Is Christianity illegal in America?

Amendment I

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.

This first part of our Bill Of Rights is also the most controversial and has been used by the left to actually curtail several civil rights of those citizens the left considers dangerous to the “cause”. An example is below:

In Florida, Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and school athletic director Robert Freeman, have been declared enemies of the state by the ACLU because they (gasp) offered a mealtime prayer. Call the authorities. Heaven knows what sort of dangerous activities these two reprobates may cook up next. Better check ‘em for contraband such as pocket new testaments. As any true believer in Chairman Mao can see, the First Amendment clearly states that practicing Christianity in the open is illegal. Or does it?

Let’s examine that pesky amendment, shall we? Line number 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Hmm, seems that all this says is that Congress cannot establish a state religion such as King Henry’s Church of England. I see nothing in this language that can be stretched to intimate that exercising one’s belief in government buildings is prohibited. It says “Congress shall make no law”. Allowing an outstanding graduating senior to talk about how her beliefs affected her educational experience isn’t even in the same universe as “making a law”. Concerning the ACLU on this line, to paraphrase a famous playwright, “Methinks they doth protest waaay too much.”

Line number 2: or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Even the Supreme Court skates around this one. That is one of the favorite tactics of the left. They really like to pull out portions of a complete thought and twist the meaning of the original until “stop” means “go” and visa versa. If we drop back into the hated practice of fundamentalism for just a moment, it is easy to see that Ben Franklin, James Madison and the rest of that gang of revolutionaries intended on allowing Frank and Robert to do exactly what they may be jailed for doing. It wasn’t they who offended the constitution, but the ACLU. Of course, trying to get Washington to admit this will be harder than getting back onto the gold standard.

Line number 3: or abridging the freedom of speech,

Lately this line is misread to include the word “liberal”, as in “abridging the freedom of liberal speech. Anything the left considers offensive, such as pointing out the dangers in any of Barrack Hussein Obama’s policies, is somehow removed from that protection. Seems to me that if the ACLU wasn’t completely committed to destroying the American culture, they would protect all speech, not just the portion they agree with. Again, wouldn’t a prayer, regardless of where it is voiced be considered speech?

Line number 4: or of the press;

This used to be the favorite line of the ACLU and the rest of the lefties...until Fox News came onto the scene. Now there is a full court press to eliminate that voice. In reading that line, I see no differentiation in those four words. If any of the ACLU geniuses bothered to read history they would see that the press of John Adam’s time was far more virulent in their prose than even the tabloid rags we see today.

Line number 5: or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

Notice that this line says nothing about the exclusion of certain areas of assembly. As long as it’s peaceable, the people have a right to assemble. Unfortunately, where the left is concerned, this assembly might lead to uncontrolled religious speech.

Line number 6: and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This line has been thrown out completely. Witness the refusal of the Democrat legislators to host fully open town halls. How often have constituents been told that their representative is not available? According to this line, every time Congress has held a closed door meeting, they have violated the Constitution.

I have had some experience with the ACLU in my state of Nevada. About a year ago Clark County’s commissioners were considering action that would have made it more difficult for massage parlors to operate as unlicensed brothels. This was partly due to research I had done on the subject as a State Assemblyman. That research had turned up damning evidence that the massage parlors, especially those advertised as “oriental” were linked to a world wide network involved in the trafficking of underage girls as sexual slaves. Alan Lichtenstein, an officer in the local ACLU had no problem looking into talking with some of the victims of this network...as long as they could pony up $600 an hour. So much for constitutional altruism.

The left loves to disguise their attacks against classic American culture by giving themselves patriotic sounding labels. American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State are two examples. This link contains a list of examples illustrating the growing prejudice within our government against all things Christian. link . Simply because the constitution is crystal clear in its protections of expressed faith is no reason to become fanatical, is it?

As a member of the Christian faith, I have to admit to violations of the ACLU’s interpretation of the First Amendment. I attended a bible study in the Nevada State Legislature, a clear example of joining church and state. Many times during meeting of the full Assembly I would say a quick prayer for guidance, and, worst of all, I would sometimes proselytize in my office in answer to a faith-based question from a constituent. According to the Florida Attorney General I should serve jail time for that one.

What I find most interesting is that the anti-Christian groups in America use the First Amendment as a weapon against Christianity when there is no single religion mentioned in the entire constitution, including the appendices. On Wednesday July 6, 2011, Huffington Post blogger and book author Frank Schaeffer was on MSNBC discussing his take on Christianity in America. He started right off criticizing Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry’s personal beliefs, essentially branding them as dangerous and not in tune with the “real America.” According to liberals like Schaeffer, you cannot be a Christian and also be an American. Somehow the idea of belonging to the religion that espouses a belief in a living Jesus somehow invalidates citizenship. Schaeffer went on to claim that people like Bachmann and Perry would create a theocracy and eliminate the constitution as the law of the land. I find that statement particularly interesting in the light of the recent Time editorial proclaiming the Constitution essentially useless and out of date, written by the way, by a colleague of Schaeffer. The Huffington Post continues to try to have it both ways, claiming to believe in the constitution while at the same time attempting to disenfranchise an entire law-abiding segment of the country.

Consistent historical data will show that there is no more constitutionally adherent group than the evangelical Christian, and I think this is one of the things that enflames the hatred of people like Huffington and Schaeffer. The worst enemy a hypocrite can have is an example to the contrary. Why do you think they are so quick to jump to the defense of those accused of the most heinous crimes against innocents? In their mind, the destruction of a stable society in this country is paramount. Also, other religions, especially those that have declared war against America and its people are defended with full fervor, especially if those believers have been convicted of terrorism. What would happen to groups such as the ACLU if hypocrisy became a crime?

Here is a hint, I have read the constitution several times. There is no right to lie.