Written on March 11th, 2010 by adminno shouts
Remember, the 9th is the most liberal Circuit court in the country, and has previously ruled against the use of “Under God” vis a vis the Pledge of Allegiance in schools (reversed by SCOTUS) in Newdow v. U.S. Congress. Among other activist and crazy decisions. So, how the heck did they come up with this?
A federal appeals court upheld the use of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who said the references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs.
Dude!
Share on Facebook
Tweet This Post
Written on March 2nd, 2010 by adminno shouts
-By Warner Todd Huston
Back in January of 2007 math teacher Brad Johnson of Westview High in San Diego County, California was told by his school administrators he had to take down the patriotic banner he had put up in his classroom because the word “God” appeared on it.
Johnson, of course, was quite upset about being told to take down his banner and took the school to court. In 2008 Judge Roger T. Benitez sided with the patriotic-minded teacher saying that the school was “brash” in its effort to force the teacher to take down the banner.
Well, after so long we have some news to report on this story and it is good news, indeed. The very same judge that sided with Mr. Johnson two years ago has officially ruled in favor of the teacher’s right to free speech.
Judge Benitez’s 32-page opinion was strongly worded and critical of the Poway school districts aversion to mentioning God: “[The school district officials] apparently fear their students are incapable of dealing with diverse viewpoints that include God’s place in American history and culture. . . . That God places prominently in our Nation’s history does not create an Establishment Clause violation requiring curettage and disinfectant for Johnson’s public high school classroom walls. It is a matter of historical fact that our institutions and government actors have in past and present times given place to a supreme God.”
The Thomas Moore Law Center represented the repressed teacher to good effect. Likely this isn’t over as left-wingers are not apt to being told “no” very often, especially by a judge.
We will have to await to see what further comes of this. but as of right now, we have a victory for free speech to celebrate.
Share on Facebook
Tweet This Post
Written on February 22nd, 2010 by adminno shouts
-By Warner Todd Huston
A group made up of some of the biggest names in contemporary conservatism got together a few days ago and crafted what they are calling the “Mount Vernon Statement,” a manifesto of sorts meant to give direction to today’s conservative movement. Put succinctly, it fails to fill the bill.
Taken as a whole this statement is fine as a short history lesson. It explains pretty clearly what the founders had wrought when their basic work was done with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. But as a statement of principles that might guide today’s discussion I do not think the letter works.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that this effort is harmful. In fact, I think every young person should read it for its explication of our historically conservative American principles. The problem is that this thing doesn’t seem to speak directly to what we are facing today like a statement that perhaps aims to become boilerplate should.
Some of those involved with the statement said that the 1960 “Sharon Statement” served as their inspiration. The Sharon Statement, intended to give some ideological umph to Goldwater conservatives, is an effort that works much better as a rallying cry to action. Sadly, the Mount Vernon Statement falls a little flat in this respect.
Historically I have two minor qualms about the newest effort. First of all its name doesn’t resonate. Yes, George Washington was the indispensable man of our early republic. Without him the warring factions facing off in political battle during our early republic just might have strangled this baby in its crib. But, as steadying a force as he was, Washington was not really the ideological or intellectual father of our nation. He was the father that kept the kids from beating each other up, the father we looked up to as a model of comportment, the man we looked to as the solid rock of the family, certainly, but he wasn’t the idea man. For that we looked to men like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams among many others.
So, naming this letter after George Washington’s estate seems a bit odd. Better that these folks should have met in Independence Hall, Philadelphia and called this the Philadelphia Statement, the Independence Statement, or some such thing. The words “Mount Vernon” are obviously meant to lend historical heft to the document but they just don’t succeed as a meaningful ideological association. In fact, it’s sort of hollow. Are we naming our bedrock ideological principles for the man that didn’t craft them? That seems a bit odd to me.
Secondly, I find fault with this paragraph (my bold):
The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.
The word “recognizes” is not the correct word to use for what the founders thought about the word “virtue.” They didn’t merely “recognize” virtue existed. They built their entire political edifice on the insistence that our political leaders practice virtue and that they base their every move on the need to be seen as civically virtuous. This is an idea about which few of our political leaders today have the slightest clue, not to mention that the public is generally ignorant of what the founders meant when they discussed public virtue. Sadly, this letter doesn’t help us regain a proper perspective on the founder’s idea of public virtue.
