Tuesday, May 13, 2014

"But it may be too late"

Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman demonstrates that there's no I.Q. test to be a columnist. His column, with my commentary.
Supreme Court blesses town prayer 
Thanks to immigration, America's religious makeup has changed. Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus are much more common than they once were. In 20 or 30 years, it's possible these groups will attain numerical dominance in a town here or there.
There's probably already Muslim dominance in Deerborn, and various non-Christian dominance in neighborhoods in many of our major cities. Freedom of religion is like that. It's a good thing.
Many Christians will applaud today's Supreme Court decision allowing a town council in Greece, N.Y. to begin its meetings with an invocation by a "chaplain of the month," even if the invited clergy choose to proclaim "the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.” It's nice to have the government publicly endorse your faith. But if it can champion Christianity today, why not Islam tomorrow?
I have no problem with Islamic prayer at public meetings. It's completely Constitutional, and I respect other people's religious practice.
If Christians attending the local city council meeting had to sit through a prayer to Allah or Vishnu, they would most likely feel excluded and offended. But somehow they think non-Christians should have to put up with the equivalent without complaint or recourse.
Why would I feel excluded and offended by other people praying according to their faith? This happens often in my life-- my in-laws are Jewish, and I often attend family events at which Jewish prayers are said. I don't feel excluded at all. In fact, I feel privileged to be invited. They know I'm Catholic, and I'm honored to be a part of their worship. I was at a niece's Bat Mitzvah recently, and when we were praying in the temple, I said a silent prayer to Jesus and enjoyed the service. If I were at a government event in, say, an Orthodox Jewish community or a Muslim community and the prayer was Jewish or Muslim, I'd listen quietly and respectfully and say the Lord's Prayer to myself. I like it when other people pray. It doesn't exclude or offend me. What does exclude and offend me is when an atheist calls a federal judge who threatens to fine or jail anyone who prays. That's exclusion and offense.
Five Supreme Court justices members agree, with three of the four dissents coming from justices who know something about religious discrimination, being Jewish. The fourth, Sonia Sotomayor, apparently does not belong to a church.
What could Chapman possibly mean about "religious discrimination" against Jews in the U.S.? Jews prosper in the U.S.. Breyer, Ginsberg and Kagan are Jewish. They have lived enormously successful, even privileged, lives. Jews are highly over-represented on the Court. Two percent of the population is Jewish. One third of the court is Jewish. In what way have Breyer, Ginsberg and Kagan experienced discrimination? What a stupid thing to say. Now there is one person on the Court who has experienced real discrimination, and still is attacked for his race. Clarence Thomas has been attacked racially, by Democrats, for decades.
This is one case where being in the majority can blind one to the perspective of the minority. Christians may someday find out how it feels to be on the other side. Then they will remember what Jesus said about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. But it may be too late.
"Too late" for what? Too late for Christians to be paranoid anti-religious bigots, like atheists?

Try to understand what this moron is saying. He is asserting that Christians should oppose the Court's honest interpretation of the Constitution, which plainly permits government prayer,  because he believes that Christians should allow their paranoia and bigotry against other faiths to determine their opinions on Supreme Court jurisprudence. Chapman is saying this: 'Christians, you shouldn't be so happy about this interpretation of the Constitution, not because it is an incorrect interpretation, but because it allows people you hate and fear to pray in public.'

What offensive swill.

Bottom line: the Constitution says what it says, regardless of our bigotry and paranoia. Public government prayer is constitutional, period. And Christians overwhelmingly do welcome prayers from other faiths-- how many lawsuits have Christians filed trying to stop other people from praying? Our nemesis here isn't Jews or Muslims or Hindus who might get to say a prayer or two at our city council meetings.

Our nemesis is atheists with a totalitarian itch who violate the Constitution and try to strip citizens' rights to pray in public, and columnists who write highly repellant swill that plays to Americans' worst instincts on the assumption that Christians hate and fear other religions as much as atheists do.

17 comments:

  1. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 13, 2014 at 7:33 AM

    Five Supreme Court justices members agree, with three of the four dissents coming from justices who know something about religious discrimination, being Jewish.

    Mr Chapman has obviously never been to Brookline, MA. Or, as "Reverend" Jesse Jackson calls it, "Hymietown" (i.e., New York City to non-anti-Semites).

    However, what Chapman forgot to mention was that three of the Justices are Catholic. No less a historian than Arthur Schlesinger Sr noted that anti-Catholicism is "the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people". There was even an anti-Catholic political party, appropriately called the Know-Nothings, anti-Catholicism played a major role in the electoral defeat of Al Smith, and anti-Catholicism even forced John F Kennedy to make his famous speech on freedom of religion.

    But even more pertinent to the Catholics on the court, much of the religious litigation reaching the Court today is the legal spawn of Justice Hugo Black who made his bones successfully defending E.R. Stephenson, a Klansman who murdered Father James Coyle for performing the marriage ceremony for Stephenson's own daughter. Black was able to get an acquittal despite the fact that Stephenson had turned himself in and confessed to the murder. Black went on to join the Klan himself and was later appointed to the Supreme Court bench by FDR.

    "Professional journalism". Ya gotta love it.

    Hopefully, anti-Catholicism has receded into the ash heap of history and is celebrated only by throwbacks like Troi the Dutch Boi, who appears to be a refugee from the Tittering Ward at the Bates Motel and Rest Home.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Now that the Supreme Court has decided that government prayer can be explicitly Christian it took less than a week for Christians to heckle a Hindu chaplain in the U.S. Senate.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 13, 2014 at 7:47 AM

      In contrast, Progressives are so tolerant and mature.

