Gazette praises Obama - Hell Freezing over ?

12 Comments

by: NEWSMAN

OUR VIEW:

GAZETTE April 19, 2011

(Wayne Laugesen For the editorial board)

Few affronts to the First Amendment have been so menacing and wrongheaded as the advocacy for freedom from religion – a freedom we do not have. And few individuals have done more to counter this threat than President Barack Obama, a warrior for prayer.

The Gazette can praise few aspects of this presidency to date, but Obama has been stalwart in his defense of religious liberty.

It’s a significant contribution to keeping our country free.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which seeks to silence religious people, filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration in an effort to end the President’s National Day of Prayer. The foundation is an organization of atheists and secularists who believe they have a right to government-enforced protections from the sights and sounds of religious messages, which they consider offensive.

The foundation has a broad and bizarre interpretation of the “separation of church and state,” a phrase borrowed from a political letter written by President Thomas Jefferson and abused for more than 200 years by those who want freedom from religion. The First Amendment prevents governments from passing laws that respect “an establishment of religion.” It does not prevent presidents and others in government from expressing their beliefs or even from advocating prayer and respect for God. Words and ideas are not laws, and they have no authority a listener does not give them. The establishment clause speaks only to the making of laws, which are acts of force.

That’s what the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals explained in its dismissal last Thursday of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s nuisance lawsuit. The court wrote that Obama’s Day of Prayer “does not require any private person to do anything – or for that matter to take any action in response to what the President proclaims.”

“Since the founding of the Republic,” the appellate judges wrote, “Congress has requested Presidents to call on citizens to pray.”

Obama wasted no time basking in the freedom the court protected for him and all other Americans. He oozed his love and respect for Jesus at his second annual Easter prayer breakfast Tuesday at the White House.

“As busy as we are, as many tasks as pile up, during this season, we are reminded that there is something about the resurrection … of Our Savior Jesus Christ that puts everything else in perspective,” Obama said.

He recounted Christ’s march to Calvary, the crucifixion and the resurrection. He spoke of an “unfathomable grace” on the part of Jesus, for assuming the sins of the world. It’s a grace, he said, that “calls me to reflect, and it calls me to pray.” He credited his wife and children for helping him to maintain perspective but said Scripture guides him even more.

Obama spoke his heart and mind. He did not pass a law forcing others to feel the same or to respect a word he said. He enjoyed, obeyed and upheld the First Amendment, for which he deserves great credit.

12 thoughts on “Gazette praises Obama – Hell Freezing over ?”

NEWSMAN says:

April 21, 2011 at 10:33 am

While I wrote several paragraphs about this, I have just discarded them all.

I think this editorial speaks for itself.

Just thought you all would like to know that some conservatives down down in El Paso county are praising the president many of you worked hard to elect.

Till next time – NEWSMAN

Log in to Reply
1. DavidThi808 says:
  
  April 22, 2011 at 5:48 am
  
  conservatives down down in El Paso county are praising the president many of you worked hard to elect.
  
  ps – welcome back!
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. NEWSMAN says:
    
    April 24, 2011 at 6:35 am
    
    nt
    
    Log in to Reply
  2. NEWSMAN says:
    
    April 24, 2011 at 6:44 am
    
    the worst President overall since Jimmy Carter.
    
    I was just pointing out that when OUR President does something right, some conservatives do give him credit where credit is due.
    
    It just doesn’t happen all that often. 🙂
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Fidel's dirt nap says:
      
      April 27, 2011 at 12:32 am
      
      I remember him from his ” Wayne’s World ” column in Boulder, and it was always great.
      
      Hope you have been well Newsman.
      
      Log in to Reply
ProgressiveCowgirl says:

April 21, 2011 at 7:39 pm

He’s also been a staunch defender of secularity. He gave a great policy speech addressing atheism and agnosticism. Obama is himself a Christian, but as a constitutional scholar he knows where the line is between governing as an individual man guided by his God and creating an implicitly Christian government.

This is one area where I really admire Barack Obama. He is overtly a man of faith, yet that seems to drive him to be more respectful of other religions and those who follow no religion at all. It’s good to see conservatives recognizing him for his piety, and I was pleasantly surprised to find no disapproving remarks about his defense of the religious liberties of Muslims. (Not that he has been as vigorous a defender as I might like to see, but he’s done as much as a guy already fending off the “OMG HE ARE SEKRIT MOSLEEEMMM” crazies can reasonably do.)

