School in the… wait for it… liberal Democrat-leaning state of New York… censored an art student’s contribution to a mural. They had tons of religious imagery on the wall, but the minute a student who believed that Jesus was the Way, the Truth, and the Life decided to paint a cross and a few song lyrics, the school felt that she’d crossed the line.
Painting a mosque? Fine. A demonic creature? A-OK. The Taj Mahal? 10-4. A Native American totem pole? Yee-hah. A cross? BLACKLIST THE TWIT!!!
Look, I’m all for not pushing religion on people. I am a dedicated, strong, stubborn Christian, but I know that there are people who neither share my faith nor want to share my faith. And while I do believe I am called to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to let you know the Good News that He can save you from your sins and the penalty to come if you only repent and believe in Him… but I’m also well aware that the best way to communicate the Gospel is to build a personal relationship with people and to meet them where they are so that you can point them to the Cross. An ineffective method would be sticking students in a classroom and indoctrinating them via a state-approved religious curriculum.
Having said that, there seems to be a mistake made by the anti-religious crowd and bureaucrats, that our precious little angels – and by extension, our precious little public – must be freed from any expression of religious (read: Christian) belief in the public circle. They crow about the separation of church and state and point out that the Supreme Court has ruled that prayer isn’t allowed in any classroom, ever! Ha ha ha!
Silly people. Silly, evil people.
Let’s take a quick look at the First Amendment:
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 press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There’s a lot of meat in there, but it’s meat that’s easily identified and served up. Let’s stick with just the stuff that sticks with this case.
1. Congress shall make no law. This is pretty simple: the first amendment is a restriction on the actions of Congress, not the people. Much like the 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear arms, the First Amendment protects the rights of the people.
2. An establishment of religion. Again, pretty simple: Congress is not allowed to declare an official religion of the United States. This was because many of the American colonies were founded by Christian people for religious purposes, and those Christian groups sometimes didn’t get along, sometimes even with themselves. By avoiding the establishment of a national religion, those debates were rendered moot at the Federal level, even though every single colony still acknowledged Almighty God in their charters. Today, this has been extended to other religions.
3. Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Federal Government cannot keep you from practicing your religion. If you want to practice Voodoo, that’s your business (so long as you’re not breaking any laws in doing so).
4. Or abridging the freedom of speech. Again, while there are reasonable limits placed on this right (you can’t yell fire in a theater, you can’t threaten someone’s life, etc.), it’s typically accepted that the government is not allowed to tell you what you can and cannot say. Simple? Sure.
So where did we get lost? In my ever-loving opinion, it started in the 1980’s, when the Supreme Court ruled in Abington Township v. Schempp , where they introduced the “secular vs. religious” test. Later, in Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, the court went full retard, ruling that having the words “Gloria in Exelcis Deo” was illegal because that was totally religious, but it was OK to have a Menorah, because that’s totally secular. By entertaining a micromanagement approach towards the free exercise of religion, the Court empowered those who want to push a secularist religion like atheism.
This leads to incidents like this, where the same people who thought it was evil, wrong, super-evil censorship to ban the sale of 2 Live Crew albums in Florida think it’s perfectly OK to paint over a student’s artistic expression of admiration for her God because, Lord knows someone might see her picture and get magically forced by the school board to join the Baptists. They’re so busy enforcing point #2 of the amendment that they miss #3 and #4. They’re taking a very liberal view of the constitution, where one can change the plain meaning of the constitution as it suits the situation (hence why I join Alonzo Rachel in rejecting “progressive” as a label for people who are more accurately described as “liberal”). This liberal view means that the freedom of those who should be protected by the constitution is subject to the whims of a government bureaucrat.
Read Full Post »