The Mount Vernon Statement missed an opportunity to better explain what virtue in government could mean as a rallying cry for today’s conservative movement.
The Mount Vernon Statement is a fine little history lesson but compared to the Sharon Statement, it just doesn’t seem to as immediately take on the issues that we face. Where is the discussion of the destruction of our educational system, where is the warning against our worst foreign threat, where is the assertion that our system of jurisprudence has been undermined? All these things are broadly implied by the Mount Vernon Statement, granted, but one wishes that today’s problems were more directly addressed.
While we don’t want a statement that names names or attacks specific policies directly — that would detract from the essential universality of such a statement of principles — still to my mind the Mount Vernon Statement is a bit too broad. I feel that we need something a tad more direct. The Sharon Statement was perfect for its mixture of what were then current issues and timeless conservatives principles.
Should you have signed onto the Mount Vernon Statement, or should you feel that you’d like to do so, I can find no harsh words for you. As I said, there is no great harm done by this effort. Unfortunately, there is also correspondingly little succor that this effort can lend to our cause. It seems like a nice history lesson but as a manifesto to rally around it is more like a staid assertion than a battle cry. It is eminently forgettable.
Part Two
Yes, it’s easy to criticize. Surely it will occur to the minds of many readers of my criticism here that I should offer solutions along with my criticisms. So I offer the following basic idea of what I’d consider a better “statement” than what resulted from the efforts at Mount Vernon, Virginia. I’ll call it the “Huston Statement” for lack of a better title and since, well, I’m the one writing the thing.
Remembering that I am one man, not a committee of 80 some high-powered conservative operatives, here are the ideas I thought of while reading the Mount Vernon Statement, humbly offered as a basis upon which to further the discussion:
The Huston Statement
Since our political climate has long since drifted from the first principles of our founding and since we now face a crisis threatening to tear down our American moral center we commit ourselves to re-establishing our American character.
We believe that our Constitution and the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence form the best guide by which to nurture our American character and provides a firm bedrock upon which to build a government.
We as Americans believe:
That as individuals we have the right of self-determination, to be free of overweening involvement in our lives by government at all levels from local, to state, to federal.
That as free men we must strongly assert that we are responsible for ourselves, our family, and our property and that others owe us nothing but to observe our rights as we observe theirs.
That our liberties depend on our civic virtue and that it is up to each of us to become informed citizens.
With these God-given liberties in mind, that our representatives must strive to keep government out of the lives of the people to the greatest extent practicable and that they should honor the principles of limited government as handed down to us from our founders.
And we assert that adherence to these principles will act as a beacon of freedom to the world, that we should actively promote them abroad giving succor to all those that would follow in our footsteps, and that we should not lend legitimacy to foreign bodies or nations that retreat from them.
We affirm that:
Private property is sacrosanct
The market-based economy free of government meddling must be preserved
Employees must be free of compulsory associations
Governments must be accountable to the voters not to judges and unions
Communities have the right to draft standards without federal approval
Education is a local responsibility solely under local and state control
It is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion
And that our Second Amendment rights are God-given and cannot be infringed
Additionally, we as Americans also reaffirm that legislation is the rightful duty of our constituted bodies of representatives and not the venue of capricious judges. Ruling from the bench is no better than the ill-considered tyrannies from the throne from which we so long ago rebelled.
Finally, let us understand these principles to be an affirmation of our American character, one that has made our nation the richest and strongest nation in human history. Any force, whether domestic or foreign, that wishes to materially alter this character is an enemy to our nation and one that should not be treated lightly but faced squarely and with resolution.
Well, this is how I see a statement of principles that are geared to today’s issues but are still the sort that attest to our timeless conservative ideals.
I hope this can serve to continue the discussion that the Mount Vernon Statement started.
Share on Facebook
Tweet This Post
Written on December 23rd, 2009 by adminno shouts
It may seem like the ACLU have backed off a bit on attacking Christmas. Perhaps this is because of so many great organizations like the Alliance Defense Fund defending it and challenging them. Perhaps they have felt the backlash from the public. Regardless, their attacks in the past have set a precedent that still affects us today.
Mr. Sutley, an atheist, said he then went to the office of the county Board of Supervisors. “And there was a star,” he said.
Technically, neither stars nor angels belong to any particular religion. But to the mind of Mr. Sutley, 65, a veteran who has fought to keep religion out of public meetings and buildings, the symbolism was clear.
“For most people, a star atop a tree at this time of season represents the star of Bethlehem, which is a cult symbol, the cult being Christianity,” he said, adding that the government should be neutral on religion.
Sonoma County officials conferred with their lawyers, and on Monday the acting county administrator, Chris Thomas, asked county departments to remove stars, angels or any other religious symbols “so that we can celebrate the season yet not appear to endorse Christian or other religious doctrines.”
Mr. Thomas cited a 1989 Supreme Court decision, Allegheny v. A.C.L.U., which stated that while Christmas trees could be seen as secular, they could also be seen as religious if decorated with religious symbols.
All of which pleased Mr. Sutley, who said he had found about a half-dozen stars on other trees around the building in Santa Rosa. He said he found none in the social services department, in which he found a religious placard during the holidays last year. (It, too, was removed.)
Ridiculous!
Clarkesville Strikes A Deal With The ACLU Over Public Nativity Scene
The city of Clarkesville Tennessee has struck a deal with the A-C-L-U over a Nativity scene.
It was part of the city’s annual Christmas on the Cumberland celebration.
A local church puts on the display.. But the city paid expenses and promoted as part of the celebration.
Under the deal.. The Nativity will continue.
But the city will not pay for it and they will offer other religious groups opportunities to take part in the event.
Chattanooga had similar concerns over church-run nativity scene at the Grande Illumination.
County display must be inclusive
Clearly, Luzerne County erred by making the focus of its holiday d?cor a manger scene, prominently positioned outside its central government building, where it was safeguarded and lit by night, for all to see as they entered the building or even drove past. Certain government officials defended this type of display, serving to heighten the perception that local power brokers hold a special esteem for Christianity.
If so, what message does that send to Americans here who practice Islam? Buddhism? Taoism? What about atheists?
People of all spiritual and non-spiritual persuasions should enter the courthouse knowing that the government represents them, and they, regardless of their views on Jesus, can expect a fair trial, impartial services and an equal say. To certain people, a manger scene propped between them and the government’s doorstep could represent the visual equivalent of cigar-chomping, backwoods sheriff saying, “We don’t need none of your kind around here.”
Fortunately, in this nation where the majority rules, there are protections and guarantees for the minority voice. The ACLU works to uphold those protections, which means that it often comes to the defense of ideas that might strike many people as wrong, even reprehensible.
Yet its efforts are aimed at supporting the principles upon which this country was founded, that make it unique among nations and that have been exercised so robustly in the Wyoming Valley in recent days.
What a load of crap! Merry Christmas!
Share on Facebook
Tweet This Post
Written on December 15th, 2009 by adminno shouts
If you thought “Barack Obama,” nope. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore? Nope. Welcome to Taunton, Ma.
A Taunton father is outraged after his 8-year-old son was sent home from school and required to undergo a psychological evaluation after drawing a stick-figure picture of Jesus Christ on the cross.
The father said he got a call earlier this month from Maxham Elementary School informing him that his son, a second-grade student, had created a violent drawing. The image in question depicted a crucified Jesus with Xs covering his eyes to signify that he had died on the cross. The boy wrote his name above the cross.
The child, whose name is being withheld to protect him, is a special needs student who is 8 years old. Think this will traumatize him? Well, yes. The story points out that he has had trouble going back to school after the suspension and mandatory counseling, and the school administrators have approved a transfer request to another school.
How did the sketch come about (which you can see at the link)?
The student drew the picture shortly after taking a family trip to see the Christmas display at the National Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette, a Christian retreat site in Attleboro. He made the drawing in class after his teacher asked the children to sketch something that reminded them of Christmas, the father said.
I believe that he was on his way to understanding the true meaning of Christmas, that it is about Jesus (though, about his birth, not Crucifixion, of course.)
Any one want to make a bet on whether he would have been suspended had he drawn George Bush being crucified?
A valuable lesson in political correctness? I expect the ACLU to swoop in and protect free speech and religious expression pro bono any minute now.
Michelle Malkin provides some contrasting situations.
Share on Facebook
Tweet This Post
