The American Spectator : America's Cross

Text Size

America’s Cross

By Ben Stein on 10.19.09 @ 6:08AM

The mean ACLU is at it again.

So, the ACLU is at it again. They are suing to take down a cross on a huge public swath of desert in Southern California. The cross is a memorial to Americans who died in war. It has been there for decades although now it’s wrapped up in a box. As you might guess, the ACLU says the cross offends Jews and Moslems and atheists. The issue is before the Supreme Court as a First Amendment Freedom of Religion issue. To the ACLU this means “a right of the atheists to dominate everyone else” issue. And, of course, the Supreme Court makes whatever law it chooses to make so there is no controlling precedent except what the Court makes up. So, in that spirit, a few humble thoughts….

Here are a few reasons why the cross should stay:

The great majority, the overwhelming majority, of the Americans who have died to keep us free were and are Christians. Take a look at Arlington National Cemetery or the American graveyard at Normandy, France. What you see are almost all crosses or crosses on monuments. It is an insult to the memory of those people for some lawyers to take down the symbol of the faith they believed in as they fell. Are we going to take all of those crosses down and replace them with meaningless rectangles? Those crosses represent Christians who died to keep America free for us Jews and everyone else. Are we now going to thank them by taking down their crosses? That would be revolting.

Anyway, if we head down this path, is there any stopping point short of state-ordered atheism? Will we bar chapels at military bases? Will we close the chapels at West Point and Annapolis and Colorado Springs? Will we fire all the military chaplains and replace them with peoples’ commissars? Will we end prayers at Congress? Where in the history of this country is there any precedent for such an attack on religion?

Look, this is a nation founded on faith. The dominant faith is Christianity and I am happy it is. It is a generous, tolerant faith that has been incredibly good to every other faith and to atheists. Those of us who are not Christians might want to stop pushing Christians around. They don’t deserve it. It won’t be pretty if they are ever start pushing back. Not only that, I will tell you when I start to worry: when this country no longer is a Christian country. That will be bad times for everyone, and really, the end of America. The cross out there in the desert is not hurting anyone and it helps some. There is no reason to take it down except for pure trouble making and meanness of spirit.

About the Author

Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes “Ben Stein’s Diary” for every issue of The American Spectator.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (119) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

drudge ette obama| 10.19.09 @ 7:10AM

Mr. Stein: start worrying now. Wolf's at the door and you forgot to lock it.

While you are at it, and I liked your article, can you explain why American Jews are so damned anti-Christian? From the ridicule of evangelists (last I looked, there are some traditional practices of Jews that are pretty damned strange, too), to the strong support of abortion, entitlement programs and the ACLU, generally, I can't figure it out. There seem to be so many issues that these groups should be in accord, not discord.

I guess it is the pack mentality acting up again. You don't want your cultural community to shun you, so you adopt group-think.

Yep, that's it.

Alan Brooks| 10.19.09 @ 9:05AM

We can convince Jews to accept Catholics and non-Lutheran-type protestants.
But wouldn't it be unseemly to even suggest Jews cozy up too much to, say, Lutherans? Or to Southern protestants, say. There is too much touchie-feelie to begin with.
I see great hope, though, for Catholic-Jewish reconciliation. Their direct faiths can both be traced back thousands of years, and not merely hundreds of years.

Alan Brooks| 10.19.09 @ 9:17AM

Again,
that isn't to say Jews cannot get along better with protestants; only that there are far too many suck ups in all areas of life.
I am a Catholic who wants to talk to Catholics and Jews, but no longer to members of any other faiths. Have done so for decades and no longer learn anything new. Some of the protestants I've met are extremely pushy.
You want an example? Campus Crusade for Christ are young, unexperienced, and pushier than any Jewish people I have ever met. It is wrong to generalize concerning protestants. But it is wronger to be insincere and try to associate with those who you have little in common with.

Remember: it is not what people say, it is what they don't say.

Alan Brooks| 10.19.09 @ 9:21AM

"... and pushier than any Jewish people I have ever met."

that was a ... joke, okay?

