Coulter: Disestablish the Cult of Liberalism

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

"DISESTABLISH THE CULT OF LIBERALISM

By Ann Coulter

This week the Supreme Court upheld the right of religious groups to participate in the beautiful mosaic of after-school activities. No new territory was broken: The case was almost identical to another case in which the Supreme Court reversed the exact same court years ago. This was massive resistance.

Justice Clarence Thomas remarked on the oddity of having to reverse the same court twice, noting that while the appellate courts aren't required to cite all the Supreme Court's precedents, they might want to cite the last time they were reversed on the same facts.

At least the 6-3 decision gives us an accurate count of the atheists on the court, probably as accurate as my dream of giving them all polygraph tests someday. ("Do you believe in a Higher Being ... no, seriously.") Concerned someone might be reading Leviticus during school hours, Justice David Souter dissented in a hair-splitting exegesis about the precise time classes let out (2:56 p.m.), vs. the time the organizers would enter school property (2:30 p.m.).

The New York Times' obligatory hysterical denunciation of the decision revealingly complained: "(C)hildren that young are unlikely to discern that the religious message of authority figures who come to the school each day to teach does not carry the school's endorsement."

It is simply taken for granted that it's desirable for children to revere "authority figures" at government schools. Normally those authority figures are teaching the youngsters to put condoms on zucchini or training them in the catechism of recycling. Sending a mixed message about government "authority figures" might interfere with the state's ability to turn small children into Good Germans inculcated in the liberal religion.

It's well past time for liberalism to be declared a religion and banned from public schools. Allowing Christians to be one of many after-school groups induces hysteria not just because liberals hate religion. It's because the public school is their temple. Children must be taught to love Big Brother, welcoming him to take over our schools, our bank accounts, our property, even our toilet bowls.

We're told the First Amendment requires a separation of church and state, which, just as an incidental matter, is completely false. The whole point of the Constitution is to separate the federal government from the individual.

In keeping with the general theme, the First Amendment provides that Congress cannot establish a religion -- but nor can it stop the states from establishing religions. That's why it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Dear Congress: You may be eligible for a free country. You do nothing.

The only thing that tempers my annoyance with the canard about states not being allowed to establish religions is imagining the kind of established religion we'd have in New York. We'd be doing daily devotionals to Saint Hillary.

Still, it is a fact that when the First Amendment was ratified, several states had established religions. Fortunately for the burgeoning minority religions in those states, the established religions were things like "Episcopalianism" and "Congregationalism" rather than "Liberalism."

It's hard to imagine now, but before the official government religion was liberalism -- devoted to class warfare, ethnic hatred and intolerance -- Americans were kind to one another. They managed to get along even without ACLU lawsuits. Thus, when there were enough practitioners of other faiths in a state to be bothered by the established religion, the majority just disestablished themselves.

Back to the New Country: Two malcontents at the Virginia Military Institute recently sued to ban VMI's tradition of saying a non-denominational prayer at mealtime. The cadets are not required to recite the prayer or even bow their heads. Merely having to stand while listening to an invocation of God is apparently very upsetting for them. (I'd hate to see these guys under fire.)

A typical rendition of the VMI dinner prayer goes like this: "Almighty God, we give our thanks for VMI, for its reputation, spirit and ideals. Let your favor continue toward our school and your grace be abundantly supplied to the Corps. Now, O God, we receive this food and share this meal together with thanksgiving."

It doesn't get any more sectarian than that. How about: "Designer of the Universe (if you're out there) ..."

Religious people keep cheerfully going back and trying to formulate some prayer that won't make liberals angry. But the problem won't go away. No prayer that assumes a belief in a Higher Being will ever be acceptable. God has no part in the religion of sex education, environmentalism, feminism, Marxism and loving Big Brother.

In a totally unsurprising development, liberals finally suspended their opposition to the death penalty in the case of Timothy McVeigh. He was the sworn enemy of the established religion of Big Brother. Too bad he never stumbled into one of those after-school Christian meetings.

-- Op (Ed@page.com), June 15, 2001

Answers

The reason that religious groups can't be kicked out of schools (ie, government property) is because the members of the religious groups are citizens. And these citizens, like all citizens, have the constitutional right to free religion without the interference of the government.

Unless, then, citizens that happen to belong to religious organizations automatically thereby earn disenfrachisement, the government is powerless under the constititution to stop them.

If the schools (government property) are available to people in any non-school activity for meetings, why should people whose meetings happen to have a religious theme be discriminated against by the government? Do humans give up fundamental rights as citizens merely by the execution of those rights as citizens?

Such government discrimination because of religion would be directly against the Constitution.

And that's how come this is a good SCOTUS decision.

-- asitsays (and.furthemore@other.words), June 15, 2001.


It seems to me that Ann Coulter is again using her pulpit to decry liberals. What does THIS mean, for instance? but before the official government religion was liberalism -- devoted to class warfare, ethnic hatred and intolerance -- Americans were kind to one another.

I have no objections to religious groups meeting on school grounds after school. I would have a problem if my kids had been forced to ATTEND these meetings. I'd have the same problem if satan worshippers were allowed to meet on school grounds and my kids were forced to attend the meetings. It seems that's been the reason why the schools my kids attended allowed NO meetings on school grounds. I thought that a good decision at the time, and still do. Of course it doesn't affect my children anymore, so [good or bad] is something for the new generation of parents to hash out.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 17, 2001.


The cult of Liberalism must be maintained at all costs.

-- (antidisestablishmentarianist@DNC.com), June 17, 2001.

LOL, Anita! Could she be talking about the pre-Civil Rights Era? Gee whiz; I had no idea that what many white people were doing to black people (and Jewish people and Catholic people etc.) was considered kind.

Must get a copy of Coulter's dictionary.

ROTFLMAO.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 17, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