Slide1

Aside: Even if impeachment were to succeed, the successors to the impeached President in this moral climate are just more of the same: The Bidens, Pelosis, Reids, Kerrys, Sebeliuses…

The question becomes which way will the morality inversion shift?
Which side of the morality balance will win?
Progressives or Judeo-Christians?

Future Directions

Chariot race in the Circus Maximus, ancient RomeSome conservatives believe that the same form of progressive policy now being exercised by the Obama administration was responsible for the collapse of ancient Rome.  They include some pretty smart people, like Steve Forbes.  Astute parallels between the Roman empire and the United States are pointed out in Are We Rome?

Circus Madison Goes On, a blog post here, made similar analogies between progressive Madison, WI, and Rome’s ancient Circus Maximus, an ancient site famous for chariot races, gladiator fights, Christian slaughter and games, as well as a local marketplace. Very much like Madison, where Capitol Square hosts bicycle and track races, farmer’s markets, and even quite a few “lynchings” of those who are conservative or religious.  This has included the harassment of Bishop Morlino by gay demonstrators, the Madison Teacher protests during which conservative senators were chased by crowds around the Capitol building, and the hanging of a baloon effigy of Justice Prosser. 

Mercifully, many conservatives, including myself and Steve Forbes, are optimistic about the fact that Americans are now more aware and more involved, and we believe that the degeneration of American values can still be turned around.  Steve Forbes claims that awareness and involvement, and movements like the tea party may prevent us from collapsing like Rome. I am Slide18-e1376614703643convinced that the morality inversion can be reversed and a return to Godliness can prevent us from collapsing as Rome did.

Whether we succeed in correcting previous errors and thus recover from a temporary derailment, or whether the civilization built in the United States collapses like that of Rome, is in our hands and in the hands of God.
Let’s not forget our most powerful ally. Religion is power.

Related Articles:

Political Puzzle Pieces Falling Into Place

 

What Happens When You Take Character Out of Politics

or

The National Disease

or

Understanding the Role of Religion in Government

.

.
“Divorcing religious faith from public life soon leads to separating government from morality and citizens from their consciences. And that leads to politics without character, which has now become a national disease.”

-Archbishop Chaput in Render Unto Caesar, p. 169.

No– nobody’s talking about violating the separation of Church and State, or the establishment of a state religion.

What is being discussed is the inclusion of principles  in government on which most citizens, and major religions, agree.  Inclusion of these principles in the Constitution and in our system of laws helps to maintain morality and justice.  The principles are not imposed from above, but result from a religious population voting their conscience to create a Constitution and to pass laws which are fair, just, and beneficial to society.

Just as the Founding Fathers of the United States practiced these principles, so, too, the 80% Christian Americans today need to think, act on, and vote these principles to maintain the system of government that was passed down to us.  We cannot sit around idly, while radicals and “progressives” progressively work to eliminate all principles of right and wrong from our government.

Biblically speaking, Christ told disciples to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, referring at least on one level, to the payment of taxes.  Archbishop Chaput points out that in 2012, paying taxes and sitting back is not sufficient.  We must inform ourselves of where politicians are steering our government, we must consult our Christian consciences, and we must take civic action to ensure that our faith, our morality and our consciences take part in the democratic process that continues to shape this nation.

We cannot fall for false and misleading demands by radicals that we guarantee freedom FROM religion in the public sphere.  We need to support freedom OF religion, which builds the politics of character and begins to cure the national disease.

Questions?

Read the book. Amazon lets you read the first chapter free.

What Happens When You Try to Divorce Religious Faith from Public Life?

Freedom FROM Religion happens. (See The Contrast.)
Politics without character happens.
It’s not a pretty sight.

Best Summer Read: Render Unto Caesar

In his book Render Unto Caesar, Archbishop Charles Chaput gives a brilliant analysis of the role of religious belief in government, which would interest any conservative and any Christian.  It’s a compelling, can’t-put-it-down read.  Who would think that our Archbishops would start turning into popular superstars?  First Cardinal Dolan, now Archbishop Chaput.

It is With Wisdom and Good Reason that the Constitution of the United States included religion in the Bill of Rights:

“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.”
– the First Amendment, Constitution of the United Sates

Read Render Unto Caesar, and start rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s (and no, you don’t render money, you render your civic action). I have the Kindle copy, which is only $10.99, and works on iPhone.  Amazon lets you read the first chapter free.

