Christian Derangement Syndrome: Bill Maher and the Huffington Post Have It! | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Not long ago, a blogger wrote: "Recently, my Biology teacher threw a bible across the classroom! Not that I am a Christian, but that's not how you treat other people's religion. When we asked him why he did it, he said 'That book is full of lies.' Every time I'm in his class, he always talks about how there are many mistakes in the Bible. He's always criticizing the Bible."

    What is it about Christianity that sends so many people into derangement? Why do they it so much more than other religions?

   Years ago, liberals suffered a similar type of derangement whenever President Bush was in the limelight. It was called the Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a perfect example. She couldn't pass an opportunity to use the microphone, on any occasion, to call Bush names and criticize his every move. I remember one year, President Bush started his State of the Union Address by congratulating Pelosi on being the first woman Speaker of the House and graciously introducing her as a woman of integrity. She sat there, all smiles, taking in the moment and lavishing the praise he was giving her in front of the entire nation. Yet the minute the Address was concluded and Pelosi was able to get in front of a microphone, her demeanor changed, the rabies kicked in, and she let loose a vitriolic diatribe against Bush. I believe I saw saliva foaming at her mouth. The foaming was not always indicative of BDS, but we often saw it in members of the liberal media. Its goal was not necessarily to show that President Bush was bad for the country - because they never were able to make that case - but rather to show that he was bad for people's mental health. At least that's the way I saw it.

   And now we have a similar syndrome - Christian Derangement Syndrome. Similarly, while their goal apparently is to show that Christians are bad for the country, they will never be able to make that case. In fact, the more they carry on, it's much clearer that they are the ones that are harmful. Rather, their default goal is to show that Christians are bad for the mental health of non-believers.

    A teacher at Capistrano Valley High School in Mission Viejo, California, was accused of violating the Establishment Clause by repeatedly making statements critical and derogatory of religion in his AP European History class. For example, he told his class: "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth."

    He also said: "Aristotle was a physicist. ... He argued that there has to be a God. Of course that's nonsense." And he made this comment, among many others: "The people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon." The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the teacher was using appropriate critical thinking skills to teach his students. I imagine that if it were the other way around, and the teacher had been praising God, the Ninth Circuit would have held that there was an improper establishment of religion.

    And then there's the personal, one-man crusade led by rabid atheist Michael Newdow. He is the man who went to court to try to stop children from being able to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school because it includes the offensive phrase "Under God." He alleged that the words "under God" in the pledge amounted to an establishment of religion, in violation of the First Amendment. He brought the case on behalf of his 9-year-old daughter who he didn't even have custody of. He also brought the case in spite of the fact that the girl herself wanted to continue saying the pledge and didn't want the lawsuit filed. The district court held the pledge was constitutional but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 vote, reversed the decision and held that recitation of the pledge with the words "under God" in the school system violated the Establishment Clause. To celebrate the decision by the Court of Appeals, Time Magazine did a story on Newdow and made him their "Person of the Week."

    [The case eventually reached the US Supreme Court in 2004. The Court held that Michael Newdow didn't have standing to bring the case in the first place, so the pledge was affirmed].

    A little over fifty years ago, in 1954, when the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance by Congress, the vote was unanimous. The decision to insert the words "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly fighting against atheistic communism." Furthermore, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act which added the phrase "under God," he announced: "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."

    In light of this bit of history and Congressional intent, it took a lot of arrogance for a federal judge to rule it was unconstitutional. The pledge is symbolic; it is not a prayer and never intended to be. It just goes to show how messed up our legal system has become.

    The Pledge of Allegiance is a short statement of patriotic recognition for what this country stands for. The words hold much meaning, particularly to those who have learned and who appreciate our history. There are many commentaries attesting to the meaning of the pledge, but one that has always stuck with me is the video by a real comedian, Red Skelton. I still have this video on my computer, where I watch it from time to time. On his television program many many years ago, he told the story of one of his teachers, Mr. Laswell, who felt the students didn't have a proper appreciation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Skelton recited this story of Mr. Laswell: "He said to the class: "I've been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it is becoming monotonous to you. If I may, I would like to recite it to you and explain the meaning of each word."