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.19.09 @ 11:07AM

Alan,
thanks for that clarification. We pushy non-catholic Christians don't have to listen, (or read), you anymore.
You know, sometimes you make good points, and sometimes totally whacked out points.

Many of my catholic friends have told me that the US is the greatest thing that ever happened to the catholic church since about 400 AD. They think the US has forced the catholic church here to clean up its act.
See, we pushy pre-catholics DO believe in the Holy Catholic Church. We just understand that it is not based in Rome or in your hierarchy.

We understand that the true Catholic Church is every Christian who believes in Jesus Christ as the King of Kings and Son of God, and we understand we are Christians by His grace.

S.L. Toddard| 10.19.09 @ 11:56AM

Great. An argument about which is the One True Faith. I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of this one once and for all.

victor| 10.19.09 @ 8:52PM

Well, Toddy, The One True Faith is not an Organized Religion, that's one thing.
Second, it's not a Religion either.
See Isaiah 1 if you want to know what God said to Isaiah about "religion".
John 14:6
"Jesus saith unto him I am the way the truth and the life no man cometh unto the Father but by me"
If you ask Jesus, he will tell you all about it.

Jeffrey Pinyan | 10.19.09 @ 10:18PM

Isaiah was written to a specific part of Israel during a specific time in their history (see Isaiah 1:1). There were still "high places" in Southern Israel under the reigns of three of those kings, and idolatry grew with King Ahaz, although King Hezekiah began reforming Judah.

God loves pure religion (see James 1:26-27).

Margie| 10.19.09 @ 10:44PM

The Bible was written for all time, proclaiming the end from the beginning.

Jeffrey Pinyan | 10.20.09 @ 1:46PM

Margie, I can't tell if your reply is directed to me, and if so, if it is a counterstatement to what I said.

In the event that it is, I offer you two passages from Scripture, one written by Isaiah describing the situation of a certain place and time, the other written by St. John:

"We have all become like one who is unclean, and ALL OUR RIGHTEOUS DEEDS ARE LIKE A POLLUTED GARMENT." (Isaiah 64:6a)

"'It was granted her to be clothed with fine linen, bright and pure' -- for THE FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUS DEEDS OF THE SAINTS." (Revelation 19:8)

Margie| 10.20.09 @ 5:56PM

Jeffrey,
"But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 15:57.
God bless you.

Margie| 10.19.09 @ 8:09PM

Amen. "For the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth has come into being through Jesus Christ." Jn. 1:17. "For by grace you are saved, through faith, and this is not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." Eph. 2:8.

Shoshanna | 10.20.09 @ 2:13AM

As an American Jew who has in my own family Catholics, Muslims, other Jews, a born-again uncle, a Rastafarian cousin-in-law, a couple of Buddhists, and an assortment of those devoted to an entire array of various unscheduled theologies, I really don't understand what the fuss is about.

I don't in any way attempt to force my beliefs on others, and as long as those of other beliefs show me the same respect we all get along pretty well. The presence of a creche in a public square or a cross on a hill does not offend, insult, or in any way do me damage, and if it serves to make someone else's day a little better, what on earth is the harm of it?

I think it's long past time to do away with the rigid, narrow-minded, humorless, suspicion-sniffing, unaccepting tenets of "liberalism", and replace them with some simple human decency and tolerance.

Those so intent on "protecting" us from the faith of others are desperately in need of learning one of life's most fundamental lessons: love is multiplied, not divided.

Melvin| 10.19.09 @ 7:46AM

To hell with the ACLU and to hell with our government.
They force us to take down the cross, we put up two, they force us to take two crosses down we put up three.
I am sick and damn tired of a bunch of Brooks Brothers wearing, manicured lawyers telling me, "We are demanding that this cross be taken down in the name of Constitution and Freedom. What does the ACLU know about freedom?
The men and women who died defending the right for the cross to be displayed have have more freedom in the tips of their fingers than the entire legion of lawyers of the ACLU put together.

victor| 10.19.09 @ 8:54PM

Not to worry, The Anti-Christian Litigators Union is taking a limo there, but is making you pay for the ride.
Always
Causing
Legal
Unrest

Ned S.| 10.19.09 @ 8:20AM

I think it was a week or two ago when I saw the picture of the cross in the desert covered with a box.
My first and best reaction is to rip the box off and tell all of these bozos with to much time on their hands to bugger off.

