RFFM.ORG

Separation of Church + State Myth: Founding Fathers' True View On Religion's Role In Government

AUTHORS' NOTE: Recently, a federal judge ruled that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.  The following article was written over a decade ago, after months of research.  The essay details how the term "separation of church and state" has been intentionally misinterpreted by judicial activists.  This has led to the false conception of the constitutional framers' intent regarding religion's role in government and, for proof, the authors voluminously quote from the Founding Fathers themselves, including a reference to a private letter then-President Thomas Jefferson wrote using that phrase.  Since the 1940's, the term "separation of church and state" has been inappropriately manipulated by liberals, including members of the media, educators and the courts to secularize American society.  The article also cites specific court rulings which has led to our nation's departure from Natural Law and the Judeo-Christian ethic on which the United States of America was founded.

 

The Separation of Church and State Myth: The Founding Fathers: Their True View On Religion's Role In Government

by Daniel T. Zanoza + Julia Mary Zanoza

"If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, I would never have placed my signature to it."

-- George Washington --

There is an ever-growing debate in America over the relationship between government and religion. In recent times, Constitutional law, or at least the modern-day interpretation thereof, has moved from one of accommodation concerning religion to a position many call hostile to the expression of personal faith in the public square. From their writings, it's clear the Founding Fathers had strong views on the subject. And though not politically correct, they were prolific in writing about God and nation. After all, 27 out of the 57 men who signed the Declaration of Independence and U. S. Constitution had the modern day equivalent of seminary degrees (extensive studies of Greek, Hebrew and Biblical text). They did not intend for America to be a theocracy, but they certainly believed the nation's laws should be tied to natural laws God created. John Adams, America's second President said, "It is religion and morality, alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand."

The Constitution's framers used the Judeo-Christian ethic as a foundation for this new government. In creating America, they were beginning a unique experiment whereby everyone would be able to practice their religion freely, privately and publicly. Just as important, they also meant for Judeo-Christian principles to under-gird our laws. In another speech, Adams said, "Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of Republicanism and of all free government, but all social felicity under all governments and in all combinations of human society." Many Americans don't realize how adamant the Framers were on these points. Current history books in public schools also neglect to describe how these men thoroughly and diligently studied hundreds of years of civilizations that had come and gone in order to lay down these solid principles.

Much of the debate over this issue stems from the misuse of the phrase "separation of church and state." If asked, most Americans would attribute these words to the U. S. Constitution. In reality, the term does not appear in the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence or any formal United States document. The phrase was extracted from a letter written by then-President Thomas Jefferson in 1802. He was responding to correspondence from the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association.

A quote from the Danbury letter reads, "It is not to be wondered at therefore, that those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow man, (or) should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ."

Jefferson meant to calm their fears by quoting the First Amendment of the Constitution. He wrote them back, saying, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God ... that the legislative powers of government ... should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Jefferson himself took this opportunity to borrow from the well-noted Baptist minister, Roger Williams, who said, "...the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the wall." It's evident the primary intent of the phrase "wall of separation" was to protect the garden of the church from invasion by the state. (However, it must be pointed out that Thomas Jefferson did not sign the Constitution, was not present at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and was out of the country during the discussion over religious freedom within the First Amendment.)

David Barton, founder and Executive Director of Wallbuilders, Inc. and a Constitutional scholar, says the wall was meant to be one-directional. For proof, he cited early court rulings such as Reynolds v. U. S., 1878. The case used Jefferson's letter to prove the one-way nature of the wall. The court ruled government was responsible to enforce civil laws according to Judeo-Christian principles.

Barton goes on to say separation of church and state pertains to denominational differences, not basic Christian mores. For example, a group could not practice human sacrifice claiming Constitutional protection. The court also ruled Mormons could not engage in bigamy or polygamy. Barton concluded by saying the wall kept the government from running the church, but it never separated religious principles from government.

Much can be learned about the intent of the Constitutional framers by a review of the Northwest Ordinance. The draft was prepared by Thomas Jefferson. It was originally approved by Congress July 13, 1787, and re-passed by the Founding Fathers following the U. S. Constitution's ratification. On August 7, 1789, President George Washington signed it into law during the same time Congress was laying down the First Amendment. Article III of this Ordinance states, "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged."

On April 30, 1802, President Jefferson signed the enabling act for Ohio to join the union which said this newest state must agree with the Northwest Ordinance. If Jefferson believed there was a distinct wall of separation between church and state, he would not have ratified this act just months after his letter to the Danbury Baptist group.

Again, it is clear that the Supreme Court, which included men who had created and signed the Constitution, looked upon religious principles as the moral foundation of this early government. When they spoke of religion, it appears they were referring to sects or denominations. This notion is bolstered by the words of Samuel Chase, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a Supreme Court Justice, who said "Religion is of general and public concern and on its proper support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty."

What has led to the modern-day, secular view of the U. S. Constitution? Many people assert the document is subject to change according to cultural whim. However, the amendment process was to be the means by which the Constitution was to undergo this change. Judicial activists have circumvented this procedure, creating laws instead of interpreting them.

The reinterpretation of the religious clauses of the First Amendment can be traced to a court decision in the 1920's, but the roots of this new legal perspective date back to the turn of the century. The humanistic teachings of Charles Darwin, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud cannot be overlooked in the new role of religion in American culture. Subsequently, the beliefs which a society holds dear are reflected in its laws. But some say the shift to a non-theistic translation of the Constitution was begun by a cultural elite that shared little of the values held by the general populace.

Systematically, with the aid of judicial activism, religion has been deleted from the public square. Faith-based education was the first victim of this rush to government-sponsored secularism. One of the earliest court rulings pertaining to religion within the establishment clause, in this new Constitutional vision, occurred in the Supreme Court case, Everson v. Board of Education, 1947. For the first time, Jefferson's words were used in a totally unique context. By a 5-4 vote, the nations highest court ruled, "From the period of the early settlers, the American people believed that individual religious liberty could be best achieved by a government that was stripped of all power to tax, to support or otherwise to assist any or all religions." Legal scholars have noted this case used zero precedents, therefore abandoning the time-tested practice of common law. In contrast, the aforementioned case of Reynolds v. U. S. used Jefferson's writings concerning church and state to prove quite the opposite. Hence, the foundation was now laid for the assault on the principles held so deeply by the Founding Fathers.

In 1958, a Supreme Court Justice demonstrated prophetic insight in giving his dissenting opinion concerning the case Baer v. Kolmorgen. He warned that the Court must be careful in its usage of the term "separation of church and state" because the public would believe those words appeared within the body of the Constitution. In the future, there might be some who would falsely attribute the phrase to the document itself. This judge truly had a vision of what was to come.

Perhaps the most significant landmark Supreme Court decision on religion and education was Engel v. Vitale, 1962. The court said that a verbal prayer in school is unconstitutional even if it is both voluntary and denominationally neutral. The ruling opened the legal floodgates in the rush to remove religion from public schools. This case had a far-reaching effect on the culture of an entire nation as well.

In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in a classroom. The court used this rationale: If the Commandments are present in the classroom, someone might read them. If someone reads them, they might then act accordingly. And if they act accordingly, this violates the constitutional wall between state and religion.

These and other monumental court decisions were a result of an ever-growing barrier between church and state which, in turn, changed the way a nation lived. Rulings on issues such as abortion and pornography became possible in this atmosphere of moral relativism. Constitutional revisionists exclude morality from the legal equation. The state itself becomes the final arbiter between right and wrong.

However, it is evident the Founding Fathers felt a need to prescribe to a higher level of virtue. It can be argued that the reason the United States has thrived stems from the Framers reverence for something beyond humanity.

The false perception of the Constitutional framers as non-religious continues. This social and legal parallax is reinforced among the nation’s youth. A videotape entitled "Myths America," shown in some public schools, described the Founding Fathers as atheists who saw religion playing little or no role in their vision of a democratic republic. It also must be noted that prior to World War II, speeches such as George Washington's farewell address, which was heavy in references to God and government, appeared in most American textbooks. However, from the 1940's onward, his commentary has been deleted from history texts, helping to create a radically altered secular perception of the Founders.

It is safe to say modern America is no longer looked upon as a Christian nation by many people. The age-old question of what came first, the chicken or the egg, is entirely applicable in the discussion of religion and American government and, to a greater extent, American culture. It can be reasonably asserted that the purely secular perception of the law has revamped American society. It can be argued that this non-theistic culture is a direct result of post-modernisms influence on the United States judiciary, a perfect example of cause and effect.

Today, the very nature of law prohibits cases from being argued solely by looking at the intent of the nation's Founders. Some, who hold a constructionist view of law, admit that in the 1960's, '70s and early '80s, cases were tried poorly by conservative jurists, leading to many of the rulings handed down by state and federal courts.

The American social landscape bears little resemblance to the late 18th century. The country is no longer a melting pot, instead succumbing to the philosophy of multiculturalism which divided Americans along racial, ethnic and other cultural lines. Judicial activism has helped delete the homogenous nature of society by using the courts to advance this way of thinking.

The Founding Fathers intent was clear. They saw natural law as a fundamental component of a democratic republic. For over 150 years, the courts not only supported this vision, but also made religious liberty an integral factor in the interpretation of law. But the ever-narrowing approach to religious rights, guaranteed by the First Amendment, has had profound results. Legal revisionism has distorted a sacred legacy.

In his farewell speech, George Washington stated, "Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens." Our first President also said, "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion."

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact [email protected]

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.

How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:
http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html

by Daniel T. Zanoza + Julia Mary Zanoza

"If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, I would never have placed my signature to it."

-- George Washington --

There is an ever-growing debate in America over the relationship between government and religion. In recent times, Constitutional law, or at least the modern-day interpretation thereof, has moved from one of accommodation concerning religion to a position many call hostile to the expression of personal faith in the public square. From their writings, it's clear the Founding Fathers had strong views on the subject. And though not politically correct, they were prolific in writing about God and nation. After all, 27 out of the 57 men who signed the Declaration of Independence and U. S. Constitution had the modern day equivalent of seminary degrees (extensive studies of Greek, Hebrew and Biblical text). They did not intend for America to be a theocracy, but they certainly believed the nation's laws should be tied to natural laws God created. John Adams, America's second President said, "It is religion and morality, alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand."

The Constitution's framers used the Judeo-Christian ethic as a foundation for this new government. In creating America, they were beginning a unique experiment whereby everyone would be able to practice their religion freely, privately and publicly. Just as important, they also meant for Judeo-Christian principles to under-gird our laws. In another speech, Adams said, "Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of Republicanism and of all free government, but all social felicity under all governments and in all combinations of human society." Many Americans don't realize how adamant the Framers were on these points. Current history books in public schools also neglect to describe how these men thoroughly and diligently studied hundreds of years of civilizations that had come and gone in order to lay down these solid principles.

Much of the debate over this issue stems from the misuse of the phrase "separation of church and state." If asked, most Americans would attribute these words to the U. S. Constitution. In reality, the term does not appear in the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence or any formal United States document. The phrase was extracted from a letter written by then-President Thomas Jefferson in 1802. He was responding to correspondence from the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association.

A quote from the Danbury letter reads, "It is not to be wondered at therefore, that those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow man, (or) should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ."

Jefferson meant to calm their fears by quoting the First Amendment of the Constitution. He wrote them back, saying, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God ... that the legislative powers of government ... should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Jefferson himself took this opportunity to borrow from the well-noted Baptist minister, Roger Williams, who said, "...the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the wall." It's evident the primary intent of the phrase "wall of separation" was to protect the garden of the church from invasion by the state. (However, it must be pointed out that Thomas Jefferson did not sign the Constitution, was not present at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and was out of the country during the discussion over religious freedom within the First Amendment.)

David Barton, founder and Executive Director of Wallbuilders, Inc. and a Constitutional scholar, says the wall was meant to be one-directional. For proof, he cited early court rulings such as Reynolds v. U. S., 1878. The case used Jefferson's letter to prove the one-way nature of the wall. The court ruled government was responsible to enforce civil laws according to Judeo-Christian principles.

Barton goes on to say separation of church and state pertains to denominational differences, not basic Christian mores. For example, a group could not practice human sacrifice claiming Constitutional protection. The court also ruled Mormons could not engage in bigamy or polygamy. Barton concluded by saying the wall kept the government from running the church, but it never separated religious principles from government.

Much can be learned about the intent of the Constitutional framers by a review of the Northwest Ordinance. The draft was prepared by Thomas Jefferson. It was originally approved by Congress July 13, 1787, and re-passed by the Founding Fathers following the U. S. Constitution's ratification. On August 7, 1789, President George Washington signed it into law during the same time Congress was laying down the First Amendment. Article III of this Ordinance states, "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged."

On April 30, 1802, President Jefferson signed the enabling act for Ohio to join the union which said this newest state must agree with the Northwest Ordinance. If Jefferson believed there was a distinct wall of separation between church and state, he would not have ratified this act just months after his letter to the Danbury Baptist group.

Again, it is clear that the Supreme Court, which included men who had created and signed the Constitution, looked upon religious principles as the moral foundation of this early government. When they spoke of religion, it appears they were referring to sects or denominations. This notion is bolstered by the words of Samuel Chase, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a Supreme Court Justice, who said "Religion is of general and public concern and on its proper support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty."

What has led to the modern-day, secular view of the U. S. Constitution? Many people assert the document is subject to change according to cultural whim. However, the amendment process was to be the means by which the Constitution was to undergo this change. Judicial activists have circumvented this procedure, creating laws instead of interpreting them.

The reinterpretation of the religious clauses of the First Amendment can be traced to a court decision in the 1920's, but the roots of this new legal perspective date back to the turn of the century. The humanistic teachings of Charles Darwin, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud cannot be overlooked in the new role of religion in American culture. Subsequently, the beliefs which a society holds dear are reflected in its laws. But some say the shift to a non-theistic translation of the Constitution was begun by a cultural elite that shared little of the values held by the general populace.

Systematically, with the aid of judicial activism, religion has been deleted from the public square. Faith-based education was the first victim of this rush to government-sponsored secularism. One of the earliest court rulings pertaining to religion within the establishment clause, in this new Constitutional vision, occurred in the Supreme Court case, Everson v. Board of Education, 1947. For the first time, Jefferson's words were used in a totally unique context. By a 5-4 vote, the nations highest court ruled, "From the period of the early settlers, the American people believed that individual religious liberty could be best achieved by a government that was stripped of all power to tax, to support or otherwise to assist any or all religions." Legal scholars have noted this case used zero precedents, therefore abandoning the time-tested practice of common law. In contrast, the aforementioned case of Reynolds v. U. S. used Jefferson's writings concerning church and state to prove quite the opposite. Hence, the foundation was now laid for the assault on the principles held so deeply by the Founding Fathers.

In 1958, a Supreme Court Justice demonstrated prophetic insight in giving his dissenting opinion concerning the case Baer v. Kolmorgen. He warned that the Court must be careful in its usage of the term "separation of church and state" because the public would believe those words appeared within the body of the Constitution. In the future, there might be some who would falsely attribute the phrase to the document itself. This judge truly had a vision of what was to come.

