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: BOMBSHELL: Expert Confirms Google Swung Upwards of 10.5 Million Votes to Hillary In 2016

“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

Which Democrat Presidential Hopeful Has The Wildest Campaign Promise So Far?

  • Which Democrat Presidential Hopeful Has The Wildest Campaign Promise So Far?  

  • 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.

 

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

BOMBSHELL: Expert Confirms Google Swung Upwards of 10.5 Million Votes to Hillary In 2016

Everyone should be outraged. This is WRONG!

John Salvatore

Published

on

At least 2.6 million votes went for Hillary Clinton that probably otherwise wouldn’t have. At least. That number might jump to over 10 million. The funniest part is that Donald Trump still won. WATCH: https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1151614617556328448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1151614617556328448&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.weaselzippers.us%2F426323-ted-cruz-calls-out-how-google-swung-millions-of-votes-toward-hillary-clinton-in-2016%2F Conservatives may want to begin boycotting Google if they haven’t already. The anti-conservative bias the outlet has shown on a daily basis since the 2016 election is otherworldly. President Trump appeared on Fox Business with Maria Bartiromo to share his thoughts after Google admitted they want to keep POTUS from winning in 2020. Partial transcript, via Right Scoop: TRUMP: You saw what happened yesterday with Google. Google was totally biased, like you know they talk about Russia, because they have some bloggers. And by the way some of those bloggers were going both ways they were for Clinton and for Trump. MARIA: Well somebody at Google said they what happened in 2016 to happen in 2020. They don’t want it to happen again. TRUMP: Let me tell you, they’re trying to rig the election. That’s what we should be looking at, not the phony witch hunt. This is the greatest political disgrace in history… … TRUMP: They should be sued. What’s happening with the bias, and now you see it with that executive yesterday from Google the hatred for Republicans. It’s not even like let’s lean democrat. The hatred. And actually I heard that all during my election. They were swamping us with negative stuff. WATCH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=4uLrsJG1Hzc In this ever-digital world, concerns over privacy are paramount as they stand, yet continuing to mount as well. We have sacrificed privacy for convenience in the early Internet Age, much like we sacrificed freedom for security in the immediate wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Now, with a few simple clicks, or the use of our thumbprint,…

Continue Reading

News

Miss Michigan Is ‘Proud’ Trump Supporter, So She Was Just STRIPPED Of Her Title Over ‘Tweets’

But conservatives are the FASCISTS, right?

John Salvatore

Published

on

Kathy Zhu lost the title of Miss Michigan because she’s a proud conservative. She supports President Trump. And that is NOT allowed! Her tweets: Miss World America’s State/National/Chief Director accused me of being racist, Islamaphobic, and insensitive. They stripped me of my Miss Michigan title due to my refusal to try on a hijab in 2018, my tweet about black on black gun violence, and “insensitive” statistical tweets. https://twitter.com/PoliticalKathy/status/1152044590645616640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1152044590645616640&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftherightscoop.com%2Ftrump-support-stripped-of-miss-world-america-title-because-of-insensitive-conservative-tweets%2F These are the text message exchanges between the state director and me. https://twitter.com/PoliticalKathy/status/1152044900407549952?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1152044900407549952&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftherightscoop.com%2Ftrump-support-stripped-of-miss-world-america-title-because-of-insensitive-conservative-tweets%2F Conservative & Proud https://twitter.com/PoliticalKathy/status/943574703834324992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E943574703834324992&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftherightscoop.com%2Ftrump-support-stripped-of-miss-world-america-title-because-of-insensitive-conservative-tweets%2F Get at us. #TurningPointUSA #SocialismKills https://twitter.com/PoliticalKathy/status/925021169702637568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E925021169702637568&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftherightscoop.com%2Ftrump-support-stripped-of-miss-world-america-title-because-of-insensitive-conservative-tweets%2F Kitty Trump #MAGA 🇺🇸 https://twitter.com/PoliticalKathy/status/921196764950093824?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E921196764950093824&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftherightscoop.com%2Ftrump-support-stripped-of-miss-world-america-title-because-of-insensitive-conservative-tweets%2F More about Zhu, circa 2018, per Campus Reform: Kathy Zhu, a freshman student at the University of Central Florida (UCF), recently faced a Twitter campaign calling for her expulsion after she critically questioned a “try on a hijab” event on campus. On February 1, Zhu was walking across campus when she noticed the Muslim Student Association (MSA) promoting World Hijab Day, an annual event held by Muslims across the globe to “foster religious tolerance and understanding by inviting women to experience the hijab for one day.” In a video posted on Zhu’s twitter account, Zhu explains that the MSA had organized a booth with a banner that stated “Try on a hijab,” along with signs that stated “My hijab empowers me,” and “My hijab is a symbol of understanding.” Here was her tweet: H/T: Twitchy

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend