Connect with us

Opinion

OPINION: Humanists Battling Memorial Cross Are Utterly Ignorant of Our History

Published

on

There is a bizarre paradox in our nation: under the principles of protected speech that were established by our Founding Fathers who espoused the values of natural rights and biblical morality, many have taken advantage of their natural rights to bash the principles on which our nation was founded.

Many, of course, don’t realize this and believe themselves to be the embodiment of the First Amendment when they battle prayer in school or religious monuments on public grounds.

An excellent example is the current supreme court battle over a century-old memorial cross erected in honor of WWI heroes who fought and died to defend our great nation.

Trending: Pelosi On Live TV — Trump Won’t Be President Next Year ‘One Way or Another’ [VIDEO]

“The Bladensburg Cross was built primarily by a group of mothers after World War I who mourned the loss of their sons in the Great War. Forty-nine men from Prince George’s County in Maryland are memorialized on the cross which was built in their honor in 1925,” explains Jerry Newcombe in The Christian Post.

take our poll - story continues below

Will You Vote For Donald Trump in 2020?

  • Will You Vote For Donald Trump in 2020?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“They mimicked the design of the gravestones that their sons were buried under in Europe,” says Jeremy Dys, Deputy General Counsel of First Liberty Institute,  who spoke with CP. “And so it stood there without any complaint until about five years ago when some atheist groups got together and decided that the presence of that memorial on public property is offensive in violating the Constitution. The Fourth Circuit has agreed with them.”

Is this cross really unconstitutional?

Newcombe has some questions for the humanists, who assert on their website that “…the longer a constitutional violation like this persists, the greater the harm to non-Christian residents forced to encounter the cross year after year.”

“An honest look at our history shows the atheists are the ones out of step with our traditions, as opposed to the 84 percent of Americans who support that cross,” Newcombe explains.

He continues:

Was the establishment clause violated when:

•The Constitution was signed “in the Year of Our Lord” (as in Jesus)?

•George Washington became the first president under the Constitution, and was sworn in on the Bible, which he leaned over and kissed? Then in his First Inaugural Address in New York City, he mentioned his gratitude to God repeatedly. Then he led the cabinet and the Congressional members and Supreme Court justices over to St. Paul’s Chapel for a two hour Christian worship service, which included communion, in which he also partook.

•The same men who gave us the First Amendment hired chaplains for the military and chaplains for the House and Senate? This practice has been challenged, all the way up to the Supreme Court, but SCOTUS ruled in favor of the chaplains (1983)—since such a practice predated the Constitution itself.

•Jefferson approved and regularly attended the Sunday morning Christian worship services held in the U. S. Capitol building as president? Jefferson even made a suggestion or two on potential preachers for pulpit supply.

•James Madison also regularly attended those services when he was president as well?

These last two facts are significant because if the ACLU and the American Humanist Association and their ilk had patron saints, they would be Jefferson and Madison.

•President Abraham Lincoln called for the annual holiday of Thanksgiving (to God), which we continue to celebrate year after year? He also called for a day of prayer on March 30, 1863, in which he declared: “It is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God . . . and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.”

•FDR issued copies of the New Testament and the Psalms to servicemen in World War II? He also gave out a Jewish version which had passages from the Old Testament. He wrote:  “As Commander-in-Chief, I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the United States.” I have copy of one of these New Testaments. It was my dad’s, who served in the Navy in World War II.

And on and on.

Newcombe also notes that Joseph Story, a Harvard Law professor and Supreme Court Justice in the early 1800s, wrote extensively on the Constitution and said of the First Amendment that: “An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”

Story likely had no idea how applicable his words would be 200 years later when this understanding of the Constitution has so disappeared from our understanding of the First Amendment.

Our First Amendment protects the religious from interference from the state. It was never meant, nor is it written to convey, the mythical separation of church and state that you will find nowhere in our constitution.

If the Christian faith was good enough to inspire the Founding Fathers to pen the longest-lasting constitution in world history, it’s good enough to honor our fallen heroes, to grace classrooms, football fields, city council meetings, and on and on.

Newcombe closes with a very fitting quite from President Eisenhower, who said in 1955 that, “Without God, there could be no American form of Government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first—the most basic—expression of Americanism. Thus the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus with God’s help, it will continue to be.”

Amen.

Save conservative media!

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

Omar Demands Trump ‘Step Down’ Over GAO Report, But Obama Violated Federal Law 7 Times

How about them apples?

John Salvatore

Published

on

Rookie lawmaker Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has enough problems of her own to be worrying about. After all, the FBI, ICE, and another federal agency are looking into potential crimes she may have committed, including student loan fraud and immigration fraud. Omar doesn’t need to tweet silly stuff like this, for reasons that will be made abundantly clear in about 30 seconds. Just keep scrolling… Here’s her misleading tweet: https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1217859115260751877?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1217859115260751877&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fpolitics%2F2020%2F01%2F16%2Filhan-omar-president-trump-must-step-down%2F Here’s why Omar’s tweet is nonsensical, via Hot Air: In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security assistance to Ukraine. In order to withhold the funds, OMB issued a series of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances unavailable for obligation. Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA. Continued: Read the whole report, however, and one finds the glaring issue with this conclusion, which is that the administration didn’t have an obligation to release the funds on any specific date in the fiscal year. All they needed to do was to make sure the money got spent by the last day of the budget cycle. Also, did Omar know that the Obama administration was called out SEVEN TIMES by the GAO? Where were calls for Barack to step down? Nevertheless, if a mere GAO finding is sufficient to justify impeachment, then President Barack Obama ought to have been impeached at least seven times over for each of the following cases in which…

Continue Reading

News

CNN Reports That Lev Parnas Spoke With Trump, But He Just Admitted He Never Did (Details)

What is going on here?

John Salvatore

Published

on

Out of nowhere, after the House of Representatives had voted to impeach President Trump, Lev Parnas appears as if a stripper from an oversized birthday cake. How did that come about? And why is CNN reporting something that even Parnas himself is denying? From Washington Examiner: Indicted businessman Lev Parnas said he did not speak directly with President Trump about a pressure campaign against Ukraine that sought to benefit Trump politically, despite earlier reports to the contrary. Last November, CNN reported that Parnas told close associates he had spoken to Trump. “At one point during the party that night, Parnas and Fruman slipped out of a large reception room packed with hundreds of Trump donors to have a private meeting with the President and Giuliani, according to two acquaintances in whom Parnas confided right after the meeting,” CNN wrote. Parnas allegedly aided Giuliani in a campaign to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his involvement in a potential abuse of power to protect his son, Hunter, from an investigation into some rather shady business dealings. Parnas has also handed over some documents and messages to the House Intelligence Committee that includes more detailed information about the “pressure campaign” which also includes a letter Giuliani sent to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The letter seems to indicate that Giuliani was acting at the direction of the president. The president commented on this by denying he knew anything about the letter and claimed not to know Parnas. https://youtu.be/RrZIeZSh8GQ

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend