Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

March 03, 2003

More nonsense from the 9th circuit

 "God gave grasses two methods of reproduction so that they could provide more food for people and animals. The grass flowers, although small, produce seeds that are scattered by the wind. New plants can grow from these scattered seeds But grass plants can also grow outward by sending out a creeping underground stem. These stems take root a short distance from the plant and begin to put out leaves." -- From Observing God's World. Sixth grade Science textbook published by Pensacola Christian College's A Beka Books.

The above quote is an example of how Christian Schools and Homeschools approach a subject. God is mentioned frequently. Now those of us who Homeschool or send our kids to Christian Schools have chosen to have our children educated in an environment rich in reminders of our faith. Therefore it is understandable that God would be mentioned frequently. What about a curriculum that intentionally avoids any mention of God, unless it was in the context of comparative religion? That would seem to, by definition, be an Atheist curriculum, wouldn't it? If you were teaching a class of students from a mixed background, one would think that tolerance would demand that all approaches would be mentioned, and treated respectfully. But our government schools are not tolerant, open schools, but Atheist schools.

This bigoted intolerance has been given a boost recently when the clowns on the 9th circuit court again performingd their comedy act and attempting to reverse the First Amendment. This reaffirmes the notion that any mention of God is an endorsement of a specific religion, while the intentional omission of any mention of God is religiously neutral. Only an Atheist could have such a closed mind.

The idea that mentioning God must be banned and censored lest any Atheist take offense, while the intentional removal of God must be accepted by the religious is what we are told is to be the new standard. The religious are now second class citizens, their beliefs, their very way of life now to be shunned and ridiculed by the new ruling Atheist class. You think that's over stepping it, then try to put a Bible verse up above your desk at work, especially if you work for the government. Then try to put some Atheist quote up and see if you get the same response. When's the last time you heard anyone getting in trouble at work for having an Atheist comment displayed? There are enough cases of discrimination against Christians in the workplace to keep a national organization busy.

I find it alarming how easily criticism of Moslems in general has becomes acceptable in this country. I know plenty of Moslems who are gentle peace-loving people and are as much sickened and appalled by the atrocities committed by the terrorists as any one else is. This has been made all the easier by the general antipathy toward religion in general. The misuse of the term 'Fundamentalist' to mean 'extremist' when those it's used to describe in many cases reject the fundamentals of the religion they claim, and substitute twisted, illogical interpretations, is also an offensive abuse. It seems intolerance toward the religious is now acceptable regardless of how offensive.

Another concern is the message that removing 'under God' sends. Is America the end of all things? Is our government under nothing? The former Soviet Union held that opinion about itself. They felt they were the ultimate authority, and look at the abuses they perpetrated on their people. The idea that the government is under the authority of a higher power is fundamental to the laws of this nation. By what authority can any Atheist ever protest anything the government does, if the government is under nothing of more authority than itself. If nothing else, Atheists should take comfort in the concept that 'under God' represents the idea that the government has limits to its authority, lest some day the government decides there's nothing to stop it from hunting down all Atheists and killing them on sight. Those limits are the very principle the Founding Fathers wanted to preserve.

Why hate the word 'God' so much, anyway. The image and definition that word means to me is very different from the what it means to a Moslem, to a Jew, in fact to a Liberal Southern Baptist (I'm a very Conservative Southern Baptist) but there is no authority demanding everyone define that word in the same way. From the simple concept to an overriding principle of limitations on actions to an actual Supreme Being is the spectrum that people see that word representing. It still serves its purpose in the Pledge of Allegiance, which is to remind us that the government itself is not God; that there are boundaries on the powers of the government, imposed by something higher than the government. Is there really anyone out there forcing people to acknowledge God as a specific definition? Are kids told that they must mean a monotheistic, literal Supreme Being when they say God? Seems to me it's the Atheists who are demanding the word must mean one specific thing. That's generally referred to as closed minded.

It's ironic that the very concept Michael Newdow and the 9th Circuit court wish to force upon the nation is the very concept that would tell them to shut up and be obedient vassals to the God/State. That they can even challenge the law is evident that they are wrong.

Comments

Posted by Jack Lewis at March 3, 2003 09:10 AM