We are indeed a Republic – a democratic republic. We elect people to represent our views and to protect our rights – therefore when a majority of the City Council vote to uphold the Zoning Restrictions the are protecting our rights as a democratic republic and representing the will of the people as was the intent of our Founding Fathers. There is no need for a DOJ investigation of this matter. It doesn’t matter if the people speaking (as is their right) at a public hearing don’t want Muslim’s in their town – what matters is that the Mosque was asking for an exemption of the Zoning and it was denied on that basis.
June 13, 2012 at 3:59pm
He can be in Congress if he became a citizen of the US. He just could not be President or Vice-President or in the line of succession to the office of the President.
June 11, 2012 at 3:39pm
Jilly, please tell me what specific religion is being endorsed by the phrase “under God”? Not Christianity for it does not say under Jesus, not Judaism because it doesn’t call upon Yahweh, not Islam – nope no reference to Mohummad, not Buddaha, not Kali, not Zeus…hmmm I cannot imagine what religion is being endorsed.
It is a simple phrase whose meaning is derived by the people who say it, don’t believe, don’t say it. In any situation in which the Pledge is being said by a group, no one will be able to tell if you choose to leave it out.
@Jilly33. Please point out the Article or Section of the Constitution stating the separation of Church and State. If you would take the time to read and/or study or Constitution you will find that nowhere does it state anything about a separation of Chuch and State. The Constitution does prohibit the government from establishing a State religion, it also prohibits the use of a religious test as a qualification to hold office, but no where does it separate Church and State. That is because our Founders intended for all religions to be welcome in the “public square”.
The so-called separation that you refer to was a single phrase written in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist minister who was concerned about what the government could do to his congregation. Please remember that the prohibition of the establishment of religion right was placed to prtect the people from the government, not to remove God from our country.
Convinced that religious liberty must, most assuredly, be built into the structural frame of the new [state] government, Jefferson proposed this language [for the new Virginia constitution]: "All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution": freedom for religion, but also freedom from religion. (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 38. Jefferson proposed his language in 1776.)
Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, 1796-1797
Jefferson wrote voluminously to prove that Christianity was not part of the law of the land and that religion or irreligion was purely a private matter, not cognizable by the state. (Leonard W. Levy, Treason Against God: A History of the Offense of Blasphemy, New York: Schocken Books, 1981, p. 335.)
The Constitution of the United States (1787-1788; 1st TenAmendments ["Bill of Rights"] ratified 1791; no reference to anygod is to be found in the body or in the amendments to theConstitution)
The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. (Article VI, Section 3, The Constitution of the United States.)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the freedom of press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Amendment 1,The Constitution of the United States.)
It's not a hard concept. The government CANNOT make people recite a pledge that respects a certain religion..
Which rights do you suppose our founders were referring to in the Declaration?
June 11, 2012 at 2:46pm
Okay, they got my attention by the act of vandalism. Unfortunately for them, it has turned me off of them and any message they have. If they were to behave in a civilized manner, I would listen to them, due to their act of vandalism I will oppose anything they stand for.
June 11, 2012 at 2:05pm
Out of curiousity I just looked up and read the Preamble and the first few articles of the Massachusetts Constitution, as suspected, the are plenty of references to God (by whatever words they choose to use, the concept of a Supreme Being was included). Once again we have a fine example of the “tolerant” left attempting to inflict their beliefs upon others.
At on time I proclaimed myself an atheist. Granted I was in high school – a Lutheran school – and saw it as a way to rebel and stand out, I may have argued agaist the existence of God, but I never attempted to force my beliefs upon anyone. As a believer, I still make no attempt to force my beliefs upon anyone, I just hope and pray that they come to their senses.
February 9, 2012 at 12:35pm
Many of the comments have focused on the sanctity of confession as well they should, trying to say that if it was a Muslim we wouldn’t object is far off base, as the violation here is a First amendment violation so the what religion is involved doesn’t matter. However, while those on the left are trying to break the First amendment, they are forgetting that the First amendment also covers the press and speech, how would they react of the court were trying to get a journalist to reveal his source? There is the comparison they would understand. After all, the left places journalists who have gone to jail to protect their sources on pedestals and award them accolades for their “strength” of character. There is the hypocrisy in their arguments.