Log in to Reply
Rainidog says:

April 21, 2011 at 9:41 pm

no criticism of the Pres. for his refusal to demonize all Muslims as terrorists. Unfortunately, I’ve noted some righties in my region doing just that.

Personally, I’d prefer absolutely no, nada, zilch official governmental support for religious observances of any kind. That support has proven to be a slippery slope over time.

And I do hold that we have a “freedom from religion” when it comes to what the government does. But I’ll enjoy the small crumb that has been thrown Obama’s way because of his stance.

Log in to Reply
BlueCat says:

April 22, 2011 at 2:08 am

have freedom from religion? If the government is banned from establishing religion or showing any preference for any religion or creating religious tests for elected officials, then yes, we are free to be as religious or irreligious as we please. What’s so dangerous about advocating that the government stay out of the religion business? Do these people think we just have freedom of religion but need to pick one? If either iteration, freedom of or freedom from, is inaccurate, I’d say it’s the former for being incomplete.

We clearly have both freedom of and freedom from religion. The last time I checked , the government couldn’t forbid anyone from being an atheist or agnostic or spiritual without believing in any organized religion. That’s what “no”, as in “N” “O”,establishment of religion means. The state has no role to play in religious matters.

Log in to Reply
1. NEWSMAN says:
  
  April 24, 2011 at 6:34 am
  
  The way I read this, there is no freedom from religion, if that means stopping another’s First amendment rights to speech.
  
  A president or other government official can hold a prayer breakfast on government property without violating the establishment clause. A high school valedictorian can give credit to god in her graduation speech at a public microphone, and that school district has not established a religion, simply because it has allowed someone to express their feelings about religion.
  
  It does not prevent presidents and others in government from expressing their beliefs or even from advocating prayer and respect for God.
  
  Words and ideas are not laws, and they have no authority a listener does not give them.
  
  The establishment clause speaks only to the making of laws, which are acts of force.
  
  This is a common sense ruling, and should end some pretty petty bickering over non life threatening words and events like a national day of prayer proclamation.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. BlueCat says:
    
    April 24, 2011 at 9:21 am
    
    the hell out of the religion business but it isn’t a major priority. I don’t agree with your definition of freedom from religion. Of course it doesn’t mean we’re free not to hear anything about it as people have the right to free speech.
    
    Of course individuals, including government officials, have the right to express their personal religious beliefs. Of course the French are idiots for banning the veil and other traditional Muslim forms of dress and I don’t think there is anything wrong with students or teachers wearing religious symbols to school or anywhere else. But I do think an official day of prayer presented as being sponsored by our government, or any other official government endorsement of religion or religious activity is inappropriate.
    
    But I understand that most Americans honestly don’t get the difference between the US being a country with a Christian majority (yes) and being a Christian country (no, the state is banned from having an official religion).
    
    So I’ll put up with the majority appropriating special privileges for Christianity or “Judeo-Christianity” (don’t specify Jesus or do throw in a Chanukah song, I guess), which really ought not to be granted inder our constitution. But I do so, not because of the lame excuses presented by the Christian majority but just because I have more important things to worry about.
    
    As for public school valedictorians, if some insufferable, self righteous teenage twit, not a teacher or principal in a position of authority, wishes to use the opportunity to proselytize, I won’t make a federal case out of it. If some teacher ever tried to “save” my kid I’d raise holy hell.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. NEWSMAN says:
      
      April 26, 2011 at 4:32 am
      
      we are closer than you think on this.
      
      You do realize the court has approved the singing of silent night, and other such songs at Christmas performances by school choirs don’t you. (Yes, there must also be secular songs like Frosty etc.)
      
      My grandson’s public school sang O little town of Bethlehem, silent night, and Rudolf the red nosed reindeer last Christmas. His parents live in D-49, in the most conservative part of the reddest county in Colorado.
      
      I approve.
      
      BUT, if a teacher or some other adult in authority tried to preach to your child, I would be right beside you in getting that nonsense stopped.
      
      I fear far more what the state’s embrace would do to religion, than what religion will do to the state.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. BlueCat says:
        
        April 27, 2011 at 12:46 am
        
        Log in to Reply