Perhaps the most significant landmark Supreme Court decision on religion and education was Engel v. Vitale, 1962. The court said that a verbal prayer in school is unconstitutional even if it is both voluntary and denominationally neutral. The ruling opened the legal floodgates in the rush to remove religion from public schools. This case had a far-reaching effect on the culture of an entire nation as well.

In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in a classroom. The court used this rationale: If the Commandments are present in the classroom, someone might read them. If someone reads them, they might then act accordingly. And if they act accordingly, this violates the constitutional wall between state and religion.

These and other monumental court decisions were a result of an ever-growing barrier between church and state which, in turn, changed the way a nation lived. Rulings on issues such as abortion and pornography became possible in this atmosphere of moral relativism. Constitutional revisionists exclude morality from the legal equation. The state itself becomes the final arbiter between right and wrong.

However, it is evident the Founding Fathers felt a need to prescribe to a higher level of virtue. It can be argued that the reason the United States has thrived stems from the Framers reverence for something beyond humanity.

The false perception of the Constitutional framers as non-religious continues. This social and legal parallax is reinforced among the nation’s youth. A videotape entitled "Myths America," shown in some public schools, described the Founding Fathers as atheists who saw religion playing little or no role in their vision of a democratic republic. It also must be noted that prior to World War II, speeches such as George Washington's farewell address, which was heavy in references to God and government, appeared in most American textbooks. However, from the 1940's onward, his commentary has been deleted from history texts, helping to create a radically altered secular perception of the Founders.

It is safe to say modern America is no longer looked upon as a Christian nation by many people. The age-old question of what came first, the chicken or the egg, is entirely applicable in the discussion of religion and American government and, to a greater extent, American culture. It can be reasonably asserted that the purely secular perception of the law has revamped American society. It can be argued that this non-theistic culture is a direct result of post-modernisms influence on the United States judiciary, a perfect example of cause and effect.

Today, the very nature of law prohibits cases from being argued solely by looking at the intent of the nation's Founders. Some, who hold a constructionist view of law, admit that in the 1960's, '70s and early '80s, cases were tried poorly by conservative jurists, leading to many of the rulings handed down by state and federal courts.

The American social landscape bears little resemblance to the late 18th century. The country is no longer a melting pot, instead succumbing to the philosophy of multiculturalism which divided Americans along racial, ethnic and other cultural lines. Judicial activism has helped delete the homogenous nature of society by using the courts to advance this way of thinking.

The Founding Fathers intent was clear. They saw natural law as a fundamental component of a democratic republic. For over 150 years, the courts not only supported this vision, but also made religious liberty an integral factor in the interpretation of law. But the ever-narrowing approach to religious rights, guaranteed by the First Amendment, has had profound results. Legal revisionism has distorted a sacred legacy.

In his farewell speech, George Washington stated, "Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens." Our first President also said, "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion."

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact [email protected]

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.

How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:
http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html

Mark Kirk, A Homosexual? GOP U.S. Senate Opponent Andy Martin's Radio Ads Open Can Of Political Worms

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

Ever since Mark Kirk announced his campaign seeking the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois currently held by Roland Burris there have been many "rumors" regarding Kirk's sexual preferences.  Indeed, these "rumors" have been around for years concerning Mark Kirk, but they have been dismissed because of Kirk's relatively low political profile.  Journalistically, it would have been irresponsible of me to go with the story for a number of reasons. 

 

Some have asked me why I did not address the allegations Kirk was possibly a homosexual and, for any honest journalist, the answer should be obvious.  My reply was:  If someone comes to me with incriminating evidence regarding Kirk's sexuality, I would consider it a story.  It would take an individual coming forward with photos, videotapes, and/or communications back and forth indicating a homosexual relationship which Kirk took place in.  My standards would have been very high before running with the story.  Of course, this is in contrast to modern day journalism which has abandoned the true tenets of the profession.  However, in many cases, the tabloids, including the National Enquirer, have been more accurate in their coverage of controversial issues.  This is a sad statement when the tabloid press can be trusted more than the mainstream media.  Yes, the tabloids have stories about UFO abductions, wild conspiracy theories and other issues meant to titillate the public. 

 

However, in recent years, the mainstream media has sold its soul to political correctness, a left wing political agenda and what I call journalism by omission.  For example, it took two individuals barely out of college to break the story which exposed the corruption within ACORN.  Charlie Gibson, the former anchor of ABC News, when asked about the allegations of widespread corruption uncovered by the two twenty-something's responded by chuckling and saying, "we'll leave that story to cable."  Gibson was inferring, for obvious political reasons, that the serious allegations surrounding ACORN had no merit. 

 

Most Americans now agree the dominant media has a clear political agenda which led to the election of Barack Obama and, until this day, does its best to cover up stories that might reflect poorly on the Obama administration. 

 

On Monday, December 28, 2009, Andy Martin, a candidate seeking the Republican senatorial nomination, created a firestorm when he brought the question regarding Mark Kirk's possible homosexuality to public light.  Martin's radio ads are now running across the state and the subject matter of "rumors" about Kirk's alleged homosexuality went viral.  In essence, Martin used a statement by a supporter of one of his Republican political opponents to breach the issue of the "rumors" which have dogged Kirk for years from GOP political insiders.  The "rumors" of U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk's sexual preferences have been percolating just under the surface of the political ether.  What Martin's ad accomplished is to force Kirk to address the subject.

 

Kirk, a U.S. Naval Intelligence Officer, is currently on active duty, which is very convenient for him in many ways.  Being unavailable for comment, it allows his campaign team time to figure out a strategy to combat these allegations of homosexuality which, if true, would doom his U.S. Senate bid. 

 

Yes, I know, what consenting adults do behind closed doors is something that has become sacrosanct in a politically correct world.  At least that is the mainstream media's take on the subject, especially when it applies to Democrats.  Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) actually lived in a home in which his same-sex partner was running a brothel for homosexuals.  This is a fact, not a rumor, but if it were a Republican who was caught up in a similar situation, he would have disappeared from the political scene years ago. 

 

Many agree the dominant media would like to see Mark Kirk win the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate.  Kirk, who languished in virtual anonymity since he replaced long time Republican incumbent John Porter as the U.S. Representative for Illinois' 10th Congressional District, has suddenly received an inordinate amount of attention from the dominant press both in Illinois and nationally.  Kirk, who is currently in his fifth term in the U.S. House of Reps., is widely portrayed as the clear frontrunner in the GOP primary for the U.S. Senate by the liberal mainstream media. 

 

However, Kirk has come under withering fire from Illinois Republicans regarding his voting record.  Yet clearly in violation of political protocol, individuals, including Illinois GOP Chairman Pat Brady, have openly endorsed Kirk's candidacy and encouraged Party leaders to follow suit.  In actuality, the Republican establishment should not endorse a candidate before the Party's primary which, in this case, is on February 2nd of 2010.  Brady should be neutral in this process, but there have been numerous circumstances when Kirk has been the obvious recipient of the Republican establishment's largesse.  Kirk was even endorsed by national GOP Party Chairman Michael Steele, who later backed off his support for Kirk, after learning of the widespread animosity levied towards Kirk by both fiscal and social conservative Republicans in Illinois. 

 

Kirk now finds himself in an untenable position.  If Kirk came forward and admitted he is a homosexual, he would be in clear violation of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals openly serving as a member of the U.S. Armed Forces.  Therefore, Kirk is painted in a political corner concerning this situation.  Now that the question is out there regarding his sexual preferences, if Kirk is a homosexual, he cannot tell the truth because if he would do so, it would end his career in the Navy and essentially end his status as a viable candidate in Illinois' U.S. Senate race--no matter how tolerant American society is supposed to be regarding the subject of homosexuality. 

