This is an outrage that cannot stand
By Rep. Eric Cantor Posted in Congress — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This is a news story that deserves more attention.
On September 11 2007, Andrew Larochelle requested a flag be flown over the United States Capitol – the flag was intended as a gift to his grandfather, to mark the occasion of Andrew's induction into the Eagle Scouts. They requested that the certificate read, "this flag flown in honor of Marcel Larochelle, my grandfather, for his dedication and love of God, country and family."
The bureaucrats at the Architect of the Capitol's office, which is controlled by Speaker Pelosi, removed the word God from the certificate. They have apparently, without the proper legislative authority, created new rules to prevent the word God from appearing on their certificates.
They are trying to establish a dangerous precedent that, if left unchallenged, could eventually lead to the removal of the word God from all government buildings, currency, and documents.
Let me be perfectly clear – they won't allow the word God to appear on their certificates, even when the family of the person being honored specifically requests it. In America, we are guaranteed the freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion; our nation's founding fathers and our nation today wants God in our everyday life.
Do not forget, that many of these flags are intended to honor our nation's veterans, including those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for the cause of freedom. Under the Architect of the Capitol's new rules, even their grieving families would not be permitted to have a flag certificate that mentions the word God.
This is an outrage and it will not stand.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Walberg Won't Be Bullied on SCHIP — Comments (1) »
This is an outrage that cannot stand 14 Comments (0 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Check out the link below from World Muslim Congress
http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2007/10/ramadan-bill-us-congress...
You'll find how Congress just declared Islam one of the world's greatest religions and honored Ramadan holiday. Separation of church and state my arse. Islam's secret is that they promote their relgion as a culture, not a religion. I have to thank Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch for posting that little bit of news.
I fear that Congress then washed their feet in the Capitol footbaths they just installed. (Just kidding on that one, I hope).
I did get an AFA ActionAlert on the Larochelle Flag incident from American Family. And I am sure that Michelle Malkin will join in spreading the news.
-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. How else can the best survive and others mutate into humans?
-- I see abortion as a pro-choice issue... the baby's choice would be life.
-- imwithfred --
But where would one draw the line?
If a flag was to be flown over the Capitol with a certificate requested that read:
"this flag flown in honor of all Muslim martyrs. Allah akhbar."
Should that be supported?
"This flag flown in honor of the prophet Mohammad", on the other hand, would just be religious.
I still think that would be crossing the line, since flying a flag over the Capitol Building in honor of Mohammad is putting religion above the state (which is fine to do if you're not the state mind you).
But, that's not even what's happening here, read carefully:
"this flag flown in honor of Marcel Larochelle, my grandfather, for his dedication and love of God, country and family."
It was not to be flown in honor of God, rather in honor of the grandfather's love of God, country and family.
It's a very narrow distinction, but an important one. One honors a person religious beliefs (and other beliefs), and one honors a religion.
Well a martyer in Islam is someone who gave their life for the religion, essentially someone showing a great deal of dedication and sacrifice for Islam its not particularly political. I think it is the same as "for his dedication and love of God"
At anyrate, I do not think it is appropriate to grant any citizen the privilage to fly a flag over the Capitol whith any saying or phrase they want on the certificate associated with that flag. It would give the impression of government endorsing that message, whatever it may be.
It IS the state that is endorsing that message. The state is the entity awarding the certificate, and therefore what is said on it reflects the opinions of the state, or at least some part thereof. I assume that this is not a service for hire but an honor one can petition to receive.
I agree that this is an outrage, though. The name of that god should not be stricken from the certificate, since as was said, honoring the grandfather's service to God was part of the submission. However, this is in contrast to using the Christian deities in any other way -- our nickels say "IN GOD WE TRUST" (or at least they did in 1990, since that's the coin I happened to look at), and THAT is certainly a religious message. I exercise my freedom of religion by choosing the empty religion, and therefore I do not trust "God" or any other deity, but for some reason my money claims that I do and that the country does.
When the state uses gods officially and directly, it shines on me, violating my freedom to choose my religion, which, as I said before, is the null religion. When the State posts passages from Bible refering to "I am the Lord your god, and you shall have no other gods before me," it is as if I support that statement by supporting the government, which I am not required to do because I am free to reject that religion.
When the state uses gods INdirectly, by refering not to the gods themselves but to people who worship those gods, that is NOT A PROBLEM. I may disagree with the reference, but there is nothing religious being expressed. There is no violation of my atheism in honoring a religious man and his religiosity, so long as a person who is not religious might also be honored for that if such a case were considered, that is, if honor of religiosity can be independent of the specific religion.
Therefore, I agree with Rep. Cantor that this is a very silly removal of "God" from a state document and it should not have been done, but I disagree with him that ANY removal of "God" from a state document is very silly and should not be done.
If you support terrorism, BAD. If you're not, GOOD.
That's a good place to draw the line, and you know it because that's the example you chose to give.
They have no right to change one word anyone's certificate.
Period.
It is not the Architect's duty to selectively censor the certificates. He should be immediately fired.
Please help save America. It's time to stomp a mudhole in a liberals a s s every time you find one and take this country back before we completely loose it.
...we'd have a better class of mobys.
Ach, well, ciao.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Apparently, Stephen Ayers is merely the ACTING Architect, as the previous one, Alan Hantman, did not wish to extend his term.
According to Wikipedia (don hip-waders before reading!), the Architect is appointed by the President for a period of ten years, and Hantman was appointed by Clinton in 1997. Ayers was his Deputy. (I don't know how the Deputy is appointed--whether he's a civil servant or an appointee, but I suspect he's an appointee.)
As Ayers is the "Acting" Architect, it seems like this would be an excellent time for President Bush to appoint a new, permanent (for ten years, that is) one.
How does this kind of nonsense gets started? What kind of people do we have working for this government, that feel empowered to expunge the word God from a certificate without fear of redress? This is just another example of people in government undermining our principles. And what say Speaker Pelosi?