You might find this a difficult concept to grasp, because if you are reading this blog you are more likely than not to call yourself a liberal or a progressive or worst of all a Democrat. That means that you probably support the American Civil Liberties Union (i.e., the ACLU) and think their “liberal activism” in defense of the rights granted under the Constitution (as they misinterpret them) is an important service to our nation.
However, I must tell you that despite this language in the 1st amendment to the US Constitution …
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …
… which seemingly prohibits any action by the government to prevent the adherents of Islam known as Muslims from practicing their faith, you would be wrong. Here, let me have Republican Tennessee gubernatorial candidate and Tea Party favorite Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey explain why the Islam might not qualify as a religion against which our government cannot arguably discriminate or even outright prohibit:
<blockquoteNow, you could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, cult whatever you want to call it. …
Now, you know, I’m all about freedom of religion. I value the First Amendment as much as I value the Second Amendment as much as I value the Tenth Amendment and on and on and on. But you cross the line when they try to start bringing Sharia Law here to the state of Tennessee — to the United States. We live under our Constitution and they live under our Constitution.
You see the founding fathers left us an out! If the “faith” you practice or “god” you worship is actually just a cult, well, too bad for you. No First Amendment rights need apply.
Now I understand that one of the founding principles of this nation was freedom of religion. And I know that by some estimates there are 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world, but that doesn’t mean they can’t all be members of a cult instead of a religion.
After all, it is a well established fact that the founding Fathers really meant Christianity when they used the word “religion.” God’s truth! Just ask the Judge (i.e., Judge Robert Ulrich, Chief Justice, Missouri Court Of Appeals, Western District):
I suggest to you that, not only did Christians found this country, but that if you analyze world history using the evidence available, you may conclude that God established the United States for specific reasons. The answer to whether this nation was founded by Christians, guided and assisted by God, is important. If the evidence demonstrates that it was, we should be inspired to fulfil [sic] God’s assigned tasks as quickly as possible. If the answer is yes, the logical conclusion is that as Christian Americans, we have a mission from God, and we must be about God’s business. […]
John Adams of Massachusetts, a lawyer and the second president, wrote in a letter to Jefferson on June 28, 1813. He said, “The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general principles of Christianity.”
Samuel Adams, cousin of John Adams, is called the “Father of the American Revolution.” He incited the Boston Tea Party, signed the Declaration of Independence and called for the first Continental Congress. He said as the Declaration of Independence was being signed, “We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come.” Samuel Adams also said, “First of all, I … rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.” […]
Benjamin Franklin, considered a deist by many, said, “He who shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of a primitive Christianity, will change the face of the world.” And Thomas Jefferson, also considered a deist, said, “The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart.” Jefferson is even quoted as having said, “I am a Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”
George Washington, the father of our nation said, “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”
So, I think it’s pretty clear to right thinking people (like, for example, Justices Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas of the US Supreme Court) that the word “religion” was never intended by the Founding Fathers to cover any faith or practice of worship except for the Christian religion.
I know that some people don’t accept this obvious fact about the founding of our country. Some even claim that this treaty with the Muslims rulers of Tripoli signed and ratified by many of the Founding Fathers in 1797 proves that America was never intended to be solely a “Christian Nation …
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
… but these misguided people fail to realize that sometimes the Founding Fathers had to lie for the greater glory of God in order to accomplish Jesus Christ’s master plan for America.
By the way, I see no reason that other cults like Unitarian Universalists, Buddhists, Hindus or Wiccans*, or even secular humanists, scientists and atheists can’t be reclassified as cults or “ways of life” also. Just think of the advantages if the protections of the 1st amendment could be removed from all these not-religions.
For one thing, those organizations claiming tax free status based on their “cult” status could be added to the tax roles and with all the money the IRS collects from them we might be able to balance the Budget just by making taxing their “mosques” or “meditative centers” or “temples” or whatever.
We could also greatly restrict the rights of anyone who is a member of any of the aforementioned “cults” for purposes of “national security.” Why we could remove their right to practice their beliefs openly, or prevent them from working in certain occupations or for companies that do business with Federal agencies and departments, or with any state or local governments, for example. We could pass laws telling them where they could or could not live and what they could and could not say and where they could or could not go — for their own safety, of course (and, let’s be honest, for ours as well).