 

Subsequently, one can look at Kirk's situation as being analogous from a legal perspective rather than the political.  Can circumstantial evidence answer the questions which now haunt the minds of many Republican voters in Illinois regarding the "rumors" of Kirk's possible homosexual lifestyle? 

 

Kirk's Voting Record On Issues Related To Homosexuality

 

How has Kirk voted on issues regarding legislation such as the recent hate crime bill signed into law by Barack Obama?  Kirk was one of a handful of Republicans who openly supported a bill which might one day restrict First Amendment speech about the issue of homosexuality.  For example, in some nations, under penalty of law, ministers can no longer quote Holy Scripture and the writings therein, citing homosexuality as an abomination to God.  Many who are critical of the hate crimes law believe the slippery slope theory will one day take effect in the United States as well and those who oppose homosexuality on religious and moral grounds will be subject to fine and/or imprisonment. 

 

Kirk is also a co-sponsor of ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act), legislation pending in the U.S. House of Reps. and the Senate that, if passed, would ban discrimination in the workplace based on a person's sexual orientation.  ENDA would also protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual individuals.  The bill would protect this group from discriminatory hiring, firing, promotion or compensation practices, as well as retaliation for reporting such practices. 

 

The main sponsor of the House bill (H.R. 3017) is Barney Frank, an open homosexual with a radical agenda.  Mark Kirk is only one of two Republicans who are co-sponsors of the legislation in Illinois, along with Judy Biggert (R-Naperville).  Other Illinois U.S. Reps. who are co-sponsors of the bill include Danny Davis (D-Chicago), Bill Foster (D-St. Charles), Phil Hare (D-Belleville), Jesse Jackson (D-Chicago), Debbie Halvorson (D-Kankakee), Mike Quigley (D-Oak Park), Bobby Rush (D-Chicago) and Jane Schakowsky (D-Chicago).

 

In Illinois, Democratic Senators Roland Burris and Dick Durbin are co-sponsors of a version of the House bill (S.1584) which is virtually the same legislation.

 

Kirk has also been a favorite of Log Cabin Republicans, a single-issue organization devoted to the promotion of the radical homosexual agenda.  They have supported Kirk throughout his entire political career.  One must look for the quid pro quo regarding the Log Cabin Republicans endorsement of Mark Kirk. 

 

Soon, the Obama administration will make an effort to rescind the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy which currently exists regarding members of the U.S. Armed Forces.  Obama made this promise during the run up to his election to the presidency in 2008.  The "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, which was first put in place by the Clinton administration, would essentially allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military.  This would be a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and it would take an act of Congress to change federal law regarding this issue which is clearly a priority on Obama's agenda. 

 

Many political observers believe the current administration will attempt to lift the restrictions on homosexuals openly serving in the U.S. Armed Forces after the health care reform bill is either passed or defeated and Obama makes an effort to ram through Cap and Trade legislation--which many experts agree would devastate America's already depressed economy.  Mark Kirk was one of eight Republicans who voted for Cap and Trade in the House of Reps. which passed the legislative body earlier this year.  After receiving devastating criticism from the Republican faithful, Kirk now says he would change his vote on Cap and Trade--if he had the chance to vote on the legislation again.

 

But the underlying question is:  Has Kirk promised groups, including the Log Cabin Republicans, that he would support Obama's rescinding of the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy which is currently in force. 

 

Finally, Mark Kirk is the only Republican seeking the nomination for the U.S. Senate from Illinois who did not fill out a questionnaire from the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) for use in the not-for-profit group's non-partisan voter guides.  Some of the questions addressed on the pro-family organization's questionnaire which Kirk refused to fill out involved his position on legislation which will directly have influence on pending bills directly related to the homosexual agenda. 

 

Certainly, this is all circumstantial evidence which does not prove Kirk is a homosexual.  But, right or wrong, reasonable individuals may connect the dots on the issues, since the question of Kirk's sexual preferences have come to light. 

 

The Mainstream Media's Agenda 

 

Why would the liberal mainstream media want Mark Kirk to win the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in Illinois?  After all, the dominant press has also been well aware of the allegations regarding Kirk's possible homosexuality for years.  In Washington, D.C., the allegations regarding Kirk's sexuality are an open secret.  In essence, liberal members of the dominant press would not pursue the issue concerning Kirk's sexuality--until he would have won the GOP nomination.  But it is a fait accompli that if Kirk wins the Illinois Republican primary and becomes the Party's candidate in the 2010 general election for the U.S. Senate, Kirk's Democratic opponent, whoever that may be, would be aided by the liberal press who would doggedly pursue the "rumors" in search of evidence regarding Kirk's sexual preferences.  If the allegations are proven to be true, this would virtually guarantee a Democratic victory in an election year when the Democratic Party is widely predicted to suffer huge losses in the Senate and, especially, the House of Representatives. 

 

Moral & Political Implications

 

But there is a question that looms over this issue like the Sword of Damocles.  I personally believe what consenting adults do behind closed doors is between them and God.  However, this moral and Biblical standard does not apply when it comes to those seeking political office.  It would be naive to believe one's personal behavior would not bleed over into their duties as an elected official who has been given the authority to represent their constituency.  After all, Kirk himself admits he voted in favor of Cap and Trade because this, supposedly, represented the views of those in Illinois' 10th Congressional District. 

 

If Kirk is indeed a homosexual, it would be reasonable to suggest he would have empathy concerning the homosexual agenda which impacts not only Illinois, but our nation as well.  If elected to the Senate, Kirk would be given the power to sponsor, endorse and eventually vote for issues which are not consistent with both the state and national Republican Party platforms.  Therefore, the question regarding whether or not Kirk is a homosexual is germane.

 

The political realities regarding the subject of homosexuality breached in Andy Martin's radio ads bring into serious question whether Kirk is indeed the frontrunner for the GOP nomination to the U.S. Senate in Illinois, no matter what the state's Republican establishment or the mainstream media says concerning the issue. 

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]   

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

If William Kelly Does Not Understand Simple Facts About Displays In Illinois State Capitol Building, How Can He Be Comptroller For Entire State?

Kelly says: "There is a lot of false information coming out about what happened yesterday."  He's right...and it's coming from Kelly.

 

by RFFM.org staff writer

 

On Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009 GOP candidate for Illinois state comptroller, William J. Kelly, attempted to remove a sign placed in the state capitol Rotunda by the Madison, Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation.  A statement on Kelly's website reads, "As a candidate for comptroller, I believe it is absolutely wrong for Illinois’ officials to be spending tax dollars to denigrate and mock good people of faith." 

 

Critics say William Kelly was attempting to use the Springfield Nativity Scene display for his own political agenda.  Kelly's actions were not spontaneous.  RFFM.org learned Kelly issued a press release on December 22, 2009 which read, "GOP candidate for comptroller, William J. Kelly, plans to remove the American Civil Liberty Union’s atheist display at the Illinois Capitol in Springfield, Illinois."

 

Clearly, from the beginning, Kelly did not have his facts in order regarding exactly what was on display in the Illinois state capitol Rotunda building.  Standing in the center of the state capitol floor was a Nativity scene sponsored by the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee.  There was a Hanukkah Menorah also on exhibit; a sign from the Illinois Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union supporting the right of these religious displays to stand in the state capitol; and an easel which related a message from a group of pagans posing as atheists which call themselves the Freedom From Religion Foundation.  It is obvious Kelly did not actually know who put up the displays in the capitol Rotunda and which groups said what on their signage.  According to his own press release, Kelly originally intended to abscond with the ACLU sign which actually supported the right of the religious displays to stand in the capitol. 

