« Previous Story | Front Page | Next Story »


Religious Certainty Endorsed by House of Representatives

By Vickie Stangl
Opinion | November 3, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a vote that surprised no one (just in case you missed it), our hard working representatives in D.C. reaffirmed for all Americans by a vote of 396 to 9, the unconstitutional national motto: "In God We Trust".

Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), who is also an ordained minister voted against this resolution. Cleaver stated he didn't think Congress should be telling anyone to trust in God. That's something people have to choose for themselves. It's not the business of Congress to force this on the people.

Talk about being religiously incorrect! If only more representatives had the backbone to stand up to the bullies in the House but sadly, they dare not if they want to keep their seats in Congress. This pandering to religious beliefs when the going gets tough, has been a hallmark of politics since Washington took office. Until men and women of BOTH parties have the courage to denounce it, the trivialization of religion and the real threat to freedom of conscience for all Americans will continue.

Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said he voted against the resolution because Congress already reaffirmed the motto back in the 107th Congress . He noted that the resolution has no force of law. Bobby Scott (D-VA) voted no because "when we were sworn in as members of Congress, we took an oath to uphold the Constitution. This resolution is inconsistent with that oath."

Scott is absolutely correct. The motto violates the establishment clause that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The In God We Trust motto clearly establishes religious devotion by demanding people affirm trust in God. Never mind that millions of humanists, Atheists and Agnostics cannot in good conscience affirm this religious motto.

As our nation struggles under an employment rate of 9.1%, EPA regulations are being attacked to allow corporations to further pollute and endanger the health of American citizens for profit, and the number of children in poverty has risen, Congress focuses on a religious affirmation of God when the people can do so any second without turning it into a federal case.

Why would they do this? Conservatives hoped they could use this vote for the elections in 2012 and point to all those godless democrats voting against God. If there is one thing Americans are suckers for, it's the game of accusing those who are nonreligious as evil doers and undeserving to hold office. Will this strategy work in Kansas as it has worked so successfully for years? Will voters finally come to understand the mockery these actions have upon our democratic government,religious liberty, as well as the disregard for the Founders' wisdom to allow all Americans freedom of conscience?

In The Godless Constitution, Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, quote the famous reformer, politician, abolitionist, and newspaper publisher, Horace Greeley. Greeley dismissed measures in the 19th century to introduce God into the Constitution by stating, "Almighty God is not the source of authority and power in our government; the PEOPLE of The United States are."

As Kramnick and Moore noted, "What is unacceptable to us in light of the godless Constitution is for religious certainty ever to trump politics and for government policy in any way to privilege or codify religious belief in ways that preempt a pluralist democratic process."

Religious certainty was codified yesterday. People of all faiths and no religion should agree how this is not only repugnant but divides us as a people while our officials smile in delight playing the religion card. Please write your Kansas members of the House and let them know they violated the constitution and freedom of conscience in America.


29 Comments

Do we have that much time on our hands where we are now bickering over "In God We Trust"? What a colosell waste of time.

The First Admendment's Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality with religion, nor did it prohibit the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion. Over the years, secularist justices have orchestrated wretched betrayals of America's founding and have succeeded in rewriting The First Admendment to say what the Framers would never have countenanced. The Framers never meant for our Constitution to prohibit and exclude references to God in public.

Should we forget that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments handed down by God to Moses? Should we forget that our country was founded on faith in God - not atheism? Two of my atheist co-workers concede that "In God We Trust" absolutely does NOT violate the Constitution by establishing a national religion. Our Congress for once got it right!


"Do we have so much time...we are now bickering over [the motto]? What a colossal [sic] waste of time." Agreed, Then why did the "conservative" Tea Party zealot Republicans waste it? Moron-ity.

The motto IGWT is conveniently bland and non-sectarian. Nothing about it suggests as citizens we are required, must to believe in the supernatural or, for that matter, what we worship must be supernatural rather than natural. Even if belief in a supernatural god of some sort were required by the Constitution, the requirement could only be enforced by a modern version of the Inquisition, overseen not by a supernatural power but by something like the same self-righteous lunkheads.

We each define that for ourselves. The slogan IGWT appeared on coins in 1864, nearly a century after the adoption of the Constitution, wasn't adopted until 1956 as the official motto. Much ado about nothing.

Only the 5th, 7th, and so some extent the 8th Commandments are part of U.S. law--and none NOT peculiar or exclusive to Christianity or Judaism. The 8th Commandment is observed in a court of law, but only occasionally in instances of slander or libel. Politicians, and not a few preachers, lie regularly and deliberately.

Our founders were not exclusively Christian, though many were, and knew the dismal record of theocracy and were determined to avoid the same problem here. We have a deliberately secular Constitution. As good Americans we have the liberty to believe or not believe in the supernatural.


Johnathan: Very predictable arguments. If it's such a waste of time or no big deal, then I guess you would have no objectons if Congress were to pass a resolution stating the nation's new motto is "In God we DON'T Trust"? I bet a lot of people of faith would be crying to the rafters how wrong that motto would be for the entire country and they would be right. The same goes for the bogus Motto "In God We Trust". Our real motto was just fine until Christian politicians wanted to demonstrate how superior their faith is to anyone elses beliefs, especially those horrible godless atheist. Last time I checked the prisons were full of God fearing inmates and all our presidents who have lied, cheated and taken us to war were men of God. I'd say the argument that those who have faith are more moral do not have a lot to crow about in their righteous indignation against Atheist. And, what part of "God" is not supernatural. It doesn't matter how inclusive you think the word "God" is, it is religious-and as the Congressman clearly stated, it is not his job to promote or establish religion in government. You have ever right to practice what your believe, but government does not have a right to force affirmations about God on the entire population of the U.S. And, I'm sorry but you do not know your American History. Our laws are based upon English Common Law that was brought to England by the pagan Saxons before the island was even converted to Christianity. The 10 Commandments have nothing to do with our secular government. God is not mentioned at all in the body of the Constitution and certainly nothing is mentioned regarding the 10 Commandments. These men were crafting a government to deal with the day to day concerns of humankind, they were not forming a religious state to endorse religion or God-the 1st Amendment gave everyone the freedom to go down that road for themselves. Religion is not excluded in public, it is everywhere in America. You can wear your cross, attend your churches, hold rallies and concerts for Christ and hand out bibles on street corners, but you cannot expect government to promote your religion-that is not the role of government. Our country was not founded exclusively on faith. People came here for many reasons including religious freedom where they in turn were intolerant of other faiths. I know people of faith like to promote that generalization of America but is just historically inaccurate to make such a sweeping statement. I think it is sad that Christians constantly attack Atheists who just want to live their lives in peace and do good in the world. Wow, what a novel idea. Christians need to stopped playing the victim card, it's just so tiresome.


From school prayer, to nativity scenes, Ten Commandment displays, and the reference to "God" in our Pledge of Allegiance, the trend has been quite clear for a long time - the American Left is engaged in an all out assault with even the most passive expressions of public religious liberty.

The American courts sit today as supreme secular councils, which, like Islam's supreme religious councils, dictate all manner of approved behavior respecting religion by undermining and manipulating the First Amendment.

I think I know why Washington D.C. experienced a freak earthquake just a short time ago, it was our Founding Fathers turning over in their graves!

(Vickie, which came first - the Ten Commandments or English Common Law?).


Government buildings are not churches when last I checked, therefore, nativity scenes belong on church property and not government property. Really, it's just weird. Certainly, they are numerous manger scenes during the holiday season in front of churches which is great and more power to them for decorating for the holidays but the baby Jesus in front of the the city Jail or City Hall is just bizarre.

