A Response to the February Portal-2005

I write for a small newsletter which is primarily Democratic and Liberal. After I wrote an article in January 4 people tried to criticize things I said. I could not publish my response due to a decision to keep politics out the mainstream...but no one says that I can't publish it here.

Based on February’s Portal I have to ask a question. How many Liberals does it take to try and refute one Conservative? The normal answer is 1, the Wogian answer is 4. I had other plans for my subject this month, but some of the liberal views which were promoted in response to my Conservative Viewpoint in January were so outrageous and contrary to history that I could not but respond.
First, know that the article in January was to demonstrate that Liberals would prefer Conservatives when they are silent, while liberals can speak their mind, anywhere, anytime. Those who know me, know that the original article in November was a presentation of “another viewpoint” which had never found its way into the Portal. I listened to 17 years of left-wing viewpoints in this newsletter which I and many others totally disagreed with, but kept silent. So here with some encouragement from our own colleagues, I agreed to write an article from a Conservative standpoint, not aiming my comments at those colleagues I felt were wrong, but merely offering my opinion. I wrote one article and found someone who could not read it without telling me how wrong I was, then the second article comes out and there are four “rebuttals” to my article on, oh what was the topic again…. “free speech.”
Let’s examine their words and talk about the framers for a minute. Some of my colleagues are trying to convince themselves that the framers were not part of organized religion and rejected their Christian beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth! Dr. Miles Bradford of the University of Dallas did a study on the denominational classifications that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention accepted for themselves. These facts do not come from what religion they were raised, or what others believed about them. They were asked to identify what their religious affiliation was at the time of the Convention. Contrary to myth, only 3 of 55 (5%) of the framers classified themselves as Deists (who still believe in God, by the way). There were 7 Congregationalists, 24 Episcopalians, 2 Dutch Reformed, 11 Presbyterians, 3 Deists, 3 Quakers, 2 Roman Catholics, 2 Methodists and 1 Lutheran. Therefore, the contention that Deism was a very popular way of thinking for the framers is contrary to history. Attendance at church was considered the norm during these times and most people were raised on stories from the Bible. The liberal view on this matter is called revisionist history. Liberals would like to think that their view was held by the framers so they can promote their anti-religion agenda, so when evidence comes to the contrary, they merely attempt to change history. These people would have us then think that the framers came up with a document for the good of the country whose tenets are contrary to their religiously based morality, values and principles. "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?" --Benjamin Franklin
Keep in mind also that both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause were adopted by the framers to promote freedom of religion, not suppress it. The framers put in the Establishment Clause to prevent the federal government from creating one particular religion that would otherwise inhibit our religious freedoms. It was in no way intended to keep religion out of the public arena.
Yes, Jefferson did have the words “separation of church and state” in his letters and so did many others. What the writer fails to acknowledge is that it is the spirit of the words and how they are enacted in society that is the problem today and what I was referencing. The misinterpretation of separation of church and state began with Justice Hugo Black’s opinion in Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Jefferson would be appalled at its interpretation in our world since the reason for writing the clause was opposite to its modern interpretation.
It is very important that when you criticize anothers words, you quote accurately. I don’t mind having an honest debate about something I said, but I don’t like to be misquoted, and I’m sure the framers would feel the same way. I never said that this country was founded on the Christian religion and neither did they. My words were that “this country was founded on values in the Judeo-Christian traditions.” I stand by that, because it’s true.
Another person accuses me of ranting and making unsupported claims. Which ones are unsupported? My colleague doesn’t say. Could it be that she is guilty of what she accuses me of? The writer had not heard the comments and seen the cartoons by some Liberals calling Condoleezza Rice, Aunt Jemima and assumes that because she has not seen these horrible writings that they simply do not exist. Yet, I went back into normal search engines on the internet, plugged in the two words, Rice and Jemima and got 117,000 hits. Apparently my colleague could not find the original racial slurs but managed to find two Democrats who denounced them. Wow! Two Democrats who found racial slurs a bad thing (one wasn’t Howard Dean). She further says that the radio DJ did offer to apologize, but admitted it wasn’t to Dr. Rice. Apparently this is fine with my colleague? Here’s a question for you. If I go up to someone and while laughing at them point at their face and tell them that they look like Porky Pig, and then I suddenly feel remorse and “apologize” by saying, “Sorry…….Porky,” do you honestly believe that this counts as an apology to the person I’ve actually offended? Not acceptable. As far as the political cartoons, I have not seen or heard as yet any retraction or apology of this blatant racism (this was what I was talking about in the article, by the way, not the DJ). This same person rants about inaccuracy and insults made by Rush Limbaugh. Like? Can you offer an example? Apparently not. Maybe they can’t find any, but just don’t like Rush. Talk about unsupported claims!
In another article, the author cannot figure out what a public forum means. No comment on that one, especially since I give many examples. When I said that “our country has been hijacked by the liberal left,” I am referring to the fact that well over 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas and yet we are unable to have a nativity in a school, or perform A Christmas Carol in public? When the majority view is put down and squashed by a small vocal minority, a valid term is “highjacked.” This writer asks that since we have a Republican Senate, Congress, Executive…..etc., “what exactly has been hijacked? Cognitive skills?” No sir….heart skills, tolerance skills, Constitutional skills. I was not speaking of the government, obviously! I am speaking of the media, the ACLU and all those “tolerant people” out there who deny the freedom of speech rights of the Constitution to religion.
Now, how about Louisiana. If you read my article, I never say that I thought the ACLU was wrong on legal grounds. I would have hoped that just one time, the ACLU would demonstrate that they are more interested in the welfare of children then they are in misinterpreting the Constitution. Isn’t it interesting that my colleague first points out that pregnancy and abortion are a big problem in Louisiana, so you would hope that people with any moral sense would back the state in their attempt to curb this. I have already demonstrated what the Establishment Clause means, so what religion is established by Louisiana’s programs? Nada, Bupkiss, Zero….None. Has the ACLU come up with a plan of their own to combat teen pregnancy, or was their aim just to frustrate the plans of Louisiana to try? "The inherent right in the people to reform their government, I do not deny; and they have another right, and that is to resist unconstitutional laws without overturning the government." --Daniel Webster
How about this on the separation of church and state. On July 13, 1787, the Continental Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance, which stated: "Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." I guess there was no ACLU back then.
The name of Thomas Jefferson was also thrown about quite a bit in last month’s Portal with quotes out of context that supposedly demonstrate Jefferson’s denial of his religious Orthodox beliefs . Yet, he himself declared, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” My colleague who claimed that Jefferson rejected his religious beliefs, please let me know where you found this hard to believe statement, and did you as most liberal s do, take things out of context. She goes on to state that the ACLU accused the State of Louisiana because they promoted "virgin birth." I realize that many people are not religious, but that statement is beyond ridiculous for anyone who know what that means. Which religion by the way did it promote. Why can't anyone tell me. To close, Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist observed in 1985 that "the wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based upon bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned." To this I totally agree! Do I hear an Amen?
God Bless America