Freedom From Religion Foundation - How Far Will They Go In Their Attack On Christianity?

Freedom From Religion FoundationI know this isn’t a popular view to hold in today’s America, but it seems to me religion is under an ever-increasing pressure and attack in America. Specifically, Christians are under attack. I know some atheists will deny that statement, but I believe it can be upheld by looking at the facts. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is running rampant with the lawsuits it is filing. Not necessarily in this order or in order of importance, the FFRF has decided the IRS hasn’t been doing its due diligence when it comes to policing churches. They also have decided that a discount being offered at Mary’s Gourmet Diner in Winston-Salem, NC was violating someone’s civil rights. You see, the diner gave everyone who prayed over their food a 15% discount. It didn’t have to be a Christian prayer or a spoken prayer. Just a prayer. The FFRF threatened them with a lawsuit and the discount went away. It makes me wonder if there is a pattern here.

The icing on the cake is what is going on with about 40 Navy lodges around the world. A certain atheist group has filed a complaint because some rooms in these Navy lodges contain Bibles. Care to guess which atheist group filed the complaint? I suspect you already know it was the FFRF.

Fox News – There is growing outrage among sailors and religious liberty advocates over a directive that calls for the removal of Bibles from lodges and hotels run on U.S. Navy bases. The directive comes after an atheist group filed a formal complaint earlier this year over the placement of Bibles in the rooms.

“The current direction is to remove all religious material from Navy Lodge guest rooms,” read an email to a Navy chaplain from The Navy Exchange Service Command (NEXCOM). “For those Navy Lodges with religious materials currently in guest rooms, the Navy Lodge General Manager will contact the Installation Chaplain’s office who will provide guidance on the removal procedure disposition of these materials.”

The Missouri National Guard couldn’t even visit a Vacation Bible School without fear of establishing or preferring a religion. A group of women were recently stopped from praying a silent prayer at a Georgia mall before they went running. They were told it violated the code of conduct at the mall. All of this adds up to a fear of reprisal by groups like the FFRF. My question is this. How far are they willing to go in their attack on Christianity? And before someone tries to convince me that there is no such thing as an attack on Christianity, let me point out that the only religion the FFRF seems to care about is Christianity. They aren’t interested in leveling the playing field between religions. What they are after is the removal of Christianity from the playing field.

Whatever happened to the free exercise of religion established in the First Amendment? It seems to me the Freedom From Religion Foundation as conveniently forgotten that part of the Constitution.

About LD Jackson

LD Jackson has written 2038 posts in this blog.

Founder and author of the political and news commentary blog Political Realities. I have always loved to write, but never have I felt my writing was more important than in this present day. If I have changed one mind or impressed one American about the direction our country is headed, then I will consider my endeavors a success. I take the tag line on this blog very seriously. Above all else, in search of the truth.

23 comments to Freedom From Religion Foundation – How Far Will They Go In Their Attack On Christianity?

  • We are very far, hopefully, from the days when Christians here will be treated the way ISIS treats them, but I believe that as a country we have turned down that road. It will only get worse; not better.

    • There used to be a day when America was better than this. When political correctness entered the equation, we turned down a path that has not been good for our country. I’m fairly certain we will not be happy with the final destination.

  • Isn’t it odd that the group that gets so incensed over someone receiving a discount in a diner seem to be strangely silent when another so called religion stones people to death for behavior it is un-PC to criticize here, the denial of education to young girls because of their gender and the beheading of children?

    • Michael

      “Isn’t it odd that the group that gets so incensed over someone receiving a discount in a diner seem to be strangely silent”

      Not so odd, however, if you actually read the Foundation’s mission statement. From the FFRF’s FAQ:

      “The purposes of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., as stated in its bylaws, are to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church”

      Since it’s an American organization, and the principle of separation of church and state is one of the foundations of the government of the U.S., and they use the American legal system to pursue their goals, it actually seems to be the opposite of odd that they would focus on the role of religion in the United States, rather than addressing issues in other countries where they have no legal standing.

    • Yes, it is “odd” that they would be so silent about that particular so-called religion. It always seems to escape their attention.

  • Isn’t it odd that “Michael” cannot see more reason to be incensed over the beheading of children than a brief prayer at a diner’s table, which harms no one, no matter which country it occurred in? Which is deserving of the more expenditure of effort?

    I’ve heard it said that if you are not fighting where the battle is bloodiest, you’re fighting the wrong battle.

    If you said a brief prayer even to Spiderman before eating your chicken sandwich would anyone be harmed to the same degree of enslaving or beheading a child? Thousands of children??

    The FFRF may now return to its picking of nits.

  • “Freedom From Religion Foundation” must be a bunch of cracked pots who never quite mastered reading “too good”. The Bill of Rights speaks of freedom “of” religion, not freedom “from” religion”.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

    Which part of this don’t you Constitution perverting geniuses understand?

    BTW, Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists never made it into the Constitution, nor was it ratified. Exactly which part of the Constitution do you bozos pretend to be defending?

    “Freedom From Religion Foundation” doesn’t have one.

    • You are exactly right, Proof. That particular phrase is not in our founding documents, no matter how much some people would like us to believe otherwise. They have tried for many years to force it upon us through frivilous legal action, having succeeded to a certain degree. It’s time we started pushing back on that.

      • acethepug

        There you and Proof go again, using facts and reason :)

        Seriously, Michael and his ilk don’t care about either. It’s divide and conquer, whether through race-baiting or grievance-mongering.

        As you say, the silence on Islam is deafening, though. The same Left who whines about a “War on Women” lets Islam treat women like slaves and property, while attacking this country for, comparatively, negligible offenses.

        It’s all about power, hurting those who oppose them, and being in control. That’s all the Left cares about.

        Nothing more.

