When the Christmas season begins, the cultural and political assault on Christianity and its symbols usually steps up, and this year is no exception. From the barring of a nativity scene in public schools to a public scholarship being withdrawn from a ministry-bound student, controversy is in the air.
The latest brouhaha over the separation between church and state stems from the Supreme Court taking on the issue of a state scholarship funding tuition for a ministering degree. Joshua Davey won Washington state’s Promise Scholarship, but when he announced his intent to attend Northwest College to study ministry, he was told that he couldn’t use the scholarship.
With the help of the American Center for Law and Justice, Davey has sued, taking it to the Supreme Court. Who will win? We’ll see. But one thing is for sure: The barring of publicly funded scholarships for religious purposes is nothing short of bigotry.
In New York City, mother Andrea Skoros has sued the city’s public school system for denying the display of a nativity scene in a hall of the school. While such a decision might be plausible, the school seems to have a double standard. The government school allows the display of the Jewish menorah and also the display of the Islamic crescent moon, but the school says that all displays must be secular in nature, thus barring the display of a nativity scene. That makes a whole lot of sense.
It’s obvious that the double standard is no mistake, but rather the discrimination against Christian symbols. The ACLU praised the school’s ruling.
Last month, a church and state battle that never even should have taken place ended. In 1997, Patricia and Robert Gentala organized a public event in Tucson, Ariz., for the National Day of Prayer. The city of Tucson allows, according to a WorldNetDaily article, “fees for various services [to be] waived, such as trash collection, in connection with events held in city parks. Tucson has provided free city services for such events as an Earth Day festival, a Hispanic cultural arts event and a gay pride picnic, but it refused to provide free services for the Gentalas and their National Day of Prayer event, citing ‘separation of church and state.'”
Because of a constitutional separation between church and state, a public event for the National Day of Prayer was blocked in Tucson. Because of a constitutional clause, a scholarship was revoked in Washington State. Because of this supposed First Amendment requirement, a nativity scene in New York City was barred from a government school.
Makes sense to me: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”
I find it completely odd that the separation-of-church-and-state camp can repeatedly claim the Constitution requires separation in the First Amendment. It doesn’t take a legal scholar to read and understand what it says. Instead, the legal basis for such a belief is based upon a judicial activist Supreme Court that ruled in 1947 that the Constitution includes such a clause – a ruling that should be overturned.
That ruling was handed down by liberal activists in the judiciary, and present-day attacks on American values are made by liberal activists in the judiciary. Ironically, their game plan is completely transparent; anyone that sees the reality of politics understands what’s going on here. Unfortunately, although everyone knows the tyrannical actions of these anti-Christians, they can get away with it.
The irresponsibility of some greedy Americans in the judicial branch has made the proposal of Congress limiting the power of federal courts so important. If legislation can be passed restricting the power of some courts’ – like the Ninth Circuit – authority on certain issues, such as abortion and separation between church and state, maybe judicial activism will be kept more at bay.
WATCH Tucker Carlson in Moscow: U.S. is now in a ‘hot war with Russia’
Tucker Carlson