Atheists, like every other tentacle of the extreme Left, are like Kyle Reece's description of the Terminator: "[They] can't be reasoned with; [they] can't be bargained with; they don't feel pity, or remorse, or pain. And they absolutely will not stop - ever - until you [reject God]."
The Monmouth County [New Jersey] family, identified in court papers as John and Jane Doe and their child, sued the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District in February, alleging the phrase “under God” in the pledge is discriminatory. State Superior Court Judge David Bauman heard arguments on the school district’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The case was filed by the American Humanist Association, which claims the recitation of the pledge violates Article 1 of the state’s constitution.
That would be the AHA's "zero tolerance policy" against any and all expressions of deism, much less Christianity. Still waiting on their upcoming lawsuits against CAIR and other domestic Islamist organizations over their agitations to impose Sharia law.
“Public schools should not engage in an exercise that tells students that patriotism is tied to a belief in God,” said David Niose, attorney for the American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center.
Actually, Mr. Niose, it is: "When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands 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 entitled them...." Or: "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." Or, as John Adams once wrote: "[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.....Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” And then there are the words of Richard Henry Lee: “[T]he experience of all times shows religion to be the guardian of morals.”
It's almost as if the Founding Fathers were looking ahead 216 years to that into which the Republic they bequeathed "Us, The People" would degenerate.
“Such a daily exercise portrays atheist and humanist children as second-class citizens, and certainly contributes to anti-atheist prejudices.”
"Anti-atheist prejudices"? Get over yourself, Mr. Niose. There is no such thing as "anti-atheist prejudice". Show me any example in the history of human civilization on this planet of "anti-atheist" persecution. Point out a single instance of an "anti-atheist" pogrom. You can't, can you? And do you know why? Because there isn't any. Which is why you have to resort to claiming that "the free exercise of religion" is an "establishment" of it.
You do realize, do you not, Mr. Niose, that you are elevating "pro-atheist sensibilities" to the level of the....sacred?
As you've no doubt already suspected, this lawsuit gives the term "frivolous" a bad name:
The school district doesn’t require that students say the pledge. Bauman said there wasn’t any evidence the student in question had been “bullied, ostracized or in any way mistreated.” but he also noted during his questioning of district attorney David Rubin that district policy requires parents whose children don’t say the pledge to furnish an explanation in writing.
....for record-keeping purposes, not as a quasi-legal justification for excusing their kid from reciting the pledge, any inadequacy of which would compel said recitation. The school district doesn't require it, remember? Indeed, knowing grade school children as I do, having fathered a couple of them (a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away) as well as having spent a few years as an AWANA leader, it's quite likely that not every last child recites it, or recites it accurately, as it is.
This nuisance litigation is nothing but atheist intolerance on garish display, and of course, it should be summarily dismissed. But it is taking place in New Jersey, after all, so don't be surprised if "John & Jane Doe" emerge victorious.
That is a stick. This is more of a carrot with a stick inside of it:
[Outgoing] Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley made national news last year when he fought to pass and signed a tax bill that levied a tax on Marylanders, businesses and churches for the amount of “impervious surface” they have on their property.
Roofs, driveways, sidewalks, and parking lots qualify for the “rainwater remediation fee” to “protect the Chesapeake Bay.”
Though the O’Malley administration calls it a “fee,” it is commonly called the “rain tax” throughout the state. It is wildly unpopular and the promise to fight to repeal the tax was a large factor in Maryland electing Republican Larry Hogan governor this month.
Now Prince George’s County is offering a way for churches to avoid paying the tax, which is estimated to be an average of $744 per year for them — preach “green” to their parishioners. [emphases added]
I seem to recall that churches being tax-exempt was inherent to the idea of religious liberty, don't you? Now here comes the State of Maryland, bludgeoning churches (but not mosques, I'll wager) with a big, fat tax, but then using it as a "carrot" of sorts to coerce them into disseminating State-dictated paganism from the pulpit.
And they've scrounged up at least a few dozen apostates:
So far thirty "pastors" have agreed to begin “‘green’ ministries to maintain the improvements at their churches, and to preach environmentally focused sermons to educate their congregations” to avoid being hit with the tax, the Washington Post reports.
In case you think this is "voluntary," think again:
Prince George’s County’s Department of Environment director Adam Ortiz told WBAL Radio churches “don’t have to preach, per se,” that they could avoid the tax if they “provide educational programs to teach them (parishioners) about how to be more sustainable.... [emphasis added]
In other words, indenture themselves as subsidiaries of the Prince George's County Department of Environment.
Asked about the concern of government telling churches what to preach to their members, Ortiz said he had no concern over that. “It’s an opt-in. It’s up to them, if they want to help participate and help clean up the bay, they can opt-in to this program and we can all work together to clean up the bay.”
“All of us are part of the problem,” Ortiz said, “and we can also be part of the solution.”
Between thirty and forty additional churches have filed applications to avoid the tax and participate in the program, according to Ortiz. “It’s completely voluntary,” he said, “and paying this fee is state law.” [emphases added]
Which means the "opt-in" is not "completely voluntary" because churches are being forced to pay a tax from which they should be exempt, and are being extorted to turn over their pulpits to greenstremist zealots like Adam Ortiz. Otherwise known as "leverage".
Exit comment from Warner Todd Huston:
I thought the libs were always balling themselves up over “separation of church and state”? But now we have a liberal government telling churches what they should preach from the pulpit? So, this “separation” business only works when it is the church trying to get its way? But when government wants to impose its will on religion it's no holds barred, eh?
No comments:
Post a Comment