To quote another great bishop,

Government needs religion because religion is the only reliable source of voluntary self-restraint.
No government can police a whole nation without the help of voluntary self-restraint. 
-(my paraphrasing of a talk given by Bishop Robert Morlino to Madison’s Future Society in 2003).

 

 

 

 

 

.

.

.

As is often the case, a Wisconsin State Journal (WSJ) article sent me on an interesting thought trajectory last week.

In a New Years Day 2011 article, WSJ author Chris Rickert wrote, “I approached a handful of more-or-less randomly chosen (Madison) people who aren’t exactly celebrities (but aren’t exactly unknown either) about coming up with resolutions for Madison.”

The Greek word "atheoi" αθεοι ("those who are without god") as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians 2:12, on early 3rd-century Papyrus"

When thus approached, Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) atheist Annie Laurie Gaylor suggested the following resolution for Madison: “just say no to the (St. Paul’s Catholic Student) Center‘s unreasonable demand for a tax-free, 14-story dormitory and religious addition.”  Apparently this Madison atheist’s primary concern for 2011 seemed to be preventing the replacement of UW Madison’s Catholic student headquarters. (!)

Questions immediately came to mind:

St. Paul's from 1909

  • Why would opposition to the Catholic Student center be so high on an atheist organization’s priority list?   (The replacement will be funded by private donations, and replaces an existing Catholic Student center, which has been in existence at that location since 1909.)
  • Why is MY Catholic religion being singled out by the atheists?  (The atheist’s objections did not include other campus religious groups or buildings, or their tax-exempt status.)
  • Isn’t the atheist being inconsistent? Isn’t atheism a religion as well?  Aren’t atheists simply opposing OTHER people’s religions in preference to their own? Why would they particularly single out Catholicism?

Searching the UW Madison student organization website, atheists came up as the second listing under RELIGIOUS student organizations– Atheists, Humanists & Agnostics @ UW-Madison. So atheism is listed as a religion at UW, along with Catholic student groups, Muslim student groups, and others.

If the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is so opposed to religion, what are they specifically opposed to?

According to dictionary.com, religion is “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

  • Is FFRF opposed to exploring the cause, nature and purpose of the universe?
  • Does FFRF deny the right of others to believe in a superhuman agency (as 80% of Madison and 80% of America does)?
  • Is FFRF opposed to a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs?
  • Are atheists not contradicting themselves, since they also adhere to a system of beliefs and are listed under UW Madison religious organizations?

My curiosity piqued, I visited the Freedom From Religion Foundation(FFRF) website  “about” page, where I found the statement:

“The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.”

Abraham Lincoln

Hmmm….according to FFRF, so much for considering contributions to Western civilization by Jesus Christ, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Johann Sebastian Bach, Michelangelo, Sir Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, G.K. Chesterton, Martin Luther King Jr., Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Clarence Thomas, Pope John Paul II, Mother Theresa………?

The FFRF “about” page goes on to claim ownership of prison reform, humane treatment of the mentally ill, abolition of capital punishment, the end of slavery, women’s suffrage, and more, for people who are “free of” religion.

Johnny Cash

A brief historical tour of these topics does not support FFRF’s claims—no one group had a monopoly on reform in these areas, and numerous religious people were involved, including famous names like Abraham Lincoln and Johnny Cash.

.

A visit to Wikipedia’s entry on FFRF indicates that FFRF maintained a sign in the Wisconsin State Capitol during the Christmas season, which reads:

FFRF sign at Wisconsin Capitol

.

“At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail.
There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world.
Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens the heart and enslaves minds.”

-A disturbingly intolerant statement about many religions, particularly for a city like Madison, which prides itself on its University, its intellectualism and its tolerance!

Consider a simple substitution in the last sentence of the sign:                                    Atheism is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” instead of Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens the heart and enslaves minds.”

How would FFRF tolerate the exhibition of that in the State Capitol on a gold sign for children to view?

The first line of the FFRF verse is also inconsistent with FFRF’s supposed mission; Winter Solstice, capitalized, refers to pagan celebrations, which are religious.  Is FFRF promoting pagan holidays, while opposing Christian ones like Christmas?  Hardly sounds like freedom from religion.

