Michael Gaynor
Tyrannical atheist minority still trying to "fundamentally change" America
By Michael Gaynor
The Establishment of Religion Clause has been expanded beyond recognition to create an unintended veto power for secular extremists claiming tender sensibilities.
William J. Federer, author of "Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion," compiled the following quotations of Ronald Reagan and included them in an article titled "Tyranny of the Atheist Minority" posted on May 16, 2008 at World Net Daily (www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64359):
"Sometimes I can't help but feel the First Amendment is being turned on its head. ... The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people from religion; that Amendment was written to protect religion from government tyranny." (1984 radio address)
"To those who cite the First Amendment as reason for excluding God ... may I just say: The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny." (March 15, 1982, to Alabama State Legislature)
"Founding Fathers ... enshrined the principle of freedom of religion in the First Amendment. ... The purpose of that Amendment was to protect religion from the interference of government and to guarantee, in its own words, 'the free exercise of religion.'" (1982 radio address)
"The Constitution was never meant to prevent people from praying; its declared purpose was to protect their freedom to pray." (1982 radio address)
"Well-meaning Americans in the name of freedom have taken freedom away. For the sake of religious tolerance, they've forbidden religious practice." (May 6, 1982, National Day of Prayer, White House)
"The frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance and freedom and open-mindedness. Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of religion?" (Aug. 23, 1984, Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast)
"In the last two decades we've experienced an onslaught of such twisted logic that if Alice were visiting America, she might think she'd never left Wonderland. We're told that it somehow violates the rights of others to permit students in school who desire to pray to do so. Clearly, this infringes on the freedom of those who choose to pray. ... To prevent those who believe in God from expressing their faith is an outrage." (Sept. 25, 1982, Ceremony for Prayer in Schools)
"Refusal to permit [religious exercises] is seen not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism." (1984 radio address)
I question Reagan's evaluation in only one respect: I doubt that ALL of those "Americans" who have "in the name of freedom taken freedom away" are "well-meaning.
"I think some are mistaken, but well-meaning, and others are NOT at all well-meaning.
Federer noted: "Daily there are news reports of atheists offended by prayers at graduations and football games; offended by a Cross or Star of David; offended by Christmas carols or patriotic hymns; offended by Christmas trees and menorahs; offended by the Ten Commandments or "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; offended a teacher might hint there may be a Creator; offended a soldier said 'God bless you' at a funeral; offended the Boy Scout Oath says 'Do my duty to God and my country'; or offended by a cross on a Veterans Memorial."
The campaign to drive references to God, Jesus and religious values from the public square has continued.
In 1947, i n Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court enabled the campaign by opining that the First Amendment mandated neutrality between religion and irreligion.
Like Plessy v. Fergusion, it was an egregious judicial act.
Unlike Plessy v. Fergusion, it has not been rectified.
America needs presidents who will appoint justices who will rectify it as soon as the opportunity arises.
Federer asked:
"Could it be that the current debate over religion in America is not between the 'religious right' and the 'liberal left,' but rather it is a debate between the will of the majority and the will of, as George Washington warned in his Farewell Address, 'an artful and enterprising minority'?
"Could it be that the struggle is between a constitutional republic with representatives elected 'by the people' and the despotism of, as Lincoln put it, 'an eminent tribunal'?
"Could it be that the battle is actually between American democracy and tyranny?"
Read America's Declaration of Independence and then ask yourself if the Founders were neutral between religion and irreligion.
They obviously were not in 1776, and they were not when the Bill of Rights was created in 1789 and ratified in 1791.
Atheists and agnostics were not intended to have a veto power on religious expression in the public square in the United States of America.
The Establishment of Religion Clause has been expanded beyond recognition to create an unintended veto power for secular extremists claiming tender sensibilities.
© Michael Gaynor
June 7, 2011
The Establishment of Religion Clause has been expanded beyond recognition to create an unintended veto power for secular extremists claiming tender sensibilities.
William J. Federer, author of "Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion," compiled the following quotations of Ronald Reagan and included them in an article titled "Tyranny of the Atheist Minority" posted on May 16, 2008 at World Net Daily (www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64359):
"Sometimes I can't help but feel the First Amendment is being turned on its head. ... The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people from religion; that Amendment was written to protect religion from government tyranny." (1984 radio address)
"To those who cite the First Amendment as reason for excluding God ... may I just say: The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny." (March 15, 1982, to Alabama State Legislature)
"Founding Fathers ... enshrined the principle of freedom of religion in the First Amendment. ... The purpose of that Amendment was to protect religion from the interference of government and to guarantee, in its own words, 'the free exercise of religion.'" (1982 radio address)
"The Constitution was never meant to prevent people from praying; its declared purpose was to protect their freedom to pray." (1982 radio address)
"Well-meaning Americans in the name of freedom have taken freedom away. For the sake of religious tolerance, they've forbidden religious practice." (May 6, 1982, National Day of Prayer, White House)
"The frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance and freedom and open-mindedness. Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of religion?" (Aug. 23, 1984, Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast)
"In the last two decades we've experienced an onslaught of such twisted logic that if Alice were visiting America, she might think she'd never left Wonderland. We're told that it somehow violates the rights of others to permit students in school who desire to pray to do so. Clearly, this infringes on the freedom of those who choose to pray. ... To prevent those who believe in God from expressing their faith is an outrage." (Sept. 25, 1982, Ceremony for Prayer in Schools)
"Refusal to permit [religious exercises] is seen not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism." (1984 radio address)
I question Reagan's evaluation in only one respect: I doubt that ALL of those "Americans" who have "in the name of freedom taken freedom away" are "well-meaning.
"I think some are mistaken, but well-meaning, and others are NOT at all well-meaning.
Federer noted: "Daily there are news reports of atheists offended by prayers at graduations and football games; offended by a Cross or Star of David; offended by Christmas carols or patriotic hymns; offended by Christmas trees and menorahs; offended by the Ten Commandments or "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; offended a teacher might hint there may be a Creator; offended a soldier said 'God bless you' at a funeral; offended the Boy Scout Oath says 'Do my duty to God and my country'; or offended by a cross on a Veterans Memorial."
The campaign to drive references to God, Jesus and religious values from the public square has continued.
In 1947, i n Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court enabled the campaign by opining that the First Amendment mandated neutrality between religion and irreligion.
Like Plessy v. Fergusion, it was an egregious judicial act.
Unlike Plessy v. Fergusion, it has not been rectified.
America needs presidents who will appoint justices who will rectify it as soon as the opportunity arises.
Federer asked:
"Could it be that the current debate over religion in America is not between the 'religious right' and the 'liberal left,' but rather it is a debate between the will of the majority and the will of, as George Washington warned in his Farewell Address, 'an artful and enterprising minority'?
"Could it be that the struggle is between a constitutional republic with representatives elected 'by the people' and the despotism of, as Lincoln put it, 'an eminent tribunal'?
"Could it be that the battle is actually between American democracy and tyranny?"
Read America's Declaration of Independence and then ask yourself if the Founders were neutral between religion and irreligion.
They obviously were not in 1776, and they were not when the Bill of Rights was created in 1789 and ratified in 1791.
Atheists and agnostics were not intended to have a veto power on religious expression in the public square in the United States of America.
The Establishment of Religion Clause has been expanded beyond recognition to create an unintended veto power for secular extremists claiming tender sensibilities.
© Michael Gaynor
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