 

Most egregious is the fact Mr. Kelly says, "...it is absolutely wrong for Illinois’ officials to be spending tax dollars..."  The truth of the matter is all of the displays in the state Capitol Rotunda are privately funded.  That's what makes them legal.  This, plus the fact all the displays are temporary demonstrates Kelly acted without possession of the facts involving why the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee was able to erect a Nativity scene for the second year in a row.  The only money Illinois taxpayers spent regarding the displays was the cost involving the 15 law enforcement officers who escorted Kelly out of the Rotunda, before briefly detaining him to write up an incident report. 

 

If Kelly was not in possession of the simple facts regarding his blatant attempt to attract publicity, especially the economic aspects of the issue, some critics ask: "How could Kelly be comptroller for the entire state of Illinois?" 

 

In a phone conversation with Daniel T. Zanoza, Chairman of the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee, Kelly said, "We won't let them take the Nativity scene out of the state capitol building." 

 

"I was stunned," said Zanoza, "I asked Kelly whether he was running for state comptroller, Secretary of State or Governor.  Even if Kelly was elected state comptroller, Kelly would have no input into who could or could not obtain a permit to place a display in the state capitol building.  It was a foolish boast, but I genuinely had compassion for the man because he was so ill-informed."

 

Zanoza went on to say he is happy this year's display of the Nativity scene went on virtually without a hitch.  Thousands of people came to the capitol Rotunda to see the Nativity scene.  One committee member told me she was nearly brought to tears when she saw a family, consisting of a Father, Mother and three young children who were viewing the statues of Joseph, Mary and the Christ child.  A five year old, the oldest of the children, said, "I love baby Jesus!"  With a loving smile, the Father looked at his son and said, "I love baby Jesus, too!"   

 

"This is what the Nativity scene is all about," said Zanoza.  "It is a celebration of the birth of Christ.  It's truly unfortunate there are those who put their own agenda above others."

 

Zanoza says the Springfield, Illinois Nativity scene is not about controversy.  The actions of individuals like Mr. Kelly is what led to officials in the state of Washington prohibiting all groups from displaying any exhibits--religious or otherwise--in that state's capitol building in Olympia.  

 

"I'm kind of glad the Nativity scene is coming down for this Christmas season," said Zanoza.  "We don't need individuals like Kelly ruining something wonderful for their own selfish political purposes." 

 

RELATED ARTICLES: 

 

Illinois State Comptroller Candidate William J. Kelly Uses Springfield Nativity Scene For Publicity Stunt:  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/12/illinois-state-comptroller-candidate-william-j-kelly-uses-springfield-nativity-scene-for-publicity-s.html 

 

State Journal-Register article by Bernie Schoenburg: Surely he jests:  http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x1136811925/Bernard-Schoenburg-Hoffman-Giannoulias-duel-over-Bright-Start-accord 

 

ACLU Again Not Challenging Springfield, Illinois Nativity Scene: Isn't That Special! It Is: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/11/aclu-again-not-challenging-springfield-illinois-nativity-scene-isnt-that-special-it-is.html 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Springfield Nativity Scene Represents America's Legacy Regarding Judeo-Christian Heritage

By Beth Rogers

Speech Tells How Nation's Leaders Perceived The Role Christianity Has Played In U.S. History

 

Beth Rogers of Springfield is a highly respected pro-family activist.  The following speech was given at the Second Annual Opening Day Ceremony of the Springfield Nativity Scene in the Illinois state Capitol Rotunda Building on December 1, 2009.  Rogers is also a member of the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee.  

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

I will begin by reading from a public document from the Preamble of the Illinois State Constitution, “We the people of the State of Illinois grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing upon our endeavors in order to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the people to maintain a representative and orderly government. “

 

We have gathered here today to celebrate a long standing tradition and to exercise First Amendment rights of the United States Constitution.  The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.  The Constitution was signed 'in the year of our Lord 1787'".  For the second year in a row, the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee has sponsored a display depicting the birth of Jesus Christ.  This display stands in accordance with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which provides for such religious expression in the public square.

 

The birth of Christ was over 2,000 years ago and the Christmas tradition has been around long before our nation was founded.  The tradition continued in the United States even as President George Washington’s family celebrated Christmas.

 

There is an historical significance of Christmas because of the major role that Christianity has played in our heritage and history.  The majority of our Founding Fathers had a Christian worldview.  This is evidenced in their many references to God and the Holy Scriptures.  Thomas Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and source of our inalienable rights.  For over 200 years, our past presidents have taken their oath of office on the Bible.  Even President Barrack Obama took his oath on Abraham Lincoln’s personal Bible.  Abraham Lincoln made many references to God.  He said, “The Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man.”  This book contains the story of the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem, his life and his death on a cross.  When the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum and Library opened in Springfield in 2005, one of the songs that was sung in the public square was "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." The fourth verse in this song says:  

 

“In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,

With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me,

As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,

While God is marching on."

 

There is evidence of the role of faith throughout our American history.

 

From at least 1789 there is an unbroken history of official acknowledgement of God by all three branches of our government.

 

1.  Our Presidents have had prayer and acknowledgements of God.

 

2.  Congress opens with prayer.

 

3.  Since 1789 the Supreme Court opens its business with the words, “God save the United States and this honorable court.”

 

There are numerous examples in Washington, D.C. of an undeniable link between the U.S. government and God--from U.S. Currency to the government buildings.  The Supreme Court has the Ten Commandments inscribed in four places.  The Washington Monument includes a Bible in its cornerstone.  The White House, Library of Congress and the Jefferson Memorial all have references to God.  This is evidence that our forefathers believed in God and biblical principles.

 

CHRISTMAS

 

Christmas is a federal holiday with a SPECIFIC NAME.

 

The Supreme Court has acknowledged that government has long recognized holidays with religious significance such as Christmas.

 

The United States post office has issued stamps with Mary & Jesus with the words “Christmas” on the stamp.  The stamp highlights a detail of Italian artist Salvi's painting, "Madonna and Child," circa 1685.

 

The true meaning of Christmas offers the message about the birth of Jesus Christ who came to earth to die for the sins of mankind.  We pray thousands will join in this celebration and enjoy the beauty and majesty of the Christmas story.  In the spirit of tradition and honoring our eternal Creator, we wish you a very Merry Christmas.

 

RELATED ARTICLE:  Separation of Church + State Myth: Founding Fathers' True View On Religion's Role In Government:  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/09/the-separation-of-church-and-state-myth-the-founding-fathers-their-true-view-on-religions-role-in-government.html 

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Illinois State Comptroller Candidate William J. Kelly Uses Springfield Nativity Scene For Publicity Stunt

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Chairman, Springfield Nativity Scene Committee

& Executive Director, RFFM.org

In 2008, there was a great deal of controversy involving a Nativity scene which stood in the capitol building in the state of Washington.  The heated controversy created by both those supporting and opposing the religious display in Olympia reached such a crescendo, state officials decided to throw all of them out.  The Nativity scene standing in the Washington state capitol, the signs opposing it, a Menorah celebrating Hanukkah, signs opposing the expression of religious liberty and the crowds demonstrating against each other were just too much trouble for state officials.  Subsequently, those who desired to express religious liberty and their opponents were told they could do so, but outside the confines of the Capitol building.  This resulted in the individual who purchased the Nativity scene donating the display to a church and those on the far left ended up winning the battle in Washington state.

On December 1st 2008, the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee (SNSC), received permission from the Secretary of State's office to display a Nativity scene, for the first time in state history, in the state Capitol Rotunda Building.  The opening day ceremony attracted a great deal of media and the religious display attracted those with dissenting opinions regarding the expression of religious liberty in the public square as well.