Again, the 10 Commandments are religious instructions to believers or those following the Hebrew faith and not what American jurisprudence is based upon. Every religious cult has their own moral rules or laws and the 10 Commandments are hardly uninque except perhaps in their negativity. "Thou shalt NOT", compared to the Buddhist tradition of simply "love each other" is far more lovely.

In England, Common Law existed before the 10 Commandments even if you can predate these laws to an earlier time it doesn't mean anything. Isis and the worship of hte Goddess came before the 10 Commandements. Maybe we should have continued to worship the Goddess instead of that really angry, murderous sky God?

And, I sure hope our courts are secular because we are a secular government and our laws-again, I'm repeating myself, are suppose to be for everyone and not based on someone's religous doctrine or we would be like Iran. The majority of Americans, religious and nonreligious do not want a religious state where clerics sit in judgement to dictate all amnner of behavior for Americans.


What is wrong with the original national motto, "E Pluribus Unum," "Out of Many One." That motto certainly makes more sense for a nation comprising such a diverse population. Many Americans don't trust in any deity. Many influential thinkers were and are secular humanists. Isaac Asimov, Emily Dickinson, and Ralph Waldo Emerson were among leading secular humanist Americans.

It's a silly waste of time for Congress to engage in this kind of exercise, especially since they have no business deciding that Americans should trust in God. In Wichita, that motto is on the wall of every classroom in the school district. If I had a kid going to school in this district, I would have a royal fit over such an intrusion into my family's private beliefs.

Which leads me to another point--having such a motto does nothing but weaken the religion of those who do believe in a deity. It's so innocuous it's meaningless. We might as well say "In Dog We Trust" is the national motto. Given the number of Americans who have dogs as pets, the statement is more powerful.

Silliness abounds.


Jonathan, those guys turning over in their graves were protesting the conservative's and religious right's ignoring the first amendment and trying to declare a National Religion (Christian).


Mr. Ken, FYI: the only group trying to establish a national religion in this country, with any kind of fervor, are the Islamists, who have been operating both over and under our radar for a long time. For more information read "The Grand Jihad" by Andy McCarthy.


Mr. Jonathan: The way to keep Islamic theology out of government (And I'd agree with that)is to keep all sectarian theology out of government. Go to the church of your choice, put a creche in your yard (or the Virgin Mary, or a Totem Pole.) Argue for the resurrection of the dead or the virgin birth. Argue for "young earth" creationism as a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis would have it. If you're a Muslim, feel free to think that the Kaaba rock should be venerated ...but keep all that out of our deliberately secular government. Bring your morality to legality but leave the Ten Commandments in the church, and the Koran at the mosque--or put them in the store you own.


Well, what do we want? Governmental leadership that's not afraid to show a strong faith in God, minus any kind of a national religion, or an upside down European style secular government that is imploding before our eyes on almost a daily basis?


Jonathan, I’ve not heard any U.S. based Islamic group advocating establishment of their religious dogma as the official dogma of the U.S. government. I’ve not heard them asking for exclusive right to display their religious paraphernalia on public property with public tax money. Nor have I heard them plea for government financing of their private religious schools or social programs. Neither have I heard them declare, as a group, that anyone is not fit to serve this nation politically if they do not adhere to their religious doctrines.

I have heard many claims from the conservative religious right that our constitution and laws are all based on the Christian’s biblical laws. They have advocated for government funding for their schools and social programs, administered by their exclusive standards and curriculum. I have heard them declare support for public office candidates on the basis of their publicly professed religious doctrine.

I am a Christian and I’m very active in religious organizations and programs. I happen to be quite conservative in my moral and ethical standard, but I’m quite liberal in my civic social responsibility for my fellow man’s welfare. I believe that all mankind should accept my Savior, Jesus Christ, and worship the God of Creation.

However, I also believe that all men should have the freedom and privilege to choose who, what, or how they practice their religion, so long as it does not infringe upon my freedom and safety.