So, thank you Ron Ramsey for showing us the way to protecting our great nation from the Islamofascist menace of Sharia Law (and any other dangerous cults which threaten our nation’s precious Christian heritage) while also defending our “precious freedoms” guaranteed to Christians in the second holiest document in the world, next to the Bible, the Constitution of the United States of America. I know I feel better that men of Lt. Gov. Ramsey’s moral stature and keen insight into the rights and freedoms granted to us under God are running for public office.
Aren’t you?
* I think for the time being we can give our Jewish friends a pass. We do need Israel to continue to exist as a Jewish nation, after all, if the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior, prophesied in the Book of Revelation is ever going to happen.
Kinda funny that they don’t understand what a Deist meant by ‘primative Christianity.’ That means, ‘before the invention of the Trinity.’
In other words, not-Christian.
.
Interview by France24 … in ‘dem socialist state!
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.".
(JPost) – Why should something condemned by society were it published in print suddenly become legitimate simply because it appears on-line?
The US Congress and the Italian parliament deserve credit; last week both held hearings into combatting on-line anti-Semitism. The differing testimony, however, highlights the gap between the US and the rest of the world.
FUCK ISRAEL
The hearing in Rome examined both Italian-language Web sites that distributed anti-Semitic literature and imagery, and the international problem in social media. The Web 2.0 examples I presented came from Facebook, YouTube, Google Groups, MySpace and Flickr. They included conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial, blood libel, demonization and other classic and modern forms of anti-Semitism – all easily found across the spectrum of social media sites.
The heart of the problem is that such material is largely accepted as legitimate expression. Why should something condemned by society were it published in print or placed on posters on city streets suddenly become legitimate simply because it appears on-line?
There is no reason for platforms like Facebook and YouTube to facilitate the spread of hate. There is no reason on-line communities should be free of social values and human rights. The challenge is to create a civil society on-line. Such a society is not made through groups promoting NGOs, but through the adoption of ethical behavior by platform providers, on-line community leaders and the public.
… We have tackled copyright as a result of the music industry; we have tackled privacy largely as a result of government officials in Canada and Italy; next we must tackle the promotion of racism and hate.
It is up to governments and intergovernmental organizations to make this a priority for social media companies. Yes, there will be costs, but it is no more than the cost of doing business in what remains a very lucrative market.
Israel slams Oliver Stone’s interview
Diaspora Affairs and Public Diplomacy Minister Yuli Edelstein slammed Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone on Monday for comments he made in an interview to Britain’s Sunday Times, in which he downplayed the Holocaust, defended Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and complained about Jewish influence in the United States.
Yuli Edelstein said that Stone’s statements to the newspaper were racist and anti-Semitic and made him sick.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Well, I’m not quite sure what the point of Oui’s comment was, but my question is:
Can we verify whether what Judge Robert Ulrich regarding the Founding Fathers is true?
.
Perhaps this article by law professor Jon Rowe provides some insight …
“Can we verify whether what Judge Robert Ulrich regarding the Founding Fathers is true?”
No, not this article by Michelle Goldberg, which features a pretty accurate report on that element of the religious right which she deems “Christian Nationalism” (whom Andrew Sullivan would call “Christianists”). But rather this article by a Roy Moore in training, yes, a Judge — Robert Ulrich, Chief Justice, Missouri Court Of Appeals, Western District. Ulrich’s article relies on, you got it, David Barton’s phony quotations, and otherwise distorts history by offering real quotations of our Founding Fathers badly taken out of context.
Read on …
More articles by Jonathan Rowe
Ulterior Motives – The Presidency of Barack H. Obama Another book author links no-holds-barred critique concerning Obama to preserve American “Liberty”, the founding of the US as a Judeo-Christian nation, quote by Judge Robert Ulrich, high crimes and sex abuse today with … illegal immigration. Blaming Lyndon Johnson voor reform of U.S. immigration laws in 1965.
Reminds me of activist Judge Feldman and Obama’s deepwater drilling ban.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."