I had a good laugh when reading both the NY Times and even further amused that my friend seemed impressed with the Times â€œfactsâ€ about Governor Perry.Â Itâ€™s interesting watching the mind games both sides play during the build up to the 2012 elections.
One can tell immediately I have very little respect for the alleged objectivity of the NY Times. They make no apology for loving everything left. However, donâ€™t misunderstand me, they play a very significant and dominating roll in the media, but I will not endeavor to make their case, except to note they help conservatives realize clearly why they are conservatives.
I donâ€™t think any of us would disagree that President Obama and his agenda is seen by the NY Times as something close to nirvana. So when you read a piece like this one cited, to a conservative it is recognized for what it is, a hit piece, although far less than what we will see if Governor Perry becomes the Republican nominee. If he becomes the torchbearer for the Republicans, you will see insufferable editorials about his flavor of â€œreligion.â€ They will continue to cast him as some radical right wing T.V. Evangelist not worthy of the thinking publicâ€™s time or consideration. They will try to make a big deal out of this 30,000 prayer meeting recently held in Houston as though thatâ€™s a very bad thing. The truth is they will get more mileage from that Houston event than did Governor Perry.
The Times, to their credit, does mention a federal judge dismissing a lawsuit fiiled against Perry by a group of atheists who argued that his participation in the rally in his official capacity as governor violated the First Amendmentâ€™s requirement of separation of church and state. To their shame they write this article filled with innuendos as though the judge had not ruled. Letâ€™s be clear, no one is suggesting the Times is stashed with a hutch of ignorant writers, but they are a little less than transparent when they go after groups who supported this prayer rally and then quote gay activists as their source and authority. The Times wrote,
â€œOthers included gay activists who criticized Mr. Perry for supporting the American Family Association, which organized and financed the rally. The association is a conservative evangelical group based in Mississippi that is listed as an antigay hate group by the nonprofit Southern Poverty Laws Center.â€
Now we know, the AFS is an antigay group and a hate group. How do we know that? Well, because some unknown group of gays said so, and that friend is objective reporting by the NY Times. Do I oppose the rights of homosexuals to express themselves? Of course not. What is appalling is how the Times accepts the word or opinion of any activist group as the Eleventh Commandment, seeking to influence or bind our minds by their proclamation of the “truth.” Letâ€™s call this for what it is, an attempt of early political assignation and guilt by association.
The left always come back to the very tired and mistaken arguments seeking to couple the First Amendment with the phrase â€œseparation of church and state.â€ While this article doesnâ€™t specifically make that charge, the piece is cleverly written to impress the reader that Governor Perry and those who supported the prayer rally are guilty of just that, stepping over the boundary of their interpretation of separation of church and state. I doubt you will ever see articles from the NY Times making the same points against the President, Maxine Waters, John Kerry, and any others left of planet earth. The facts are, the religious clauses of the First Amendment donâ€™t apply, nor do they make the point the Times is trying to suggest. The religious clauses only state:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Let me do a side bar on the facts of our history. It is informative to note, neither the word â€œseparation,â€ â€œchurch,â€ nor â€œstateâ€ is found in any part of the First Amendment. In fact, that phrase appears in no governmental founding document. Many recognize and use the phrase; very few know its source; yet it is important to understand its origins and its subsequent coupling with the First Amendment. While the phrase separation of church and state is not found in the U.S. Constitution, it is in the Old Russian constitution. How interesting.
Significantly, the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment articulated a very clear intent. The debates surrounding the framing of the First Amendment spanned from June 7 through September 24, of 1789, and the records of those debates make unequivocally clear that the First Amendmentâ€™s purpose was to limit the federal government in two specific areas.
First, the federal government was prohibited from establishing a national denomination, whether Catholic, Anglican, Tree Huggers, or any other. Most of us realize this was the problem that plagued early Americans when they had been part of Great Britain. The British government could and did decree an official denomination (Church of England) to which all citizens must belong and support through government taxation. For those who refused would be punished. Our Founding Fathers sought to prevent that evil through what is now termed the First Amendments Establishment Clause (â€œCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . .â€).
