Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

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: REVEALED: McCain Family to Support Joe Biden In 2020, Hoping He Kicks Trump From Office

“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.

“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.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

News

REVEALED: McCain Family to Support Joe Biden In 2020, Hoping He Kicks Trump From Office

SERIOUSLY!?

John Salvatore

Published

on

Late Senator John McCain (AZ) is a war hero who served his country with honor for the vast majority of his life. By refusing to leave his fellow soldiers behind during the Vietnam war and enduring endless amounts of torture, McCain put his true character on display. While it is evident that McCain swung violently left on certain issues (even refusing to repeal Obamacare shortly after Donald Trump became president), every American owes him a debt of gratitude. Let’s be honest: Trump was entirely wrong when he said of McCain in 2015, “I like people who weren’t captured.” That was pretty bad. McCain and Trump never saw eye-to-eye, prompting the senator’s outspoken daughter, Meghan, to constantly attack POTUS in defense of her father. Now, it looks like the McCain family will support former Vice President Joe Biden over 45 come 2020. From Washington Examiner: The late Sen. John McCain’s family plans to support former Vice President Joe Biden’s White House bid, backing the Democrat not only in his party’s crowded primary race but also in a general election matchup with President Trump, the Washington Examiner has learned. In an extraordinary snub to Trump, who derided McCain’s Vietnam War service and mocked him even after his death last August at age 81, the McCain family is preparing to break with the Republican Party. McCain represented the party in Congress for 35 years and was chosen as its presidential nominee in 2008, losing to Barack Obama. Sources close to both Biden’s presidential campaign and the McCains said that at some point during the White House race, McCain’s widow Cindy, 64, and daughter Meghan, 34, a host on “The View,” will offer their public support in the hope of removing Trump from office in 2020. McCain apparently regretted choosing Sarah Palin as his…

Continue Reading

Opinion

CONFIRMED: Beto Said He Did Not Flee 1998 DWI, Officers At the Scene Say He’s Lying

BUSTED!

John Salvatore

Published

on

It was reported during his failed Senate run last year that former Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (TX) fled the scene of a DWI over two decades ago. Beto has denied this happened. However, officers at the scene of the crime say Beto did, in fact, attempt to flee. Busted. From Texas Tribune: The former police officer who arrested Beto O’Rourke for driving drunk in 1998, along with the sergeant who signed the incident report, both say they believe now what they reported at the time: that O’Rourke tried to leave the scene of the wreck he caused. O’Rourke admits he was intoxicated and says there is no justification for his actions, but he has denied that he tried to flee. […] Neither the investigating officer, Richard Carrera, nor his former supervisor, Gary Hargrove, specifically recalls the events of that night more than 20 years ago. But both of the former Anthony Police Department officers told The Texas Tribune they have no doubt the report they compiled and signed is accurate. A Beto spokesman noted, “Beto’s DWI is something he has long publicly and openly addressed over the last 20 years at town halls, on the debate stage, during interviews and in Op-Eds, calling it a serious mistake for which there is no excuse. This has been widely and repeatedly reported on.” LOOK (zoom in): Beto O’Rourke, truth teller? Not so much. In that respect, he actually fits in quite swimmingly with the other 2,385 Democrat presidential candidates. Check this out… From Daily Wire: Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke made five false statements in an attack on President Donald Trump this week when he was confronted over why he compared the president to the Third Reich. O’Rourke noted, “I compared the rhetoric that the president has employed to the rhetoric…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend