Dark Christianity
.::: .::..:.::.:.

May 2008
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

dogemperor [userpic]
x-posted from my livejournal

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]prismatic_jewel)

This is my first post here. A friend told me to check out this community so I did... and I thought that something I just posted in my lj would do well in this place.

I was looking for something to complain about reading the newspaper and came across this headline.
The fight for Jesus' name at Statehouse Mike Sodrel files bill to bar federal judges from ruling on the 'content of speech' of state legislative bodies.
Since I've been following the newspaper through the weeks, my immediate reaction was "WTF". See, a little while ago, a federal judge of Indiana, Judge David Hamilton, ruled in a lawsuit that there was to be no advancing of one particular faith in the prayer before legislative meetings, and all of those other political get-togethers (I'm sorry, I'm not very well-versed in political jargon, mostly since I rarely pay attention to this stuff). The incident that triggered the lawsuit was "a Baptist minister from Bedford not only gave the invocation in Christ's name but then led legislators in singing the Loretta Lynn gospel song "Just a Little Talk with Jesus". The lawsuit was filed by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a citizen concerned that House invocations have been almost exclusively Christian." Judge Hamilton said that all are still free to pray as they please in their own houses of worship and other places, but not in official prayer. They must stay within constitutional bounds. That means: it must be generic. Prayer still can happen, but it shouldn't be exclusively Christian; it should be universally inclusive. Sound fair? I think it is, but many, many Christians don't have that opinion.

There were quite a few indignant letters to the editor about this. People are enraged and think that this is a restriction on their "freedom of speech and religion". Now US Congressman Mike Sodrel (coming up for re-election... SO not voting for him) is introducing a bill in Congress to bar federal judges from reviewing or ruling on the content of speech in state legislatures, including their invocations. He's trying to cut off a lot of power from the federal judges, not only in Indiana, but in ALL states. He's trying to ensure that the "religion this country was based on" still pervades every nook and cranny of this supposedly free country, especially in politics.

Since my explaining this is a little cumbersome, I'll just paste the rest of the article...

"We have all lived together for 230 years, and now we have this growing intolerance, and I'm not sure where it's coming from," he said.

He noted advocates of separation of church and state often cite the Establishment clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion. But he said they ignore the Prohibition clause that follows, which bars Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

"The founders tried to accommodate people of faith and no faith," he said. "If the founders stood for anything, it was tolerance."

Of Judge Hamilton's ruling, Sodrel argued that "If they (judges) can ban any speech, they can ban all speech" and that "anyone should be fearful" of that.

He said his bill has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee for hearing. He's also trying to find a U.S. senator to file a version in the Senate.

Euhhmmm... so the fact that Judge Hamilton was simply trying to reinforce the principle of "separation of Church and State"... that's intolerance? He's not trying to ban speech. He's not banning prayer at all! He's just preventing Christians from taking over the show. It's scary, because the US is based on freedom of religion, lifestyle, and speech. A majority of the people who run this country, Christians, parade these principles around, BUT they twist them to their own purposes. So, non-Christians who wish not to be overruled by this one particular religion, and have it shoved in their faces every day of their lives, should stand up for themselves and try to prevent Christian worship from being prevalent in the MUNDANE AFFAIRS OF THIS COUNTRY. Religion should be kept out of politics. Roman emperor Diocletian forced everyone to follow the state religion, which was basically the worship of the Roman emperor. We all know how the ancient Christians thought about that. Now the modern Christians are trying to impose a state religion in the US. A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Current Mood: snarky