Tyrannical Atheist Minority Still Trying to "Fundamentally Change" America
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 J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