I don’t think the God I worship is dependent upon government protection or financial support from tax levied on anyone by government mandate.


I want a government free of religious influence of any kind. I don't care what belief system our government leaders follow, or if they follow no belief system, as long as avoid imposing their beliefs on the rest of us. Getting government involved in religion is the best way to weaken religion. After all, many European countries have a state-sponsored religion, for all the good that does.


You advocate: "Governmental leadership that's not afraid to show a strong faith in God, minus any kind of a national religion..."

So how would you accomplish what you advocate--- specifically--without creating some kind of a national religion?


I see the non-religious points and I agree with them in theory. However I want to make one note. At my kids school, like most other government schools, they have to totally take any mention of God or even Santa out of the yearly kids Christmas program. No kids singing beautiful christmas hymns like Silent Night or Oh Holy Night. Not even many fun ones like Santa Claus is coming to Town. Nope, its now a "Winter" concert and we listen to such glorius deep music like "Happy Holidays". Also in many schools they've banned Christmas trees, Santas, and wreaths.

So... what is left?

No depth, spirit, or meaning in life.

No thanks.


Good discussion everyone. As for Christmas celebrations in schools, private schools can do whatever they want and usually they have an abundance of religious xmas music. I don't know where your kids go to school (you don't need to divulge that) but in Andover, I can attest to the fact that I had to listen to O Holy Night, and Silent Night twice in one night at a "Holiday" concert( and there were more but I've just forgotten the titles). I was trying to be a good sport, but after the second round of Silent Night, it was all I could do to stay in my seat. I'm not sure why they sang Silent Night twice, but they did. Just think about how awkward that song would be for a Jewish student to sing in front of their family, not to mention a humanist or atheist? I watched the look on my child's face who gamely went with the program but looked very uncomfortable. I understand how much this means to you Brad, but really, the music you want to hear belongs in the church of your choosing and not in a school. I hope you can still have meaning and depth in your holiday but think for just a moment, why any of this is necessary or appropriate in schools. There are some great nonreligious/winter type songs that could be performed OR as some schools are choosing to do, a separate holiday concert for those who want a concert that is geared to sectarian holiday music. You might want to check and see if this is something they might consider? It's hard to let go of our memories that include moments that made us feel so good. But, it is sad now, thinking back how my firends in school who were not Christian must have squirmed singing these songs-and I never gave it any thought because to be honest, I thought, "I'm the majority faith and they're not, so too bad" I can't believe I once felt like that.


Well said. When civil society tries to hard to micro-manage the use of the word "God" and anything that has to do with faith in God within our government, then what happens is we see things like nativity scenes, Christmas decorations, crosses, and Ten Commandment displays disappear from our city halls, court houses, post offices, and even schools. What is then left is pretty darn drab, grim, and depressing - especially during the holiday season.

The challenge here is trying to convience the Left that a national religion is not being established, and the First Amendment is not being violated, when our governmental leadership shows passive expressions of faith in God. For most this is just common sense and tradition.


The examples that Jonathan provides are, except for the Judaic Ten Commandments (only two of which are firmly included in Constitutional law), exclusively Christian. Is he in favor of allowing other religions equal time in the schools? Are Brad and Jonathan willing to allow every religion equal time in the public schools, courthouses, post offices, city halls? And if not, why not? Is your freedom to practice Christianity and perform Christmas and Easter programs in your church, your home, the buildings or businesses you own, and among your friends insufficient? Can you not say grace in your favorite restaurant? Can the word "God" not be uttered in the halls of Congress? Would you like a clearer definition of the word as a Constitutional Amendment?

So again, Jonathan, what specific changes would you make to our Constitution as it regards religion? I think you are selling paranoia.


Vicki, When I was in HS choir our christmas concert featured both traditional Christmas songs, hanukkah songs, and secular songs. So schools can include religious pieces.