    I -- me, an individual, a committee of one.

    PLEDGE -- dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self pity.

    ALLEGIANCE -- my love and my devotion.

    TO THE FLAG -- our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she waves, there's respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job!

    UNITED -- that means that we have all come together.

    STATES -- individual communities that have united into 48 great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose; all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that's love for country.

    AND TO THE REPUBLIC -- a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.

    FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION -- one nation, meaning "so blessed by God"

    INDIVISIBLE -- incapable of being divided.

    WITH LIBERTY -- which is freedom -- the right of power to live one's own life without threats, fear or some sort of retaliation.

    AND JUSTICE -- the principle or quality of dealing fairly with others.

    FOR ALL -- which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine."
A caricature rendering of Red Skelton: Above.
    Skelton went on to explain that since the time he was a small boy and had Mr. Laswell as a teacher, "two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD." He asked his audience: "Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too?" (The Red Skelton Show aired in the 60's and into the early 70's; In that last question, he was noting that prayer itself had already been removed from schools)

    Well, Michael Newdow indeed tried to argue before the Supreme Court that the pledge was a prayer. And he nearly got away with it.

    But Newdow wasn't done trying to dismantle traditional national institutions recognizing our Christian heritage. He tried to stop the invocation prayer at President George Bush's inaugural in 2005. Clearly the obsessive desire he has to root out all mention of "God" and wipe out all prayer has caused him to become deranged. If he's not in an institution somewhere, then I'm sure he plotting his next lawsuit. Such contempt and disrespect he has to the overwhelming number of Americans who believe in God and understand the role religion has played in our history and continues to play in the guidance of proper moral and social values.

    Recent surveys show that almost 85% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Less than 2% are atheists or agnostics.

    Almost 60% of Americans think that Intelligent Design should be taught in the public school system as an alternative to Darwin's Theory to discuss the origin and diversity of species on Earth. They believe that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher being with a purpose. But organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Education Association would never allow that to happen because they can't seem get past the association of Intelligent Design with a Higher Power or God. Heaven forbid.

    Aside from the outright attacks against Christianity we hear about in the news - the legal battles to remove or hide crosses, stop prayers, remove the name "Jesus Christ," whitewash our national Christian heritage - there are the more insidious kinds... the ones that take the form of subtle propaganda, such as the messages put out by department stores, corporations, and other businesses. Remember the days when companies held fun Christmas parties for their employees? Remember enjoying a Christmas tree in your company's atrium or even in your department? Now, such parties either have been done away with or have been replaced with a "Happy Holidays" and the tree is now called a "holiday tree." Why aren't these big companies concerned about how Christians feel about the substitution of "Happy Holidays" for "Merry Christmas?" Why aren't department stores concerned that Christians might not shop their stores? Maybe it's time that they hear from Christians and feel their economic wrath?

    Recently, the attacks have gotten personal, and in my opinion, ugly and hateful. They have certainly gone beyond any realm of decent behavior. Rick Santorum, a man who takes his faith seriously and lives by its tenets, including making the loving decision to have and raise a child born with a potential life-threatening disability, has been ridiculed up and down about his religious stance. Reporter Reza Aslan compared Santorum to the Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei and wrote: "One is a religious fanatic railing against secularism, the role of women in the workplace, and the evils of higher education, as he seeks to impose his draconian moral values upon the state. The other is the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

    Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow, who praises Jesus after interviews or goes on bended knee after a touchdown as a tribute to God, is apparently the new "polarizing figure in sports" because of his squeaky clean image, his bubbly personality, and his courage to wear his faith on his sleeve. He doesn't carry a gun, he hasn't used one at a night club, he hasn't killed anyone, he hasn't assaulted anyone or beat up his wife/girlfriend, he hasn't raped anyone, he doesn't use drugs or hasn't been arrested for possession, he didn't kill dogs, or hasn't run over innocent pedestrians while driving drunk. But it is Tebow who brings out hatred in people and encourages their foul insults. Again, it's the Christian Derangement Syndrome (CDS). Megan Kelly of FOX News made a noteworthy comment: "I have a feeling that the people who don't like Tim Tebow doing it wouldn't have a problem in our hyper-sensitive world if a Muslim did it." And we all know this is true.