This year, a standing room only crowd attended the 2nd annual opening day ceremony for the Springfield Nativity Scene.  It was a wonderful event.  The Joyful Senior Singers + Ringers from the Tabernacle Baptist Church in Decatur performed Christmas carols.  State employees, who were on their lunch breaks, watched the event, some singing along with the choir, others were just enjoying the spirit of the Christmas season.

Again, this year, there was a Hanukkah Menorah and a sign from the Illinois ACLU supporting the First Amendment right of the SNSC to display the manger scene depicting Joseph, Mary and the baby Jesus.  And, once again, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, put up a placard disparaging people of faith.

But, unfortunately, William J. Kelly, who is seeking the Republican nomination for state comptroller, decided--on his own--to use the Nativity Scene as a publicity stunt to advance his political campaign.  I spoke with Kelly after learning of his prank and I questioned his motives for attempting to remove the atheist signage from the state Capitol Rotunda.  "The sign is hate speech," said Kelly "and I decided it shouldn't be there."  Now I had never spoken with this man before.  He made no effort to join the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee.  He did not make a donation to the SNSC or to the Chicago-based Thomas More Society who originally underwrote the Nativity Scene display.  And, to my knowledge, he had no contact with the Illinois Family Institute, Business Men In Christ or Isringhausen Imports of Springfield who financially supported this year's Nativity Scene.  Mr. Kelly did not attend the opening day "unveiling" ceremony this year or last.  But he took it upon himself to generate publicity for his own personal political agenda.

I wish I didn't have to write this because the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee members agreed we were not looking for controversy.  Indeed, we are blessed because Illinois is the only state which has a Nativity Scene standing in its state capitol.

In 20 years of working to advance the cause of the pro-family movement, I have learned there are those who genuinely care about the issues they spend so much of their time and money supporting.  Unfortunately, there are also those who are opportunists who jump on the pro-family bandwagon to advance their own agenda.  It is apparent Mr. Kelly represents the latter.  Just imagine if someone walked into the state Capitol Rotunda Building, picked up the Nativity scene and started to walk out of the door with it because they don't agree with the fact it is there.  This is exactly what Kelly did when he tried to remove the atheist group's signage--which I personally believe is repugnant, but they have the same First Amendment right to be there as we do.

In fact, last year, the atheist sign was stolen after hours and the organization played up the incident to their advantage, saying it was a demonstration of Christian intolerance.  Kelly's actions played right into the hands of those who oppose the right of Christians to express their faith in the public square.  Kelly apologized to me for his actions and it is a possibility he acted before he thought.  But one thing's for sure.  He knew he would get publicity and his campaign manager was touting Kelly's actions to the conservative and mainstream media.  I have learned, he even announced on Tuesday this was his intent (to come to the Capitol on Wednesday).  Kelly made the news in central Illinois, in Chicago and the story was even briefly alluded to on the O'Reilly Factor on FOX News.

Last year, after the Joyful Senior Singers + Ringers choir from Decatur performed near the Nativity scene, they acted in a Christlike manner regarding the atheist signage.  They made a circle around the sign, holding hands while they prayed for those whose hearts and minds shut the Lord out of their lives.  I believe this is how Christians should act.  In fact, it is an answer to the question:  What Would Jesus Do?

But Kelly acted selfishly, not thinking about the possible ramifications of his actions beyond his own political agenda.  Of course, the media ran to the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation for comment.  The dominant media did not come to me as Chairman of the SNSC or to any other members of the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee for our reaction to Kelly's political prank.  Did Kelly honestly believe he was going to be allowed to walk out the door of the Capitol Rotunda, carrying away one of the displays on exhibit in the center of the capitol floor?  The fact is, in order to view the atheist sign, one must walk behind the Nativity scene.  The message on the sign is hostile and the co-president of the Wisconsin-based atheist group admits as much.  I personally believe the atheist signage publicly demonstrates intolerance and hatred and people should see it as it stands in juxtaposition to the message of love, forgiveness and hope which the Nativity scene represents.

As a Christian, I accepted Mr. Kelly's apology.  But, at the same time, I question his judgment.  The Nativity scene is NOT about controversy.  It is a celebration of the birth of the Savior of mankind.  It is not a political tool to be used by anyone, no matter how conservative they claim to be.  As Chairman of the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee, my message to the atheist group is clear.  I did not--and do not--support the actions of Kelly.  I would also like to let the Secretary of State's office and the Capitol Police know the SNSC does not support such actions.  In fact, we abhor them.

Merry Christmas, Mr. Kelly.  May God bless you and keep you well.

And thanks to the hundreds of people who helped support the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee in many ways. 

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL from the SPRINGFIELD NATIVITY SCENE COMMITTEE.

Related article:  Choir Performing at Site of Springfield Nativity Scene Wows Overflow Crowd at Capitol, Despite Presence of Offensive Atheist Signage by Dan Gura (SNSC member) posted 12/12/08   http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/12/choir-performing-at-site-of-springfield-nativity-scene-wows-overflow-crowd-at-capitol-despite-presen.html

Photo from 2008

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]  

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Snopes.com Info on Best Buy's Christmas Greeting Policy Outdated: Continued Boycott Unfair

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

The other day, my wife and I visited a Best Buy store in the Chicagoland area and were pleasantly surprised.  As we were checking out, the young cashier went out of her way to wish us both a very merry Christmas.  My wife and I were taken aback by the young lady's obvious enjoyment in extending her greeting, to the point it was a topic of conversation as we left the store.

Shortly afterward, I received an e-mail sent out by an individual who was supporting a boycott of Best Buy.  The individual was forwarding an e-mail he had received which, unbeknownst to him, referred to outdated information regarding Best Buy's policy related to Christmas greetings issued by employees (or the lack thereof) to their customers.  The e-mail suggested Best Buy was conducting a war on Christmas, as some retailers are, and the writer said the information was true because he confirmed the information by going to Snopes.com.  He even provided the link to the website which supposedly reports on whether issues are factual or not.  The only problem is, none of the people who forwarded these e-mails--which supported the continued boycott of Best Buy--went to Snopes.com and carefully read the information posted on the site at this link: http://www.snopes.com/politics/christmas/bestbuy.asp. 

Subsequently, I went to Snopes.com to see if Best Buy was indeed not allowing employees to wish customers a merry Christmas.  This was factual, but the only problem was the information was clearly outdated.  The Snopes.com data was posted in 2006 and since then Best Buy has obviously changed its policy.  Now, of course, during my visit to the store, there might have been an entire shift of rogue employees who were putting their jobs on the line and ignoring store policy regarding the prohibition on wishing customers a merry Christmas.  But anyone with common sense would perceive Best Buy had changed its policy regarding the issue, but Snopes.com had failed to update the data it provided in 2006 regarding Best Buy's policy. 

Obviously, the e-mail regarding a continued boycott against Best Buy is unfair.  Also, I was taught a lesson because those who administer the Snopes.com website fail to do their job.  Subsequently, the store is being punished without merit.  This story should be a lesson for all when receiving forwards.  Those who pass such information along to their databases have a duty to confirm the information by contacting the actual source and not depending on Snopes.com as the ultimate purveyor of the truth.

In a time of economic depression, there are those who obviously believe Best Buy is continuing a policy which surely has resulted in the store's loss of revenue.  Perhaps at one time, the boycott of Best Buy regarding its policy towards Christmas greetings had merit.  But, sadly, the retailer is a victim of inaccurate and outdated information.

Right at the top of the Snopes.com website, it clearly states, "Collected via e-mail 2006".  Near the bottom of the same page it reads, "Last updated November 2006".  So, I suppose Snopes.com is blameless, but, at the same time, Snopes.com should be blamed for its omission of current information about Best Buy's current Christmas greeting policy. 