If they WANT to that is. Alot of the content of these shows depends on the courage of the music directors. Sure they can bow down to every group with an ax to grind and do lame music. Or they can choose pieces that inspire and challenge both the choir and the audience. For me, I'd rather the kids soar with eagles than do crappy stuff just to please everyone.

Why should you be offended by "Silent Night" if it was sang well? Were the kids singing in tune? Did they hold the notes well and hit the cutoffs? Was it a deep performance that enriches the audience? Then what is the problem?

My high school choir director several times refused to alter the content of the shows to please atheists or other groups. Why? She could show sound educational reasoning behind her choices. She said that this was a choir and they sang choir music which usually had roots in classical chamber music (meaning religious). Same with most of the great musical pieces for classical music, they were designed to be performed in churches.

One interesting story - one time after a show which featured the song "Ride on King Jesus" (a very powerful negro gospel song btw) she got a call from an atheist woman complaining about it. She replied "Honey, that song was picked out for us to sing at the state choir compeition and if you dont like it, you need to take it up with the national association of choir directors!". The woman gave a Hmmph! and hung up.


Jonathan, I've noticed that when we take out religion - well people still look for higher powers or things of a higher order. Some examples include the whole New Age realm. They might look for ghosts, spirits, or other parts of the "afterlife". Sometimes they try to raise their consciousness with yoga, meditation, or hypnosis. Carl Sagan, the great astronomer, thought part of the interest in UFO's is people looking for answers to lifes questions in the stars and the hopes that aliens out there will solve all our problems. Others switch to old Indian or African religions or new ones like Wicca.

So the search for something bigger and better will always be there.


What changes would "I" make to our Constitution regarding religion? None. The First Admendment is worded just fine, even though people read into it erroneously all the time. I don't know what more I could say on this, but it does sound as though you're trying to bait me into something. You think I'm selling paranoia, well, for all it's worth pal, that's your opinion. Leftists can just go ahead and continue on with these ridiculous attacks against Christianity and public references to God all they want, the Left will be in the minority on this one.


I'm only asking you to be specific about what changes you would like to make. And obviously you don't have anything specific in mind--except to say that Christianity and God are somehow being "attacked." Are we to assume you want the Ten Commandments and crucifixes displayed in government locations which are paid for by ALL taxpayers of ALL religions as we;; as agnostics and atheists. Do you want the Lord's Prayer recited at city council meetings (but not a Cheyenne Indian or Buddhist prayer? Is the door to your Church barred by local police or the ACLU? Exactly how do you think the lst Amendment should correctly be interpreted? Jonathan, no one here begrudges you whatever religious persuasion you prefer, nor your right to sell it on the street corner, nor to wear a necklace with cross, or put a "Christ Saves" bumper sticker on your car, nor to run the rosary in the drug store. We're fine with all of that, and you needn't fear anyone will deprive you of those rights. The point is that our Constitution is secular, not religious. It promotes individual rights and liberties, it does not and should not promote any specific religion, nor promote the lack thereof. As to "leftists" you assume that those of liberal political views are automatically not Christian or even religious. You have a lot to learn there my friend.


As we jockey for the last word here, I know the Constitution is secular in nature, but it also recognizes the fact that we all have “God” given inalienable rights. Being liberal or a Leftist does NOT automatically make someone anti-Christian or non-religious – I never said that and that’s an assumption on your part – but make no mistake about it, the attacks on Christianity and the language of God in public are being orchestrated by the far Left. One more time, referencing God or displaying the 10 Commandments in public does NOT promote or establish any one specific religion. If the hard-core Left wants to go out of its way to remove all references to God in our founding documents, if Leftists strive to continually litigate the removal of nativity scenes and crucifixes that are in public view, well then, they have their work cut out for them. I feel sorry.

If you’ll now excuse me, I need to take an aspirin from banging my head against the table last night.