    The view of many atheists is that belief in God is a form of stupidity, which often leads to a diatribe of how they supremely intelligent they are.

    The Huffington Post published an article on February 24, 2012 which not only amounted to a gross personal attack on Santorum for being a Catholic, but proceeded to use the most vile and derogatory terms to characterize that religion and its practices. The author said the Catholic Church is the tactical arm of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, the ritual of communion is nothing more than a fake spell cast over wafers and wine so parishioners can partake in a "cannabalistic reverie," and the Pope is too pre-occupied with "vaginas and anuses." If such lewd terms had been used against Muslims, there would be such an outburst of violence, that Obama would be apologizing up and down and side to side in an effort to control it.

    Ironically, the Huffington Post wrote the following in an article only seven months earlier: "The issue of freedom of speech and the rights of hate groups is not new in American history. Even today, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic organizations are allowed to express their disdain for certain ethnic and religious groups, regardless of how distasteful their ideologies may be." They neglected to include their own organization with those hate groups.

    Freedom of religion is the ability to live your life based upon your religious teachings. Our Founding colonists came here to America's shores to escape the persecution that came from believing in religious tenets that differed from what the Church of England dictated. Our Founding Fathers and framers of our government compacts (constitutions, both federal and state) sought to protect the right of religious liberty.

    The strict purpose of the establishment clause of the First Amendment was never to require a strict neutrality between religion and non-religion. It was designed to prohibit Congress from establishing a national church, from designating a particular faith. As a matter of history, the First Amendment was adopted solely as a limitation upon the newly created federal government. The Establishment Clause was not designed to interfere with existing state establishments. In fact, each State was left free to go its own way and pursue its own policy with respect to religion. It was never intended for a "one-size fits all" approach for each state. This was evidenced by provisions in state constitutions which were often very different from the US Constitution. For example, Massachusetts had an established church until well into the nineteenth century. Virginia, on the other hand, had always pursued a policy of disestablishmentarianism - a separation of politics and religion.

    And that's pretty much how matters stood until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment which was a complete game-changer for this country. The amendment, inspired by the need to protect the civil rights of newly-emancipated slaves, quickly became a tool for the federal government to regulate and assimilate the States into a nationalized union rather than a federal union. Rep. John Bingham (of Ohio), who proposed the Amendment on January 12, 1866, offered this explanation (in 1871): "The Fourteenth Amendment, it is believed, did not add to the privileges or immunities before mentioned, but was deemed necessary for their enforcement as an express limitation upon the powers of the States. It had been judicially determined that the first eight articles of amendment of the Constitution were not limitations on the power of the States, and it was apprehended that the same might be held of the provision of the second section, fourth article. To remedy this defect of the Constitution, the express limitations upon the States contained in the first section of the fourteenth amendment, together with the grant of power in Congress to enforce them by legislation, were incorporated in the Constitution." [House Report No. 22] Bingham also stated: "If the rebel States would make no denial of right to emancipated citizens no [Fourteenth] Amendment would be needed. But they will make denial." [P. A. Madison, "Historical Analysis of the Meaning of the 14th Amendment's First Section"] Many believe that the Amendment was intended to give legal effect to the Civil Rights Bill of 1866, which was designed to put an end to the criminal black codes established under former rebel States that at the time were being administered under policies of President Andrew Johnson.

    In 1940, in a case known as Cantwell v. Connecticut in 1940, the Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment was broad enough to bring the First Amendment's religious prohibitions upon the States . In that case the Court said: "The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws." It reached this interpretation despite the intention of the Fourteenth Amendment and despite the very words of the Supreme Court in South Carolina v. United States (1905) - "The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now."

    The question to ask, under the 14th Amendment is this: "Is the Establishment Clause one of the fundamental rights growing out of citizenship of the United States, and therefore applicable to the States such that black citizens cannot be denied such a right?" (as per the "Due Process" clause of the 14th Amendment) The right in the Establishment Clause is the right not to have the US Congress impose a national religion. Hence this right should have never been imputed to the States because it was clearly written and intended as a federal prohibition only.