RFFM.org wishes everyone a Merry CHRISTMAS and a new year filled with God's blessings. 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]  

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Springfield Nativity Scene Draws Standing Room Only Crowd to Illinois state Capitol Rotunda Building

On December 1st, 2009, a standing room only crowd attended the second annual opening day ceremony for the Springfield, Illinois Nativity Scene.  The display now stands in the center of the state Capitol Rotunda Building and will be on display throughout the Christmas season.

The Springfield Nativity Scene Committee (SNSC), who coordinated the event, would like to express its deepest appreciation to the Chicago-based Thomas More Society who underwrote the Nativity Scene for the second year in a row.

The SNSC would also like to thank the Illinois Family Institute and Isringhausen Imports of Springfield who were co-sponsors of this year's display.

"It was a wonderful experience," said Dan Zanoza, Chairman of the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee.  "It was exciting to see the public turn out in such great numbers, especially on a work day and, hopefully, those who visit the state Capitol Building in the future will take a moment to view the display depicting the birth of Jesus Christ."

The 25 members of the Joyful Senior Singers & Ringers from Decatur’s Tabernacle Baptist Church, directed by David Cooprider, wowed those in attendance with superb renditions of Christmas carols.

Speeches were given by Thomas Brejcha, SNSC's legal counsel and President of the Thomas More Society; Dan Zanoza; and Beth Rogers, an SNSC member and resident of Springfield.  Rogers referenced America's long standing adherence to the Judeo-Christian ethic, as she reviewed quotes from past presidents--including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln--who spoke of the role faith played in America's history. 

The SNSC would also like to thank volunteers, including Carol Griffith of Springfield--who signed during the event for the deaf and hard of hearing; Rev. Nancy Cahalan of the Grantfork United Church of Christ who gave an invocation which began the noon hour program; Jim Hostetter of Lincoln and Jean Cohoon of Eureka.

In addition, the SNSC would like to express its gratitude to fellow Committee member Pastor Dustin Fulton of the Jefferson Street Christian Church of Lincoln for the church's storing the display and to Everett Crowell (also from Jeff St. Christian Church) for transporting and erecting the Nativity Scene--which was designed and constructed by Karl Fritz and his son Timothy Fritz, master craftsman both of Chicago.

Finally, the SNSC would like to thank the Secretary of State's office for logistic support it offers all groups who desire to express free speech in the public square.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]   

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

RFFM.org's Exec. Dir. Dan Zanoza Discusses Springfield (IL) Nativity Scene & True Spirit of Christmas on Laurie Roth Show

Dr. Laurie Roth to interview Dan Zanoza regarding Springfield, Illinois Nativity Scene and attacks on the free expression of religious liberty in the public square

RFFM.org's Executive Director, Dan Zanoza, will be a guest on the Dr. Laurie Roth Show [www.therothshow.com] on December 3, 2009 between 4 and 5 P.M. Central time.

Broadcast out of Washington state on the IRN-USA Radio Network, Roth's radio talk show is nationally syndicated and "is on a mission to examine the issues based on right and wrong, not party politics."

Zanoza founded RFFM.org nearly 20 years ago.  The organization was formed to encourage objectivity in the mainstream media regarding coverage of social and political issues.  RFFM.org's motto is, "In a democratic republic, good governance is dependent upon an informed citizenry."

Laurie Roth is a hard-charging conservative radio personality.  Roth has broken many national stories, including being the first to detail the relationship between Barack Obama and convicted terrorist William Ayers.  Roth also writes a column for News With Views [www.newswithviews.com].

Roth and Zanoza will discuss the Second Annual Springfield (Illinois) Nativity Scene display.  Zanoza, RFFM.org's Executive Director, is also the Chairman of the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee (SNSC), and will join Roth in a timely discussion regarding the federal holiday of Christmas and the attempts by some to suppress the expression of religious liberty in the public square, guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The Nativity Scene which stands in the Illinois state capitol Rotunda Building is possibly the only such display of its kind in a U.S. government building. 

Last year, the state of Washington had a Nativity Scene inside its state capitol.  However, due to the controversy created by those opposed to such religious displays, the state of Washington has decided to not allow displays of any kind inside its state capitol building, including exhibits concerning all forms of political or religious expression. 

"The Springfield Nativity Scene is even more special because of the decision made in the state of Washington," said Zanoza. 

The Dr. Laurie Roth radio program can be streamed at this link: http://www.usaradio.com/listen_live_usa2.php or go to the web site to see if the program is available in your local area: http://www.therothshow.com/listen07.htm. 
Listeners can call in to the show by dialing 1-877-999-Roth (7684).

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]

Second Annual Springfield (Illinois) Nativity Scene Display to Stand in State Capitol Rotunda Building: Opening Day Ceremony December 1st 2009 between 12 Noon and 1 P.M.

The Springfield Nativity Scene Committee (SNSC) will again erect a Nativity Scene that will stand in Illinois’ state Capitol Rotunda Building.

Opening day ceremonies regarding the Springfield Nativity Scene (SNS) will take place between 12 Noon and 1 P.M. on December 1^st in the state Capitol Rotunda located at South 2nd Street & East Capitol Avenue in Springfield, Illinois.  The public is invited to attend the event.

The Springfield Nativity Scene--which was originally underwritten by the Chicago-based Thomas More Society--is meant to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.  This year the display is co-sponsored by Isringhausen Imports of Springfield and the Illinois Family Institute (IFI).

The SNSC’s Nativity Scene display is also an exercise of liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Previous court rulings have upheld expressions of free speech, including demonstrations of faith, which are legal in the public square, as long as such religious displays are privately-funded.

"The right of private citizens to proclaim their religious faith and faith-based values in the public square was upheld in 1989 when Chief Judge James B. Parsons of the federal district court in Chicago held there could be no discrimination against religious expression on Daley Plaza in Chicago where, ever since, a Nativity Scene has been displayed annually," said Thomas Brejcha, legal counsel for the SNSC and President of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society.  "As political speeches and rallies are commonplace at our State Capitol, free speech rights encompass religious speech on equal terms."

The Joyful Senior Singers & Ringers from Decatur’s Tabernacle Baptist Church will perform during the Noon hour event.  Rev. Nancy Cahalan of the Grantfork United Church of Christ will give the invocation.  Short speeches will be given by Daniel Zanoza, Chairman, SNSC; Thomas Brejcha; David Smith, Executive Director, IFI; and Beth Rogers, a Springfield resident and member of the SNSC.

“This year’s second annual Nativity Scene display is a celebration of Christmas, which is a federal holiday,” said Zanoza.  “In recent years, there has been a clear and blatant attack on our rights to express faith in the public square.  The SNS is not meant to be political in any way.  The Nativity Scene standing in the Illinois state Capitol Building demonstrates religious liberty does not end at the doors of a public building, a school house or anywhere in the public square.”

The Nativity Scene will be on display from Dec. 1st through Christmas.

For more information on the SNS, contact:

Daniel Zanoza: (217) 314-0211

Thomas Brejcha: (312) 782-1680

Or e-mail the SNSC at: [email protected]

Springfield Nativity Scene Committee

Thomas Brejcha, Esq.
Chicago-based Thomas More Society
 
Eunice Conn, Polo
 
Karl Fritz, Chicago 
 
Pastor Dustin Fulton
Jefferson St. Christian Church
Lincoln
 
Daniel Gura, Lake Zurich 
 
State Sen. Chris Lauzen, Aurora
acting as a private citizen

Beth Rogers, Springfield
 
Arlene Sawicki, South Barrington 

David Smith, Illinois Family Institute
 
Julie Zanoza, Lincoln 
 
Daniel T. Zanoza, Chairman

ACLU Again Not Challenging Springfield, Illinois Nativity Scene: Isn't That Special! It Is

Springfield Nativity Scene To Stand In Illinois State Capitol Rotunda Building For Second Year:  ACLU Says It Supports Constitutional Rights To Express Religious Liberty In the Public Square

 

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director of RFFM.org and Chairman of the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee

 

For the second year a row, a Nativity Scene will stand in the state Capitol Rotunda Building in Springfield, Illinois.  Last Christmas season, the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee (SNSC) made history with the financial and legal assistance of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society (TMS) and the support of private donations. 