Daniel T.| 10.19.09 @ 8:31AM

Take a look at Arlington National Cemetery or the American graveyard at Normandy, France. What you see are almost all crosses or crosses on monuments.

Almost all crosses... What does that tell you? If you are at all reasonable, it tells you that at least some of the people who fight and die for this country are not christian. Why denigrate their contribution by refusing to acknowledge them in the desert as we have with christians?

I think it would be more appropriate to use a symbol that all the people we want to honor can agree on. The flag for instance.

Big Leo| 10.19.09 @ 10:42AM

We Christians use a cross to honor our dead. Others have my whole hearted support for using whatever symbols they want to honor theirs. Finding one that will please everyone pleases nobody. The minority has rights. So does the majority.

Daniel T.| 10.19.09 @ 12:27PM

If this was a case where christian people erected a christian cross on land owned by a christian, I would agree with you. However, this is a case where the state erected the memorial on state land. The state has no cause to snub all the non-christian people who fought and died for our freedoms. Why would anyone advocate, or accept, giving their sacrifice short shrift?

victor| 10.19.09 @ 8:57PM

Yes, yes, anything but that blasted Cross, eh?
Can't stand the sight of the Cross, very telling.
Christ died for the sins of the whole world and that surely includes YOU!

SoCon| 10.22.09 @ 1:12AM

So put up your own friggin' symbol to honor your dead--we don't care. You're just not going to take our symbol down.

Screw you.

Son Of Sam | 10.19.09 @ 1:24PM

How about instead of tearing one symbol down, we put up the others? I know that plenty of Jews have died for this country...so lets put up a Star of David next to the cross, if you want.

As for a "symbol we can all agree on"; guess again if you think its gonna be the American flag. Its not just the TelePrompter In Chief who refuses to salute it, its ACLU jackasses who want people to burn it. For that matter, its people like my ex girlfriend, who got her "tolerant" pacifist shorts in a knot because I wanted to fly the flag which belonged to my grandfather. Hard to believe that relationship didn't work out :-)

Maybe what we need is a permanant divorce from these America hating traitors. They can have their own country, and they can fly a baby diaper for a flag. Its the perfect color after all: white for surrender, with a big streak of yellow

stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com/

S.L. Toddard| 10.19.09 @ 2:00PM

"Maybe what we need is a permanant divorce from these America hating traitors. They can have their own country"

I agree that it needs to be re-established that secession is a right held, by definition, by the free and sovereign states, although not so "America-hating traitors" can have their own country but, rather, so that America-loving patriots can retain theirs. Joe Sobran makes an excellent point about the value of secession, and about how disastrous Lincoln's eradication of that right has been for America:

"Peaceful secession was a state’s ultimate constitutional defense against Federal tyranny. Without it, the Federal Government has been able to claim new powers for itself while stripping the states of their powers. Lincoln neither foresaw nor intended this when he crushed secession. But today the states are helpless when, for example, the Federal Courts suddenly declare that no state may constitutionally protect unborn children from violent death in the womb. If even one state had been able to secede, the U.S. Supreme Court would never have dared provoke it to do so by issuing such an outrageous ruling, with no support in the Constitution."

That this is true hardly needs to be said. From the revolution until Lincoln crushed the South, it was widely accepted that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government". If we still retained that right - or if we succeed in reclaiming it - it would be a powerful bulwark against the anti-constitutional encroachment of the federal leviathan state.

Do yourselves a favor and read the following (and try and suppress any knee-jerk reaction caused by the Limbaugh criticism) - it is an eloquent explanation as to what does and does not constitute "conservatism":

Nowadays, in startling contrast to my youth, it’s very fashionable to claim to be a conservative. Back in the Sixties, conservatism was still rather a fugitive thing, and the fashion was liberalism or even radicalism. By the late Eighties, liberal had become “the L-word,” and liberals were looking for a less alarming euphemism, such as progressive. As I say, the change is startling.