Jonathan--How are leftists orchestrating the attack on religion? Many of my leftist friends are religious. Among them are Roman Catholics, Mennonites, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, United Church of Christ, Ba'hais, even a Southern Baptist or two. They want the government out of their religion. They want to practice their religion as they see fit without being told what to believe. Most of our Founding Fathers were Deist Unitarians, which means they weren't Christians in the strict sense. They had seen what chaos ensues when the government gets entangled with religious beliefs.

And why are you banging your head against a table? Because we disagree with you? Don't we have a right to agree or disagree as we see fit? I don't have a stake in whether you agree with me. You certainly have a right to your opinion. It's only when people's opinions become law and infringe on on the beliefs of others that I have a problem.

Lighten up. Be thankful that you live in a country where you can practice your religion as you see fit.


Brad--Christmas trees and wreathes are Pagan in origin. I have to laugh at the idea that a Christmas tree or any kind of greenery has much to do with the birth of Jesus. Many scholars, those who think such a person as Jesus actually existed, believe that Jesus was born in the spring, not in December, and the Christmas holiday was pasted on top of a Pagan winter celebration so there wouldn't be too much discontent among those whose celebration was being co-opted. Even the song "What Child Is This" was a folk song called "Greensleeves" before someone wrote some Christian lyrics.

When I was in Rome a few years ago, our tour guide pointed out the Christian churches that had once been Pagan temples. Easy come, easy go, I guess.

Why is it so important that a public school accomodate religous beliefs by singing songs that pertain to only one belief system? What if someone decided to sing only Muslim songs or Jewish songs for the holidays? Can you imagine the outcry over that? I can because one year when I was in charge of the retirement dinner at Butler Community College, I asked a Ba'hai faculty member to say grace. I couldn't get out of having a prayer, but no one told me who to ask. I could tell people were uncomfortable with the Ba'hai prayer, even though it was just as good as any Christian prayer I'd ever heard.

We live in a diverse culture. I say celebrate the diversity in public space and practice your religion in your church and your home.


Jonathan's view: "If the hard-core Left wants to go out of its way to remove all references to God in our founding documents, if Leftists strive to continually litigate the removal of nativity scenes and crucifixes that are in public view, well then, they have their work cut out for them.

There is one reference to Christ (none to a generic God) in the Constitution--actually after the text, signifying the day of signing as the "Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." Most agree the expression is conventional, not religious. But, whatever the case, nobody's trying to remove or revise the language.

The Declaration of Independence has one reference, Nature's God" and "one indirect allusion to "sacred honor."
Nobody's trying to revise or remove either.

As to removing religion, or especially Christianity, from the public square, that is ridiculous on its face. True enough that "government" offices and buildings (including public schools) are increasingly forbidden to display religious paraphenalia, ritual, or symbolism. The grocery store owner or the hardware store or the neighbor next door (or you) are free to display basically anything you want--provided it does not obstruct traffic or constitute a fire hazard. The recent whoop-de-doo about ratifying the motto was, in a word, a ridiculous waste of time, except as still one more ploy to emotionalize the emotional with a view toward getting them to the polls. Sad to say, the tactic works.

Nowhere on the planet are people freer to believe and worship as they choose than the USA. Nowhere. And that's basically because, yes, we have a secular government. May I say, with all conviction: Thank you, God if you played any role in bringing good sense to our founding fathers!

Now: let's put people to work with decent pay and benefits, safe conditions. Let's bring REAL reform to health care so that it doesn't cost twice as much with no better results than other countries. Let's work to make sure the wealthy pay their fair share across the board. Let's support the right of working people to organize in their own economic and social interest. Let's prosecute those reponsible for lying us into war,and for violating the Geneva Convention. Let's end the "personhood" of corporations and make their political contributions public. Let's tell Jonathan he can safely stop banging his head on the table, for his own and the table's sake. I think Jesus would agree, and I am free to say right here in public.


Good Grief, as Charlie Brown would say. We live in a nation that houses a diverse population of all faiths, nationalities, even, sexual orientations. If we can't tolerate our next door neighbors, we are in trouble.

