OK, this is just hilarious. Christian right organization Massachusetts Family Institute reacts to American Humanist Association’s lawsuit concerning the Pledge of Allegiance.
The term “under God,” certainly has deep meaning for us as people of faith, but, as we argued in the friend of the court brief submitted in in conjunction with our partners at Alliance Defending Freedom, all Americans can recognize that it is also a statement of the Founding Fathers’ core political philosophy.
Wait, what? What “deep meaning”? I thought the Beckett Fund wanted to preserve “under God” because it did NOT have a religious meaning?
Anyway, you were saying, “Founding Fathers’ core political philosophy”?
That is, that all men and women “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” Those two words, “under God,” remind us that there is a proper limit to the Government’s power over our lives. Ironically, it is this very statement of the source of our rights that the plaintiffs in this case say is a violation of their own rights. [Emphasis original]
Well that is a nice alteration of the Declaration of Independence to hide the fact that the framers, like everyone else, had their flaws. The Declaration makes no mention of women. As for what “under God” means to everyone, unless the Religious Right has somehow become every single citizens’ spokesman (their usual attitude), I don’t really see who the “us” is in their statement, other than themselves. For me, for example, “under God” is a reminder that these people are trying to force everyone to follow their beliefs, completely disregarding individual rights. As for the source of those rights, are you really going to tell me that you get your authority from the Declaration? Well if it were so, you wouldn’t have to put words in its framers’ mouths to serve your needs.
But it only goes downhill from here.
However, we found that the legal arguments put forward by the atheists in this case are both surprising and disturbing. In the past, similar legal battles were fought in terms of whether the Pledge constituted an official ‘establishment of religion’ by the government, and plaintiffs would invoke the concept of “separation of church and state.” In this morning’s oral arguments, the lawyer with the American Humanist Association repeatedly cited cases dealing with same-sex marriage! That’s right, the key foundation of the atheists’ legal argument against the Pledge of Allegiance were principles from the Goodridge decision, the case that created same-sex ‘marriage’ in Massachusetts. The attorney also claimed the ‘invidious discrimination’ that atheists suffer is comparable, or worse, to that faced by gays and lesbians. This, the attorney said, was exemplified by former Representative Barney Frank, who publically declared his homosexuality decades ago but did not admit to being an atheist until after retiring from public office.[Emphasis original]
How awful! How dare those big mouthed atheist proclaim-accurately, at it happens-that they are subjected to discrimination? Even worse than daring to open their mouth, they have the audacity to-gasp-cite a precedent of discriminatory laws that were overturned by the same court! This must be a sign of end times!
And some more gems here…
Prior to participating in this case, we would not have anticipated such a public and intentional alignment between the GLBT agenda and that of humanist atheists in this type of legal proceeding. However, the American Humanist Association, for example, featured prominent homosexual activist and virulent anti-Christian Dan Savage as their 2013 Humanist of the Year.
Dan who? Oh, you mean the one you guys savaged for pointing out-again, accurately-that the bible has some pretty nasty stuff in it. As a reminder, while a large group of “courageous” believers subjected Savage to all kinds of verbal attacks and abuse and demanded an apology from him, not a single one of them challenged him on the substance of what he said. Pathetic.
But they saved the sweetest part for last.
As much as we write about and oppose the radical agenda of homosexual activists at MFI, we were not expecting it to be front and center in a case about the Pledge of Allegiance. This serves to remind us that the consequences of same-sex ‘marriage’ continue to permeate beyond most of our expectations. However, we should not be surprised that those who oppose traditional morals find common cause with those who deny the author of morality.[Emphasis original]
Lol! Well nice to see you admit how dumb you are. But seriously, dude, chill off: court cases against discrimination go way back. If you are upset at AHA bringing up precedent, you may as well start trashing the 1950’s cases against segregation. If you stop viewing the world through the prism of religious dogma for a second, you’ll see that what Savage said was precisely how immoral your traditional views are (say, endorsement of slavery, which is right there in the bible) and hence opposing them is the most moral thing to do. And by the way, Hitler was also surprised when Churchill and Stalin became allies against him.