The FFRF Christmas season sign is an inconsistent curiosity at best, and surely would not be appreciated by 80% of Madison, who are Christian, when they bring their children to see the Christmas tree at the Capitol each year!

How many atheists are there, anyway? Wikipedia claims 2.5% of the world’s population, 2% of the U.S. population.

And of these, how many are so militant that they cannot tolerate a Christmas tree or a “Merry Christmas” wish?  The couple of atheists/agnostics I know have no problem with Christmas, and they participate in Christmas celebrations and Christmas giving with enthusiasm.  They are quite tolerant of the Christian majority in America, and enjoy the spirit of the occasion.  So what percentage of Americans does the FFRF really represent?  It is certainly lower than the total of all atheists, 2%.  The FFRF website lists their North American membership of 15,500, which is 0.003 of 1% of the population, or one in 33 thousand people.

City-data.com demographics list Madison as 53% Catholic, 22% Evangelical Lutheran, and only 10% of the population outside of Christian denominations.

So as we delve further into the facts, we discover that in the City of Madison, which is 53% Catholic and 80% Christian, and in the State of Wisconsin, which is 29% Catholic and 80% Christian, the insignificant number of militant atheists want to prevent Catholic students from replacing their Catholic student center at their own cost when membership swells.

Catholic students in front of St. Paul's

Perhaps it is the tax-deductible status of the Catholic Student Center that offends FFRF?  The Catholic student center is located between its brethren structures, Calvary Lutheran Student Center, and Pres House, the Presbyterian Student Center.  All three are religious institutions and all three are tax-exempt.  The FFRF is also tax exempt, and the UW Madison atheist student organization (listed under Religious Student Organizations) is tax exempt. So tax exemption cannot be the problem.

Does FFRF think that UW or the City of Madison will be paying for the new structure?

FFRF’s Annie Julie Gaylor stated:“(St. Paul’s Catholic Student) Center’s unreasonable demand for a tax-free, 14-story dormitory and religious addition.” — but St. Paul’s Catholic Center is not demanding anything from anybody.  They already own the location since 1909, and the new building will be paid for by private donations.

So the Catholic Center is not unique in its tax-free status. The Catholic students are not demanding anything from anybody.  Perhaps it is the expansion that FFRF is opposed to?

St. Paul's today

.

The expanded taller structure reflects the increase in Catholic students participating in the Catholic Center, and this is not surprising in a town which is 53% Catholic and a State which is 29% Catholic.  29 to 53% of the UW campus would represent about 11,000 to 21,000 students.  Does the FFRF, representing between 0.003% and  2% of the population (this would correspond to between 1 and 800 students), wish to deny the 80% Christian majority access to religious organizations and dormitories to support the student population’s interests and priorities?

.
In a world in which litigation has much power to intimidate, small groups such as the FFRF have made some headway toward abolishing the rights of self-expression guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights of the United States:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

The FFRF, with their $5 million fund balance, their half-million dollar yearly income, and 15,000 (North American) membership, is a small organization at best.  Yet FFRF has made some inroads towards stifling the freedom OF religion guaranteed to us in the United States– primarily by filing lawsuits against public expressions of religion.

FFRF should be reminded that the preposition used by the founding fathers in the Bill of Rights is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. They should be reminded that they are the guests among a majority of religious people in this country, who exhibit more much tolerance towards FFRF than is reciprocated.  And in preparation for the next time our freedom OF religion is threatened by frivolous FFRF lawsuits, we should start a Freedom OF Religion Fund to pay for the defense of the Bill of Rights against militant atheists like FFRF.  We 80% Christians and 90% religious people in this country, as well as the 8-10% tolerant atheists/agnostics/unsure believers, would prevail against the aggressive and intolerant attitudes of groups like the FFRF if we woke up, got organized and took action.

FFRF should take a lesson in tolerance from Bishop Morlino, another one of the people consulted by WSJ for this article’s New Year’s resolutions for Madison.  Bishop Morlino did not suggest stifling FFRF’s plans, challenging their tax-exempt status, or interfering with FFRF in any way.  Bishop Morlino suggested some daily quiet personal introspection for everyone in Madison– which Annie Laurie Gaylor would be wise to consider.

All Posts