Secondly, the First Amendment barred the federal government from interfering with or limiting the peopleâ€™s public religious expressions, e.g., the Houston Prayer rally. This part of the First Amendment is called the Free Exercise Clause (â€œ . . . Or prohibiting the free exercise thereofâ€). Because of the Free Exercise Clause, the federal government could not prohibit the peopleâ€™s free exercise of religion, whether expressed in private or public. This would seem to protect the right of Governor Perry to speak where he chooses including churches without being declared a nut or subversive. It even extends that right to President Obama and the radical Maxine Waters. We currently have laws on the books at present that fly in the face of the Free Exercise Clause, laws that will be challenged even more so in the future.
The NY Time would do well to read our history with integrity and discover the facts concerning this issue. Unfortunately, as the pantheon of the left, they have made the decision to go with those that have revised our history to make it say what the Founders never intended. Significantly, both religion clauses of the First Amendment were to limit the federal government, not the people â€“ that is, first, the government could not establish any national religious conformity, and second, the government could not stop public religious expressions but must protect them.
(I understand that the NY Times is not challenging the right of candidates to sponsor religious rallies, they know they would be shot out of the saddle by those who are informed if they did. However, they write in such a way to imply that candidates not consistent with their world view is either breaking the law or very ignorant.)
This is the extent of the First Amendmentâ€™s religion clauses; and not only does the phrase â€œseparation of church and stateâ€ not appear in any part of that Amendment but significantly, according to the official records not one Framer ever mentioned that phrase throughout any of the official discussions on the First Amendment. It would seem that if â€œseparation of church and stateâ€ had been the intent of the Founders, at least one of the ninety would have mentioned it, but not a single one did. Of even greater significance, the phrase appeared in a private letter written by President Thomas Jefferson more than thirteen years after the First Amendment was written.
Governor Perry as President would never have the right to force his religious views on a nation no matter what they may be, but he does have the right to express them as clearly as possible in or out of churches or anywhere else. Becoming the president (or any other elected office) does not and should not demand that a person abandon his/her brain, faith, and convictions when taking the oath of office.
Some of our citizens should be reminded once again what that oath is all about and that it is the Bible that a president places his hand on when taking that oath. If Romney were to become president, he certainly would not have the right to establish Mormonism as the privileged religion in America, but as president he should have the right to be clear about his beliefs and convictions even though I would not agree with most. If John Kerry had become president, or if Gingrich, Joe Biden, or any number of other Roman Catholics took that office, they would not have the right to make the Roman Catholic Church a church with special privileges and authority over all others in this nation, but they would certainly be free to express their beliefs and convictions without using their position to force legislation or law. Thatâ€™s an opinion, which I believe is based on the intent of the founding father, not the revised cow dung being taught in our schools today, a national tragedy.
When an atheist or many members of the ACLU hear the name of God, Jesus Christ, prayer, Ten Commandments, they break out in â€œholyâ€ hives and begin calling in their WMD, theyâ€™re national security creed, separation of church and state. Wouldnâ€™t it be refreshing if these folk began to speak about the separation of Islam and state? This is proving to be far more threatening to our citizens than 30,000 Christians in Houston imploring and praising God.
Right now I donâ€™t know who I would vote for in the Republican primary, and frankly Iâ€™m still a registered Republican so that I can have some small voice in replacing Obama and his administration. I am leaning toward Romney only because the men I prefer donâ€™t have a real chance. Gingrich has the intellect and understands our history and I believe he offers more solutions than all the rest combined. I also like Rick Santorum, but neither he nor Newt Gingrich have a real chance (my personal view). I also like Herman Cain simply because he is not a part of the establishment and has the business background that recognizes the need for fiscal responsibility. Governor Chris Christie would be my number one choice if he were running. I also like John Bolton, former Ambassador to the U.N., but unfortunately he doesnâ€™t have the money or machine to get it done.