 

An article written by Kurt Erickson of the Bloomington Pantagraph http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/article_6cb5244a-ad00-11de-be5d-001cc4c002e0.html revealed the Illinois American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had also applied for and was granted a permit which would allow the organization to put up their own display in 2009--which I understand will include a copy of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--which will stand on a table.  I don't know what the ACLU is celebrating and I am not privy to exactly what the ACLU exhibit will look like because they haven't consulted me regarding the issue.  However, I think it is safe to say the ACLU's display will not be celebrating the Christmas season.

 

Last year, in a statement issued to the media, the Illinois ACLU acknowledged they recognized the Constitutionality of the Nativity Scene display.  I'm sure this decision was made because someone within the organization--which many Americans would agree, at every opportunity, has opposed any expression of faith in the public square--has indeed read the First Amendment. 

 

This is why, if, in fact, reports are accurate regarding the ACLU's planned display of the U.S. Constitution and the Establishment Clause therein, I welcome their exhibit and I hope everyone who visits the Nativity Scene will take a moment to read the document which was penned by our nation's Founding Fathers.  Subsequently, I express my appreciation to the ACLU for its "support" of the Springfield Nativity Scene.  Well, I'm sure the ACLU is not exactly writing out a check to financially assist the SNSC and the Nativity Scene display, but it is nice to know this far left-leaning organization understands the Constitution of the United States of America.  Quite frankly, my first reaction when I heard the Illinois ACLU was going to display the First Amendment during this Christmas season, was,  "I wonder if they ever read it?"  Obviously, someone in the ACLU has, although the public would not know it by the organization's relentless attacks on the expression of religious liberty in the public square.  

 

Here is one thing I am sure of.  If the Springfield Nativity Scene--which will stand in a government building--were unconstitutional--the ACLU would definitely have filed a legal challenge to the display by now.  Tom Brejcha, the President of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society http://www.thomasmoresociety.org/ explains why the ACLU is no longer challenging such religious displays.  "The right of private citizens to proclaim their religious faith and faith-based values in the public square was upheld in 1989 when Chief Judge James B. Parsons of the federal district court in Chicago held there could be no discrimination against religious expression on Daley Plaza in Chicago where, ever since, a Nativity Scene has been displayed annually," said Brejcha.  "As political speeches and rallies are commonplace at our State Capitol, free speech rights encompass religious speech on equal terms."

 

The precedent for the Springfield Nativity Scene was first set in a federal court ruling titled, "Grutzmacher vs. Chicago Public Building Commission" in 1989 which stated such displays were constitutional on government property as long as they are supported by private funds. 

 

Many Americans wonder why the ACLU has been successful in their efforts to discourage individuals and groups who express their rights regarding expressions of faith in public venues.  Quite frankly, the ACLU operates primarily through the use of intimidation.  Most individuals or organizations do not have the funds or access to legal representation in order to fight off lawsuits filed by the ACLU or organizations with similar goals like "Americans United for Separation of Church and State."  In fact, there are also good people and groups who do not understand what the Constitution says about the expression of religious liberty in the public square. 

 

I recently attended a pro-family event and spoke with some wonderful people who erected a Nativity Scene display in a small town located in central Illinois.  The lawyers for that town told the group, in order for them to put up a Nativity Scene on public property, they must also sponsor and pay for displays regarding other faiths.  For example, they were inaccurately told they must also put up a Menorah celebrating Hanukkah; something related to the Islamic faith; and possibly a display representing those who have no faith at all.  Again, this is an inaccurate interpretation of the rights we have as citizens of the United States.  Indeed, to make it clear, I welcome the Menorah--which stood in the Illinois Capitol Building in 2008--and I hope the group responsible for that display again erects another in 2009.  However, my point is there are city officials throughout the country who do not understand the rights which made the Springfield Nativity Scene possible. 

 

Therefore, my thanks goes out to the ACLU for its unintentional support of the Springfield, Illinois Nativity Scene which will be officially celebrated in an event on December 1st, 2009 between 12 Noon and 1 P.M.  The official "unveiling" will take place in the state Capitol Rotunda Building and all members of the public are invited and encouraged to attend. 

 

I would also like to express my deepest appreciation for the fair and balanced coverage the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee received from the dominant media in central Illinois.  I originally hail from the Chicagoland area and, upon moving to central Illinois, I quickly learned the press operates under the true tenets of honest journalism in this area.  This is in stark contrast to how the dominant press operates in major cities across the United States, like Chicago. 

 

This year a Nativity Scene will stand in the Daley Civic Center Plaza as well.  The depiction of Christ's birth has stood in the heart of downtown Chicago since 1989 and is erected each year shortly after Thanksgiving Day.  A virtual army of volunteers help out to erect the life-sized display. 

 

As Americans, we have rights guaranteed to us by the U.S. Constitution.  However, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, these inalienable rights are given to all men from our Creator.  This is what the Springfield Nativity Scene is really all about.  But it has a secondary purpose as well.  The Nativity Scene display is meant to inform the public that our religious liberty does not end at the door to a public building, at the door to a school house or anywhere in America.  Therefore, again, I'd like to express my thanks to the ACLU.  In a strange way, they validate such expressions of religious faith in the public square, though I know it is not their intent.  In truth, the reported display of the First Amendment by the ACLU is not really meant to approve of the Springfield Nativity Scene and similar displays in any way.  The radical organization's efforts are meant to generate funds from those Americans who oppose the rights granted to us all.  Many such individuals or organizations would simply like to have groups like the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee go away.  But we are not going away.  And I hope others across the country will recognize our religious liberties are under attack and the rights we now cherish and celebrate may not exist forever.  Unless we stand up against these forces, our rights to publicly express our faith could become a thing of the past.

 

RELATED ARTICLES: 

 

YouTube video on the 2008 Nativity Scene by David Spencer of the Springfield State Journal-Register:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCChvKTHS1M

 

Second Annual Springfield (Illinois) Nativity Scene Display to Stand in State Capitol Rotunda Building: Opening Day Ceremony December 1st 2009 between 12 Noon and 1 P.M.

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/11/second-annual-springfield-illinois-nativity-scene-display-to-stand-in-state-capitol-rotunda-building.html

 

Nativity scene to be back in Capitol this Christmas by Kurt Erickson of the Bloomington Pantagraph:  http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/article_6cb5244a-ad00-11de-be5d-001cc4c002e0.html

 

Nativity Scene To Again Stand In Illinois State Capitol Rotunda:  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/10/springfield-nativity-scene-to-again-stand-in-state-capitol-rotunda-building-a-celebration-of-first-a.html  posted Oct. 11, 2009

 

Second item in SPRINGFIELD STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER article by Doug Finke:  

http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x801093697/Statehouse-Insider-Just-imagine-the-political-ads-in-January posted Nov. 08, 2009

 

Info on how you can help support the Springfield Nativity Scene display in Illinois State Capitol:  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/11/info-on-how-you-can-help-support-the-springfield-nativity-scene-display-in-illinois-state-capitol.html

 

********

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.