I don't like 'heavy metal' music, but I can tolerate it as part of a group performance, especially youngsters who are learning to appreciate and perform all styles. I'm not particularly fond of 'opera', but that too is tolerable under inclusive settings. I would be upset if a public school program included only songs from one style of music, unless they specifically pointed out that was the only style they were presenting. If my kid, or great grandkids as it is now, wanted to participate, I would probably attend, just to hear them and enjoy the skill of all the participants.

I celebrate Christmas in honor of Christ's birth, that doesn't mean I can't tolerate the Jewish holiday practices that coincide with the same calendar period. The winter solstice celebrations are understandable and should be expected in this same time period. Some of my fellow Christians celebrate and emphasize things at Christmas time that I think border on sacriligious, but it is part of living in a free and diverse society. I have no problem with saying 'Happy Holidays' in mixed settings, and I have no problem with any other person's choice of holiday greeting. I will intentionally refrain from expressions that I know will offend someone in a small group, but I'm not keen on censoring expressions for the benefit of a small minority in a large and mixed group.

Common sense should prevail. Certainly, vulgar speech, racial slurs, etc. are not acceptable in a public setting anywhere. Demeaning others who have different religious views or even anti religious views, demeans the demeanor as much or more than the demeaned. (Now that's a tongue twister that twitches the grammar teachers skirt, but I think you get what I mean.)


Now: Let's . . . Let's . . . Let's . . . and let's just stop with the b.s. Now, at the present time we are free to practice religion as we see fit. For now, we all can enjoy religious liberty. But if we don't sufficently tackle the problem this country has with radical Islam, if we continue to apply political correctness with the sleeping giant known as Islamism, our religious liberty will simply disappear under Sharia and the Islamic caliphate. The hard Left I'm sure thinks that sounds crazy, but it's true. As noted earlier, the complete name of the book that is well worth checking out is "The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America" by Andrew C. McCarthy. It's a tough read with lots of Arabic wording and an advanced vocabulary, but it will definitely shake your core to the bone.

( I know you guys aren't going to read it ).


Let's review a bit, Jonathan. You propose no changes to our secular Constitution, and you do concede that it is, in fact, secular. You grant that "at the present time" we may practice whatever religion we wish, and seem to have given up on the claim that Christianity has been banned from the public square.

However, you do fear and believe that unless they're stopped, Muslims, by exercising their own religious freedom, will instigate Sharia law to create an Islamic theocracy to replace our wonderfully wise secular Constitution. After blowing away the chaff, that seems to be the kernel that remains.

Thus (what?) in response you advocate greater public exhibition of Judeo-Christian religion which will defeat Islam by preponderance of public display. Or would you prefer to ban the practice of Islam altogether or just deport Muslims altogether?

Given the fact (so far as I can tell) there are at least as many crazies who claim Christianity as crazies who claim radical Islam. There are also various sects of several denominations who truly believe only theirs is the true version. I'd say our best bet is to keep our government diligently non-religious. I think we've got much bigger problems these days.

(On the other hand, paranoia can be fun...if you don't take it too seriously.)


Jonathan, I dont think Islam will become the dominant religion here in the US like it has in Europe. Why? Because here in the USA people havent turned their back on Christianity to the same effect as Europe has and I think alot of blame for that goes back to in europe the government got too involved in religion. My cousin in Denmark says the active Christian communities are the ones independent of the state church. The state churches have those fancy cathedrals but few actual worshippers in them.

Here in Johnson County I know of Islamic, Buddhist, Sikh, and Hindu "churches". In many ways they look like Christian churches and the members try to emulate some of the activities and community events Christian churches do. But they make few converts and serve mostly as cultural centers for the many immigrants we have here so I dont see them as threatening. The kids who grow up in those religions are also prone to switch.