Another side bar. I predict that Marco Rubio will be elected president in either 2016 or 2020. If Obama wins in 2012, then Ruibio will win in 2016, if a Republican wins in 2012 and runs through two terms, then I believe Rubio will win in 2020. This young man has brains, substance of conviction, and the ability to communicate. By 2016 he will have far greater experience than President Obama when he came into office.
Back to the NY Times piece. Fortunately they are preaching to the crowd. Conservatives look at a piece like this and find they disagree with most of what the Times presents as the Holy Grail. Iâ€™m not going through this piece line by line, but just a couple of things to note.
First, I think the left is just going to have to accept that Christians will not be timid or intimidated from expressing their faith, and the expression of that faith is not to be confused with any separation of church and state issue. The Times said, â€œThe prayers were given in Jesus Christâ€™s name, and the many musical performers sang of Christian themes of repentance and salvation.â€ My, my, isnâ€™t that a tragedy. The left may not like it, but this was not a state sanctioned event. It was a prayer event that was attended predominately by Christians even though people of other or no faith were welcomed. Itâ€™s true, when Christians gather you will hear the name of Christ and hear themes like repentance and salvation, service and commitment. You might even hear something said about love. This Times piece demonstrates once again just how ignorant they are of Christianity. The Times made one point that I find agreement with â€“ Perry should not have used his official stationery even though the judge ruled that Governor Perryâ€™s participation in the rally didnâ€™t violate any separation of church and state issue.
The Times effort to cast the governor as some kind of preacher simply because he has spoken in several Texas congregations is disingenuous. Have you ever seriously followed black candidates or clergy? If not you would find it enlightening to visit a high profile black congregation. According to the left’s interpretation of separation of church and state, there is little if any separation between church and state in the black community. And I don’t have a problem with this since I don’t believe that the separation of church and state was ever intended as presented by those on the left. I rather admire their ability to make their case from within the context of faith. Black churches are filled with politicians speaking to their constituents. They break every law when it comes to their support of black candidate and causes, laws in my judgment that ought not to exist. I donâ€™t agree with these laws since they violate the intent of the First Amendment. Governor Perry could speak in half the churches in Texas and not come close to the practice of Black Caucus members. (When Maxine Waters was going after the Tea Party on Aug. 23, she was doing so at a black church in Miami, as reported by the Miami Herald)
The NY Times is disingenuous when it goes after a white presidential candidate who is expressing his faith, but they smile or ignore Black clergy and politicians supporting Black candidates and causes from their pulpits. Letâ€™s either enforce the very poor laws or eliminate them in order to make the playing field level. To be fair, Maxine Waters ought not be allowed to parse every political â€œfactâ€ in whatever way she chooses while Governor Perry is castigated for praising God. The NY Times knows and plays the double standard to perfection.
The NY Times slamming Governor Perry as a â€œpreacherâ€ or speaker at many Texas congregations is laughable and the Times knows it, but as usual they are not interested in facts, they are simply trying to smear a candidate that they recognize is a real threat to Obama and his ideology and their own world-view. Listen to Rev Wright and his Black Liberation Theology and then tell me that Governor Perry or any other candidate doesnâ€™t have a right to address folk in the pew. Please, spare me; Rev. Wright is a politician first and a preacher second. In the Black community this is par for the course. Check out the Congressional Black Caucus and see how many of them are ordained clergy. Do the names Jesse Jackson (presidential candidate) or Al Sharpton (one time Democratic nominee for president) ring a bell?
When Obama was running, he spoke in large Back churches all over the country. He was even on a national TV program with Pastor Rick Warren, the senior minister of Saddleback Church. The Times loved the national exposure with Americaâ€™s leading cleric. They were happy for Obama to make his point on abortion and other issues in a very religious setting. Donâ€™t know what happened to the NY Times view on separation of church and state during that episode. The NY times is living by the double standard once again.
Can you imagine what the Times would have written if Mike Huckaby had stayed in the race? Now thereâ€™s a guy who was a real preacher who eventually became a very significant governor before prime time.
