Secular Extremism Dictating Military Funeral Procedure!
Posted: 09 December 2007 08:20 PM   [ Ignore ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  134
Joined  2006-11-01

Secular Extremism Dictating Military Funeral Procedure!

By Michael J. Gaynor

MichNews.com

Nov 2, 2007

Genuflecting to secular extremism and political correctness extremism, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs opted to end the tradition of reciting the significance of each fold in the flag-folding ceremony at military funerals, because some recitations have religious significance!

Would the United States Supreme Court deny the families of military veterans the right to choose a military funeral with religious references?

America’s Founders would be aghast: secular extremists targeted America’s military long ago, unsuccessfully trying to use the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to end the military chaplaincy, but now they have succeeded in having religious references at military funerals banned.

When secular extremists tried to expand the scope of the word “establishment” to encompass anything supporting religion generally to end the military chaplaincy during the nineteenth century, both houses of Congress studied the matter carefully and rejected the secular extremist position in the clearest possible terms.

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_18372.shtml

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2007 08:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

This is a case of either “political correctness” or pre-emptive suit avoidance.  However, it shows the thought patterns of the authorian mind.  It would have been far better to merely ask the family what kind of service they wanted then comply with their wishes - theistic or non-theistic. 

On the other side, I believe cadets at the military colleges are still required to attend religious services whether or not they believe in a god.  Would you say this is a case of religious extremists trying to shrink the scope of the word “establishment” to mean that one must practice some religion?

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 December 2007 12:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1214
Joined  2007-09-21

If you are looking for a place to vent over provincial agenda, this forum is probably not a place where you will find much commiseration.  Most persons on this forum, you’ll find, promote secularism.  There is even an entire section of the forum entitled “Religion and Secularism.”  To be frank, “secular extremism” is about as ridiculous to me as is “anti-racist extremism.”  You’ll have to present some semblance of a reasonable argument if you wish your postings to be taken as anything more than the rantings of another mendicant evangelist around here.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 December 2007 10:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  134
Joined  2006-11-01

Posted by Michael Gaynor:

The Senate Judiciary Committee issued a report explaining the Establishment Clause:

The Constitution wasn’t written or adopted with the assumption that it would be construed according to a congressional committee report made over 60 years after the Constitution was adopted.  It was adopted, according to the historical evidence, with the assumption that it would be interpreted according to the common law “rules of construction.”

“The clause speaks of ‘an establishment of religion.’ What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to the establishment which existed in the mother country, its meaning is to be ascertained by ascertaining what that establishment was. It was the connection with the state of a particular religious society, by its endowment, at public expense, in exclusion of, or in preference to, any other, by giving to its members exclusive political rights, and by compelling the attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship, or religious observances. These three particulars constituted that union of church and state of which our ancestors were so justly jealous, and against which they so wisely and carefully provided….”

That statement is not the finding of the committee.  It’s a quotation from a petition stating the old discredited Federalist view of the establishment clause, advanced by Laban Wheaton in 1811, which the majority on the congressional committee rejected in the 1850’s.

Profile