      Delete
  3. Oh look, another progressive MSM bobblehead tool, trying to cause unnecessary concern among Christians. What response is he hoping to illicit, a protest against public prayer?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael,

      'What response is he hoping to illicit...'

      :)

      OK if I add that to my list of inadvertent errors? Such as 'one foul (or fowl) swoop' instead of the correct 'one fell swoop'.

      I think you meant 'elicit' instead of 'illicit', although 'illicit' as an adjective meaning contrary to custom has a certain inner meaning appropriate to the case.

      Delete
    2. Congrats on proof-reading my comment.

      Delete
  4. You’re all smoking crack if you think it’s a good idea to allow every little sub unit of government to choose what God they’re going to be worshiping on any given day. Even you idiots should appreciate that the less government entanglement with religion the better, for both government and religion. But it’s not “religion” you’re fighting for, its Christianity, and Christian hegemony over all aspects of society. You are trying to grant religious freedom to the government of a democracy confident that as the majority it’s your religion that will be promoted. Your prescriptions don’t advance religious freedom they hurt it.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 13, 2014 at 9:24 AM

      Popeye: "if you think it’s a good idea to allow every little sub unit of government to choose what God they’re going to be worshiping on any given day."

      Nobody I know thinks that.

      Rest easy, son.

      Delete
    2. The Supreme Court thinks that; try to keep up George.

      -KW

      Delete
    3. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 13, 2014 at 10:48 AM

      I think you think the Supreme Court thinks that, but it's because you aren't thinking it through, I think.

      So Popeye Parrot, cite me the text from the opinion that you think shows they think that. You may change my thinking! But I think not. Because I don't think you can show me that text.

      Delete
    4. Before I do that George, do tell, what do you think happened, and why is it news?

      (This should be good.)

      -KW

      Delete
    5. Come on, by now you’ve read the opinion and know I’m right so start wriggling! I need my daily entertainment!

      -KW

      Delete
    6. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 13, 2014 at 12:46 PM

      You made the claim that SCOTUS thinks that. You can't back it up, can you? No affirmative action for you, sailor boy, you're on the hook.

      No wonder you're a "Reverend" Sharpton defender. :-D

      Delete
    7. From the first page of the decision:


      “Respondents, citizens who attend meetings to speak on local issues, filed suit, alleging that the town violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by preferring Christians over other prayer givers and by sponsoring sectarian prayers. They sought to limit the town to “inclusive and ecumenical” prayers that referred only to a “generic God.” The District Court upheld the prayer practice on summary judgment, finding no impermissible preference for Christianity...

      The Second Circuit reversed, holding that some aspects of the prayer pro¬gram, viewed in their totality by a reasonable observer, conveyed the message that Greece was endorsing Christianity.

      Held: The (Second Circuit) judgment is reversed.”


      Get it nimrod? You cannot limit Government prayer to “inclusive and ecumenical prayers”, thus allowing every little sub unit of the government to choose what god they will be worshiping on any given day.


      -KW

      Delete
    8. Next time read the decision to avoid embarrassing yourself.

      -KW

      Delete
    9. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 13, 2014 at 2:37 PM

      Popeye, you are a nitwit. To begin with, "government units" (sub or otherwise) don't worship God, gods, or anything else. The people employed by them might, or not.

      I find myself unembarrassed.

      By allowing "government units" to select different individuals to say a prayer, is it your position that everybody there is worshiping? For example, were all the US Senators worshiping Hindu gods in the story you cited above with those intolerant and embarrassing Christians heckling that Hindu chaplain? Is that your claim?

      If that is your claim, it's not just stupid, it's ridiculously stupid. People don't sue over religious expressions at public events because they feel forcibly included in worship. They sue because they claim to feel "excluded".

      As usual, Poploid, you appear to have it not just wrong, but perfectly, 180° wrong. If you read the first paragraph of the decision, you will see this text:
      They [Galloway, et al] sought to limit the town to “inclusive..." [prayers]

      It's right there in front of your face if you can read.

      You need to get together with Toots and brush up on your English, arkadaş.

      Delete
  5. Its a bigger issue then prayers in these places. there is a aggressive hostility/hate of christianity in north america today. tHey seek to de Christianize any and all they can.
    Its about identity and religion.
    I do think the influence of jews, as on the court, explains much of the establishment hostility.
    the great point is simply that no one interfere with anyone because of religion.
    Attacking christianity and its presence is INTERFERENCE.
    They just do it with courts and this and that.
    they invoke common social contract of togetherness but really they hate or at least oppose the great Christian heritage and identity of america and the western world.
    They don't care about muslims feelings. Thats a sad attempt to hide their real motives.
    The government simply is not to pick sides but if its just recognizing everyone then its okay.
    I would have no trouble hearing any religious thing as long as its because the community has such a presence.
    The bad guys here are the trouble makers.
    there has been great peace on religious matters in America for centuries.
    Only after WW11 did the rising hostility start to weed its way into the institutions and general public using the old concepts of decent relationship.
    I say the supreme court is all about identity selection and thats why there are too many jews and no Protestants. despite america created by a cery protestant people. its in fact a deliberate and illegal selectionism against the native people.
    Its the wrong results and so inferior and wrong and bad Judgements.
    Its truly a evil thing these days with this affirmative action spirit and deeds.
    diversity always means they decide and they decide against the Yankee and southern protestants. The men too now.
    There is a greater problem in america about the segregation of identies who immigrated to America.
    Looks that way from Canada.

    ReplyDelete