Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

The Main Reason for Leftist Hatred


Senator Al Franken (D-Minnesota, a/k/a Stuart Smalley) recently declared that "If Republicans take back Congress they’ll implement a truly dangerous agenda". Hyperbole side, in today's article, columnist Larry Prager examines the root cause of intense dislike of the Right by those on the Left...


"From its inception, leftism has been a secular utopian religion. As Ted Kennedy, famously quoting his brother Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Some (people) see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say why not?" That exemplifies left-wing idealism – imagining a utopian future. There will be no poor, no war, no conflict, no inequality. That future is only a few more government programs away from reality. And who stands in the way of such perfection? Conservatives. How could a utopian not hate a conservative?

To put in another way, the famous '60s left-wing motto "Make love, not war" embodies the problem as the left sees it: The left makes love in the world and the right makes war in the world. How could you not hate the right? The right, with its beliefs in a strong military; in individuals, not the state; taking care of themselves, their families and their neighbors; and in punishing criminals, is the anti-Love, a figure as reviled on the left as the antichrist is to Christians."


I agree with Prager's asessment. It almost seems that those on the Left would lke to replace the Judeo-Christian ethic with a statist model in which the government is seen as the ultimate source of good and provision in people's lives. This gives one some fresh perspective when considering why the US Justice Department is being accused of providing a less than vigorous defense of legal challenges to the National Day of Prayer...


"A coalition of legal and pro-family groups says the Obama Justice Department is putting forward an inadequate legal defense of the National Day of Prayer, and they are asking a circuit court to allow them to participate in oral arguments.

At issue is an April ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional and tantamount to a government establishment of religion. The Justice Department appealed the case to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and filed its brief in early July, but the groups say the government's brief -- while at 73 pages -- is lacking in certain areas.

In short, the groups say the Justice Department failed to cite three specific Seventh Circuit cases, all from 2007 and 2008, that are binding precedent on the three-judge panel and would lead to a quick dismissal of the case. The Freedom from Religion Foundation, which filed the lawsuit, lacked standing to sue, the groups say....

The groups' argument focuses on a technical legal question at the heart of the three Seventh Circuit cases and a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case, Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation. Those three Seventh Circuit cases -- citing the Supreme Court decision -- ruled that an Establishment Clause challenge could not be brought if Congress did not appropriate any funding in the challenged statute. Because Congress did not set aside any money for the National Day of Prayer when it passed the Day of Prayer statute, the lawsuit should be dismissed, the groups say. The Justice Department's brief does not make that argument. Crabb's decision overturned the Day of Prayer statute.

The three cases are Hinrichs v. Speaker of the House of Representatives (2007), Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Nicholson (2008), and Laskowski v. Spellings (2008).

Asked if he thought the Justice Department's failure to cite the cases was intentional or simply an oversight, Klukowski said, "At this point, I would want to give them the benefit of the doubt. They did present an argument that would result in a win in this case. But, nonetheless, the argument that we put forward in our brief would be a much broader and robust victory to protect the First Amendment rights of Christians and people of all faiths going forward."


A wise man recently said that "Christianity in the United States is about 2000 miles wide... and about half-an-inch deep" and I concur. There is still a remnant of the Christian ideals and values that this country was founded upon in American culture and to stamp it out completely might prove to be difficult at this point in time. We live in times in which the only thing that can help society is a fundamental change in the human heart. Government offers nothing like that and to subsidize irresponsible behavior and decisions that people make will only make matters worse for generations yet to come.







9 comments:

Froggie said...

JD,
Since you are tying together this hatred issue with the ruling on government sponsored prayer, so shall I.

Our nation was established with a secular government which grants each of us a right to follow our own conscience without any interference from any other citizen or the goverment, and without government promoting religion.

It is not hatred of religion that was the impetus for the ruling, it is upholding the Constitution that prompts the courts to rule against government sponsored prayer.

You are totally free to worship or practice any religion you choose, but you are not granted any right to promote your religion with government sponsorship.

Jquip said...

Froggie: Sorta. The Federal government was constructed such that it should stay out of such matters; the States each had their own conscience on this count. Specifically to religion it was barred from establishing a particular sect as the Federally mandated font of morality for the land.

The issue here legally is a simple one of the purse and sword. Lacking neither a simple acknowledgment of a secular day of prayer is not a violation of the 1st.

The real problem with 36 USC § 119 is that it mandates that the president shall do something that is not within the boundaries of congress to require of his office.

Jquip said...

"Lacking neither" => "Lacking both" Coffee. How does it work? Sheesh.

Froggie said...

Jq,
"The Federal government was constructed such that it should stay out of such matters; the States each had their own conscience on this count.
tHE 10TH Amendment OF 1791 mandates that the states cannot make laws superceeding the constitution.

"The issue here legally is a simple one of the purse and sword. Lacking neither a simple acknowledgment of a secular day of prayer is not a violation of the 1st."

That second sentence makes no sense.

JD Curtis said...

Froggie,

My overall point was that there are those that would like to replace organized religion and it's contributions to society with government.

The less than enthusiastic defense of the National Day of Prayer is a symptom of this IMO.

Another example from this administration is their refusal to endorse such a traditionalist institution as the Boy Scouts which seems to take a backseat to Joy Behar and assorted other yentas in Obama's worldview. Link

Nobody is making anyone pray on that day. Why would Obama not fully endorse it?

Froggie said...

JD,

"Nobody is making anyone pray on that day. Why would Obama not fully endorse it?"

Because it is government endorsement of religion as advocated by Shirely and James Dobson.
The president takes an oath to uphold the constitution, not the bible.

Many moderates are very leary of right wing Christians because it is percieved that many of them would do dumb stuff to fulfill bible prophecy, especially those concerning the End Times, Armeggadon, etc.

JD Curtis said...

Sigh...

And what happened the same day that the First Amendment passed?

"On 25 September 1789, Elias Boudinot of Burlington, New Jersey, introduced in the United States House of Representatives a resolution "That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness."...

Citing biblical precedents and resolutions of the Continental Congress, the proponents of a Thanksgiving celebration prevailed, and the House appointed a committee consisting of Elias Boudinot, Roger Sherman, and Peter Silvester to approach President Washington. The Senate agreed to the resolution on 26 September and appointed William Samuel Johnson and Ralph Izard to the joint committee. On 28 September the Senate committee reported that they had laid the resolution before the president. Washington issued the proclamation on 3 October, designating a day of prayer and thanksgiving. Link

You were saying?

Froggie said...

...And we continue to celebrate the National Holiday of Thanksgiving.
How many national Thanksgiving days do you want?

Most importantly to me though is:

"My overall point was that there are those that would like to replace organized religion and it's contributions to society with government."

Which contributions?

Jquip said...

Froggie: "tHE 10TH Amendment OF 1791 mandates that the states cannot make laws superceeding the constitution."

You ought, just maybe, actually read the 10th amendment first. It's just a single sentence. Then read the 1st and figure out how that works.