Post your own comment here


Do you want to read more? You've only just scratched the surface at the Kansas Free Press. We have so much more to read! Nearly all of the pieces published here are timeless and relevant, regardless of when the articles were first published. To discover more, please take a look at our Table of Contents or go back to our Front Page.


Our sponsors help us stay online to serve you. Thank you for doing your part! By using the specific links below (clicking through from our site) to start any of your online shopping, you are making a tremendous difference. By using the shopping links provided on a Kansas Free Press page, you are directly helping to support the Kansas Free Press:



About This Page

This page contains just one story published on November 3, 2011. The one written previous to this is titled "A Message from the SEA Party" and the story published right after this one is "Picking On Tim"

Our most current stories are always updated on our Front Page.

Other Archives

Interested in other topics? You may wish to poke around in our Table of Contents to find other sections and archives.

Do you want to explore pieces written by specific authors? You can find archives for KFP writers by reviewing our complete Directory of Authors and Writers here.

Recently Featured Stories

My Response As a Kansan to Jessica Valenti

Jessica Valenti has come on board The Nation magazine to fill in for Katha Pollitt as the feminist columnist while Pollitt is on leave to write a book. I've found reading Valenti's columns thought-provoking and insightful. She often takes …
Of Angels and God's Dogs

There might be a whole group of us out there--people who value our relationships with animals on a par with our ties to people. "Get over it--it was just a dog" does not resonate with us. Our society places …
Of Angels and God's Dogs

There might be a whole group of us out there--people who value our relationships with animals on a par with our ties to people. "Get over it--it was just a dog" does not resonate with us. Our society places …
Roots of the n-word

While N-word dialogue has slackened following Saline County Commissioner Gile's use of it recently, the word still has great power. So, let's look inward at the N-word. To reach a much deeper path to understanding, simply go to Ad …
Corporate Tax Reform

Basehor, Kans.--For an interesting twist on the corporate tax debate, look at Alan Sloan's opinion in the April 29 issue of Fortune Magazine. In all of the froth about corporate taxation, neither proponents of tax reduction, nor corporate critics, …

News and Opinion





Get Connected

See our FB page!
Subscribe for free!
[Feeds & Readers...]
Follow Kansas Free Press on Twitter, too!
Make Kansas Free Press your home page!

Journalists, sign in.

We're reader supported!

Whenever you use the specific links below to begin any of your online shopping, a portion of your sale goes directly towards the support of this site.

Tech Depot - An Office Depot Co.


Our sponsors help us stay online to serve you. Thank you for doing your part! By using the specific links above (clicking through from our site) to start any of your online shopping, you are making a tremendous difference. By using the shopping links provided on a Kansas Free Press page, you are directly helping to support the Kansas Free Press.

Thank you for your help!

Notices & Policies

All of our Kansas Free Press journalists are delighted that you are here. We all hope that you come here often, sign in and leave us comments, and become an active part of our community. Welcome!

Our writers are credentialed after referral to, and approval by, the editor/publisher of KansasFreePress.com. If you are interested in writing with us, please feel free to let us know here. We are always looking for Kansans who want to write about Kansas!

All authors here retain their own copyrights for their original written works, original photographs and art works. They welcome others to copy, reference or quote from the content of their stories, provided that the reprints include obvious author and website attribution and links to the original page, in accordance with this publication's Creative Commons License.

Our editor primarily reviews stories for spelling, grammar, punctuation and formatting and is not liable or responsible for the opinions expressed by individual authors. The opinions and accuracy of information in the individual stories on this site are the sole responsibility of each of the individual authors. For complete site policies, including privacy, see our Frequently Asked Questions. This site is designed, maintained, and owned by its publisher, Everyday Citizen Media. The Kansas Free Press, KansasFreePress.com, and Kansas Free Press are trademarked names.

© Copyright, 2008-2012, all rights reserved, unless otherwise specified, first by the respective author, and then by KFP's publisher and owner for any otherwise unreserved and all other content.