|
Philosophy and Pluralism:
Supreme Court Grounds for a Lawsuit
Arguments to be filed by Jen
Shroder
Revised 7/20/04 Permission given to repost at will
A larger disclosure of the infamous Thomas Jefferson letter as
defining the separating wall between church and state reveals
Jefferson's concern for the perseverence of faith:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his
faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government
reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with
sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which
declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
And yet, philosophy classes, rampant with anti-God rhetoric, are
given free rein and are now part of the required curriculum and
teaching requirements for public schools.
A clip from Stanford University Philosophy Encyclopedia states:
"One obvious response to religious diversity is to maintain that
since there exists no divine reality — since the referent in all
religious truth claims related to the divine is nonexistent — all such
claims are false." Another clip claims that unless Christians can
prove their faith, they must relinquish it and pluralism can
"significantly precipitate belief abandonment."
By applying the rule of law of the wall of separation between
church and state, I charge that ALL PLURALISM AND PHILOSOPHY CLASSES
that question, dispel and debate the merits of Christianity, God and
all religious beliefs in our public schools MUST CEASE AND DESIST
IMMEDIATELY as they are in complete violation of "separation of church
and state."
Public education has established its own "religion", its own
pluralist philosophical belief system combative of faith. Like a
machine, public education demands our children learn this new
religion, compelled to attend schools that are part of a tyrannical
fascist system. Parents are sensing the duplicity and are increasingly
outraged.
The infamous Supreme Court case, so often quoted to eradicate all
mention of Christian faith, MUST ALSO be applied to the reprogramming
and criticism of religious belief so rampant in our universities,
colleges and k-12 curriculum. As outlined in the opinion of Justice
Black:
U.S. Supreme Court Case
Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP.,
330 U.S. 1 (1947)
"Catholics found themselves hounded and proscribed because of their
faith; Quakers who followed their conscience went to jail; Baptists
were peculiarly obnoxious to certain dominant Protestant sects; men
and women of varied faiths who happened to be in a minority in a
particular locality were persecuted because they steadfastly persisted
in worshipping God only as their own consciences dictated. And all of
these dissenters were compelled to pay tithes and taxes to support
government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory
sermons designed to strengthen and consolidate the established faith
by generating a burning hatred against dissenters."
[Public school today]
"These practices became so commonplace as to shock the
freedom-loving colonials into a feeling of abhorrence."
[Many parents today]
"The imposition of taxes to pay ministers' salaries and to build
and maintain churches and church property aroused their indignation."
[As do payment of teachers to espouse doubt in faith.]
"The people [of Virginia], as elsewhere, reached the conviction
that individual religious liberty could be achieved best under a
government which was stripped of all power to tax, to support, or
otherwise to assist any or all religions, or to interfere with the
beliefs of any religious individual or group."
[Public education CANNOT fund or support anti-God rhetoric.
Philosophy classes are rampant with religious-sounding books and ideas
solely attacking belief].
"Thomas Jefferson and James Madison led the fight against this tax.
Madison wrote his great Memorial and Remonstrance against the law. In
it, he eloquently argued that a true religion did not need the support
of law; that no person, either believer or non-believer, should be
taxed to support a religious institution of any kind; that the best
interest of a society required that the minds of men always be wholly
free; and that cruel persecutions were the inevitable result of
government-established religions."
Justice Black quoted the preamble to the 'Virginia Bill for
Religious Liberty' by Jefferson:
"Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to
influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil
incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness,
and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion
who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by
coercions on either...; that to compel a man to furnish contributions
of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is
sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or
that teacher of his own persuasion, is depriving him of the
comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular
pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern..." And the statute
itself enacted "That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support
any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be
enforced, restrained, molested or burthened, in his body or goods, nor
shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or
beliefs."
[Everyone knows how our children have suffered for their faith in
public schools]
"This Court has previously recognized that the provisions of the
First Amendment, in the drafting and adoption of which Madison and
Jefferson played such leading roles, had the same objective and
were intended to provide the same protection against governmental
intrusion on religious liberty as the Virginia statute."
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment
means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can
set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious
beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax
in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious
activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever
form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor
the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In
the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion
by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and
State."
The WALL works both ways. "Philosophy" classes that openly attack
religion (and attempt to establish a humanistic pluralism in its
place) must adhere to the Constitution which was written to preserve
religious freedom:
"State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than
it is to favor them." Everson v. Board of Education,
330 U.S. 1, 71 -72 (1947)
See
Proof that "Pluralism" purposefully assaults faith.
You can sound off about this article at
BlessedCauseBLOG
Jen Shroder is founder of BlessedCause.org, an organization
dedicated to restore sanity to public schools. She has been
interviewed by Fox News, Associated Press and dozens of media outlets.
She can be reached at
blessedcause@charter.net
BACK TO BLESSEDCAUSE
HOME |