I have a friend who said he suspects that Governor Perryâ€™s mixing of church and state would probably make his campaign much tougher. I believe he is absolutely correct, but only because of what those on the left do to the First Amendment. But that isnâ€™t the real issue. If Romney becomes the candidate there will be slams against his Mormon faith much like there was when Kennedy was running in the 60â€™s. The big question then was, how could a committed Catholic be the president of the U.S. without turning the country into the offspring of the Roman Catholic Church. The real intent is to make candidates say or do something that was never intended or at best distorted, and why do they do this? If they can make a candidate look like a fool, then it becomes less difficult to make their fool look actually bright and electable. And who really cares about the facts if we advance our agenda?
My view is that when one reads a piece like this in the Times you see it for what it is, a hack job. With Obamaâ€™s polling numbers in free fall, with our national debt now somewhere between the moon and Mercury, with the housing market collapsed, with unemployment at near record highs (never have we had such high unemployment for such a long period), with both the Stimulus, Tarp and Cash for Clunkers programs complete failures, where do the progressives turn to praise Obamaâ€™s Hope and Change? It is difficult to find a nation building accomplishment that President Obama can claim in his 30 months of office. Some declare that his national health care program is a massive achievement, and others will say itâ€™s the program that will either bury us all or be overturned by the Supreme Court. With a record like this to run from, the left is scrambling for those promised building blocks of hope and change, and since they canâ€™t be found, what are they to do?
Well, to answer the question, they move from Bush blaming to their next poster child, Governor Perry. They seek to cast him as some crazy right wing Preacher Perry, who believes in God and actually prays for Divine guidance. And this is bad? That rhetoric stirs up their base and sells newspapers to many people that donâ€™t have a whole lot of time for God in their lives. And besides, what leading â€œintellectualâ€ newspaper among the worldâ€™s prestigious newspapers want to talk about the fact that Texas has created more non government jobs than the rest of the U.S. combined? That could have been news worthy instead of publishing all the Obama talking points which were designed to help one understand why Governor Perry shouldnâ€™t get the credit for all those jobs.
In 2016 China will surpass us as the strongest economic power in the world. The Bureau of Labor Â Statistics is reporting that our unemployment rate continues at 9.1%. This coupled with illegal’s overwhelming our borders and culture, causes thoughtful people is ask, is this the best the NY Times can do? When they insist on attack reporting, it isnâ€™t because there isnâ€™t a major news event to report on, it has more to do with discrediting any who poses a threat to their world-view.
America is, in spite of the President’s opinion, a Christian nation. What that means is America wasÂ founded upon Christian principles and moral integrity. Have we moved from that place where we could expect God’s continued direction and blessing? Unfortunately the answer is yes. Until we return to the resolve of our Founders, we will flounder. Our first president’s faith, and commitment are memorialized in the fabric of this nation and when we stand at the base of his monument, which looks into the face of God, we are reminded why this nation is the greatest to ever grace this planet.
On top of the Washington monument in Washington D.C. which stands at 555 feet, you will find two words Laus Deo 5.125 inches high. Perched atop the monument, facing skyward to the Father of our nation, overlooking the 69 square miles, which comprise the District of Columbia, capital of the United States of America. Laus Deo! Two words unknown by most but placed with purpose at the highest point over what is the most powerful city in the most successful nation in the world.
So, what do those two words, in Latin, composed of just four syllables and only seven letters, possible mean? Very simply, they say â€˜Praise be to God!â€™
When the cornerstone of the Washington Monument was laid on July 4th, 1848 deposited within it were many items including the Holy bible presented by the bible Society. Praise be to God! Such was the discipline, the moral direction, and the spiritual mood given by the founder and first President of our unique democracy â€˜One Nation, Under God.â€™
George Washingtonâ€™s prayer for America awes me. If you have not read it, here is your unique opportunity. He sounds like he might have been very comfortable at the recent Houston prayer rally attended by Governor Perry.
â€œI now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.â€