Rotating Header Image



Look at that. Just look at it. Does that image embarrass you? Are you irritated at the site of that? Do you perceive it as not intellectual enough, not smartly, something that will bring the ‘wrong people’ into your cubicle? The “wrong” color? The image is jumping off the screen, *forcing you* to run out of the room? To lose your mind? What? Many other people find it wonderful to look at, aren’t at all embarrassed by seeing it, and respond with pretty much all the opposite responses to what I first described here.

Some people, however, find a lot to be irritable about these days, where “religion” is concerned and especially, Christianity. But, we have a country that was founded by people who sought out and then founded a place where they could live and engage in a “freedom of religion.” Not a freedom from religion, but an environment where the individual could engage in a freedom of belief, express themselves freely about their religious beliefs and experiences, and they all appear to have thanked “God” heartily and mightily for the privilege. They even wrote a Constitution for their land and made prominent mention of “God” as the source of the bountiful and pleasant freedoms they enjoyed there, here, our country.

Thomas Jefferson’s concepts, authored a good while later, were based upon the potentially feared possibility that there’d be another England in North America, that the United States had the potential to recreate King Henry VIII’s version of “The Church of England,” and so we have the incorporated Amendment to our Constitution, thanks to Thomas Jefferson, that’s now called “The Separation of Church and State.” It means, and means only, that there isn’t to be any nationally created, federally organized form of religion. That the federal government in the U.S. is not to mimic England’s King Henry VIII and “found (or establish) a (state organized) church” that they could require citizens to participate in.

But, that Separation of Church and State never commands (interesting word) anyone to prevent the freedom of religious expression by any citizen. It means that the government can’t found a national religion and command/require citizens to participate in it, as an act of government.

Funny thing is, the freedom of religion is almost, to a one-hundred percentile, now being used in a counter, “anti-religion” method by the ACLU and various other atheist interest groups, to prevent religious expression by everyone else. Not all religious expression, just expressions of Christianity. So far, everyone I read who is offput and otherwise cranky about Christianity, isn’t a Christian.

Apparently, the ACLU (“American Civil Liberties Union”) waged a lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles to remove a “cross” symbol from their City Seal. The ACLU says they have no problem with the rosary that remains in the seal, and apparently, are oblivious to the pagan goddess, “Pomona,” who comprises the better part of the seal. But, the cross had to go. And did, apparently, due to someone rolling over to appease the mumbo jumbo that usurps American life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that masqueredes as the ACLU.

If ever that organization served a good and lucidly honest purpose in the country, that day has since expired. I can remember thinking, years ago, that the organization existed to “protect” American “liberties” (interpreted, as most people do, assumed to mean “freedoms” — about which, I do believe there’s a con underway).

Like a lot of gullible people, I assumed at an earlier age, as with Superman, SOMEone had to “stand up for” and “protect” all the “liberties/freedoms” that were plagued and under threat of attack and being zeroed out by the, um, by the, um, by the…mumble, mumble.

However, what’s actually going on is that the ACLU has blimped into an organization that now steamrolls over “liberties” in the name of “freedom.” As in, remove them. Eliminate them. Someone writes a snippy letter, files an attitudinal offputting complaint (“they’re forcing their religion on meeee!”) and, because they’ve managed to seize the property of people and localities that are on the losing side of their various lawsuits, they can, apparently, afford to ramp up the volume against others and now are suing cities, as they have Los Angeles, to remove the tiny “cross” from the city seal and any other “religious imagery” (but which apparently is targeting Christian imagery and Christian imagery only, since pagan, even atheist and other symbols, are okey-dokey).

People now speculate that cities nationwide can be, by the same precedent, “sued” inorder to remove written reference to “God” and Christianity, including the actual names of cities themselves. If someone’s buggered by a cross in a city seal, as apparently they were in Los Angeles (why am I not surprised at that), then certainly they must just haaate being reminded that they live in a city that’s named, “City of The Angels” in the Spanish language. *Oh, the horror of that.*

Like a lot of other people, however, I like crosses, religious imagery, find inspiration in religious symbols, names, references, literature, first person experiences, fine arts and architecture, even, in relationship to Christ and Christianity, along with anything about the Old Testament. I just don’t go around lobbing lawsuits and writing angry letters to people, private and public, who aren’t Christians. I do see a lot of atheists and other forms of religion, doing so. Perhaps the wheel turns slowly, but, in my experience, it’s Christianity that’s bugging people, mostly those who know little to nothing about it, but do fear a lot.

Elsewhere, an atheist took a suit all the way to the Supreme Court, attempting to strike down the phrase, “under God” from our U.S. Pledge of Allegiance, which the Supreme Court refused to strike. And yet, the mumblingjumbling wire services just had to report that the ruling was based, in blaring headlines, “on a technicality.” Not “stuck down,” “denied” or otherwise, but, rather, “on a technicality.” As in, barely. By a nose. Flimsy ruling. Send in the ACLU and strike down that flimsy thing, send the Supreme Court decision back to, um, back to, um…the country or something, ’cause this is the CITY.

No one is compelled or ordered by the Constitution or any other government organization, to SAY the Pledge of Allegiance or any part of it they don’t like or find worthy, for any reason, and an explanation about why that choice is made isn’t even, either, required. Say “under God,” don’t say it, it’s up to the individual. Don’t like hearing “under God,” so what, other people do — and listen all day nearly everywhere to why people object to “under God,” about “God,” dislike “God” and on and on, these lawsuits, court cases, speeches, woebegone begs for donations, why “God” and references to “God” are just horrible in our American society, why satanism works, by astrologers are the way, why…

Until the Constitution is actually thrown out of the U.S., the rest of us citizens have the right to our freedom of religion, and we can say “under God” because we want to. And, including “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance does not a “institutionalized religion” make. It’s an expression of and by a free society, of and by a freely reverant society, and God forbid the ACLU twists that understanding around so much in the minds of our country to mean that freedom is servitude and servitude is freedom, despite their best efforts to do just that.

I think the wheel will turn. Unfortunately, it appears that atheism and a combined influence of various “anti Christian” “anti religion” religions, as complex as that is, bring a form of terrorism home. It’s just masquereding as the “American Civil Liberties (cough, cough) Union (more coughing).” Terrorists are as terrorists do.



C O M M E N T S : now closed