        • Please accept my humblest apologies for trying to tell the truth.

          Just once, I would love to see someone on the left calling out Islam the same way they called out Mitt Romney and the rest of the GOP for their supposed war on women. I’m quite sure the sky would fall down, were that to happen.

  • Jack Camwell

    “Whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, because they love to pray while standing in synagogues and on street corners so that people can see them. Truly I say to you, they have their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you” (Matthew 6:5-6).

    Seems to me that FFRF is just keeping Christians in line with their own religion. Ironic that some are upset that the FFRF tries to get Christians to stop praying in public when Jesus himself commanded his followers to not pray in public.

    But anyway, I agree that the FFRF takes it too far. I would have been more than slightly annoyed at the prayer discount in the restaurant for a few reasons. 1: what if I’m someone who just doesn’t pray? It’s possible to be religious and not pray. 2. Why would you offer a monetary incentive to people who pray? Doesn’t that defeat the idea of prayer?

    BUT – I’m assuming that the restaurant is a private establishment, and the owners can give people discounts for whatever reasons they wish. The Constitution does not prohibit the practice of religion in public. In fact, the Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    So by insisting that people not be able to pray in public, they’re actually violating the constitution.

    In the FFRF’s defense, though, I doubt that they particularly hate Christianity. They probably don’t HATE any religion. They’re just people who are tired of religion being crammed down their throats. If the tables had been turned, and a restaurant owner gave a 15% discount to all atheists in the house, I can almost guarantee that Christians everywhere would be lamenting that action saying that they were discriminated against for being Christian. That restaurant owner discriminated against people who are not religious.

    Freedom of religion means that we’re also free to be non-religious. But as I said, it was a private business, and a private business is allowed to give discounts to whomever it wants. For example, the Catholic school I send my children to gives tuition discounts for practicing Catholics. Is it right? Probably not. But if it bothered me THAT much then I simply would take my business elsewhere.

    • I am of the opinion that Jesus was not specifically commanding his followers to never pray in public. I believe his purpose was to show them how foolish it was to pray for the purpose of being heard by others, in the hopes of being rewarded for their prayers. The same would apply to the Christians who seem to be interested in doing good only if their good works can be noticed.

      • Michael

        “I am of the opinion that Jesus was not specifically commanding his followers to never pray in public.”

        Where does your opinion come into the matter? Don’t you see the Bible as being the word of God? The passage quoted by Jack Camwell leaves no room for your opinion, LD: ” But whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret.”

        That’s pretty straightforward. God to your room; close the door; pray in secret.

        • How ironic that you would argue the Bible, when you clearly do not believe it is the word of God and have no use for it.

          At any rate, there are multiple instances in the Bible where people prayed in public. Jesus himself did that, as well as his disciples. I think I explained the purpose of Jesus’ words sufficiently.

          • Michael

            “How ironic that you would argue the Bible”

            Not ironic at all. I’m always interested in the mental gymnastics that self-proclaimed Christians put themselves through in order to rationalize to themselves that they live in accordance with Jesus’s teachings and example. My experience is that, like you, they simultaneously proclaim on the one hand that the Bible is the inviolate word of God that must be followed to the letter, and, on the other, that it’s a sort of buffet of items that they can choose to accept or interpret (and by “interpret,” I mean “selectively ignore”).

            “when you clearly do not believe it is the word of God and have no use for it”

            Ah, but there you’re wrong. I may not follow a religion myself, but the middle grades history curriculum in California is nearly nothing but religious instruction. We go into great detail about the ideas and teachings of Hinduism, Buddhism (including the major divisions), Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. We teach about the development of the Christian church from its earliest days, up through the split between East and West, and we spend a lot of time on the Reformation. We teach about the influence Christianity had on people during the Renaissance and, later, during the founding of the American colonies. This is all in addition to teaching about the religious ideas of the ancient Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans.

            In fact, for the past twenty-four years, I’ve studied, thought and taught about little else than religion, at least in history class.

            So no: it’s not ironic that I would have some thoughts about Christianity and the hypocrisy of many of its followers, or amusement at the mental games they play to make themselves feel good.

            “I think I explained the purpose of Jesus’ words sufficiently.”

            If you say so…

            • There are no mental gymnastics involved with my beliefs. Yes, Jesus did command his followers to pray behind doors. At the same time, he prayed in public himself. As did his disciples. There was a reason, a purpose behind his statements about praying in public. If you read the context of when and where he was speaking, one of the biggest battles he had to fight was against what was basically the church establishment. Much of what they did was done for show. That’s what Jesus was directing his statements to.

  • Doug Indeap

    Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.

    That the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who once mistakenly supposed they were there and, upon learning of their error, fancy they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. The absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name one of its principles, though, is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional
    principles.

    • Far too many people in America have taken the idea of separation of church and state to a level that was never imagined by the founders of our country. In no way am I proposing that our government push or establish one particular religion over another, but the idea that our government can have nothing to do with religion is simply ludicrous. You can use all the words you want to try to explain and rationalize that idea, but it makes it no less ludicrous.

      • Doug Indeap

        The constitutional separation of church and state does not, as you seem to suppose, mandate that “our government can have nothing to do with religion.” Notwithstanding sometimes lofty rhetoric by courts and commentators about an impenetrable wall of separation, as maintained by the courts, that wall is low and leaky enough to allow various connections between government and religion. Indeed, the exceptions and nuances recognized by the courts can confuse laymen and lawyers alike, occasionally prompting some to question the principle itself, since decisions in various cases may seem contradictory (e.g., depending on the circumstances, sometimes government display of the 10 commandments is okay and sometimes not).

        Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://divinity.wfu.edu/uploads/2011/09/divinity-law-statement.pdf


  • Trackbacks:

Add Comment Register

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>