But have things really changed that much? Or is the change really superficial? I’m afraid the latter is the case. The airwaves are clogged with the clamorous voices of talk radio, or “squawk radio,” as I like to call it — people claiming to be conservative, though they don’t sound much like the great conservatives I grew up admiring: Bill Buckley, Frank Meyer, James Burnham, Russell Kirk, Willmoore Kendall, and Barry Goldwater, to name a few.

In fact many of today’s so-called conservatives seem to me to be liberals without knowing it, no matter how much they say they detest liberalism. Rush Limbaugh, to name only the most audible of them, seems to have no real philosophy, no awareness of conservative literature outside journalism. His premises are hard to distinguish from liberalism’s. Apparently he equates favoring war with conservatism. He likes big government just fine, as long as it’s shooting something. He says the Republican Party will save Social Security and Medicare, huge liberal programs which a real conservative thinks shouldn’t have existed in the first place. Sometimes, after listening to him for a half hour, I want to beg him, “Rush, how about equal time for real conservatism?”

Well, just what is “real” conservatism? This is an old question, much debated. Dictionaries define it in such terms as “preference for tradition” and “resistance to change,” but these are too general to take us very far. After all, nearly everyone wants to preserve some tradition and opposes some kinds of change, and people we call conservatives often want to do away with certain traditions and bring about important changes.

And all of life is in flux at all times. You can never conserve everything. We are forced to face the question of which things we should conserve, which we should discard or even destroy, and which we should let pass away. When a house catches fire, we may have to decide very quickly what we can rescue from the flames and abandon all the rest.

And conservatism isn’t just passivity. It’s active maintenance. An old house needs repair and painting, a garden needs weeding, trees and shrubs need pruning. To conserve is to renew. Conservatism can’t mean neglect.

And conservatism varies from place to place, from people to people. The great Russian novelist Alexander Solzhenitsyn, even under the Soviet regime, wanted to preserve tsarism and the Russian Orthodox Church. Islam is in many ways deeply conservative, but we have also seen it take radical and revolutionary forms. Mormonism was once seen as radical, but today it seems a very conservative religion. The same might be said of Christianity in various forms. And as G.K. Chesterton says, “It is futile to discuss reform without reference to form.”

The word conservatism came into general use after the French Revolution of 1789, its first and most eloquent spokesman being Edmund Burke in his Reflections on the Revolution in France. Burke argued for the traditional liberties of the English against the “abstract” Rights of Man advocated by the revolutionaries, predicting correctly that such abstract rights, with no force of custom behind them, would perish in a reign of terror. The revolutionaries, he said, were so obsessed with man’s rights that they had forgotten man’s nature.

History has vindicated Burke’s warning, but many have doubted that his kind of conservatism fully applies to America. We don’t have the sort of history England and France had, a feudal ancien régime with a social hierarchy and inherited status. It is even argued that our only tradition is a liberal one, of legal equality for everyone. After all, we are not divided into peasants versus noblemen, or anything of the sort. We even take pride in our social fluidity and more or less equal opportunity.

This brings us to a paradox. The most eloquent of our own Founding Fathers was Thomas Jefferson, who welcomed the French Revolution and had no use for Burke. Yet most American conservatives look to Jefferson as their intellectual patriarch, he who wrote the Declaration of Independence and proclaimed that “all men are created equal.”

Today conservatism has become a confusing term. It can refer to a Jeffersonian vision of limited government and strict construction of the U.S. Constitution, or it can be equated with President Bush’s militarism and what has been called his “big-government conservatism.” And of course the title is also claimed by “neoconservatives” who share Bush’s enthusiasm for war and are, when it comes to social policy, more like liberals than Jeffersonian conservatives.

Both Bush and the “neocons” favor an undefined war and speak of a “global democratic revolution.” But what is conservative about war and revolution? It has often been pointed out that this sort of talk is more akin to Leon Trotsky than to Edmund Burke. Bush even speaks of eliminating tyranny from the face of the Earth — a neat trick, if you can do it.

Here I think we should keep in mind Burke’s distinction between “the abstract rights of man” and man’s actual nature. Conservatives tend to believe in Original Sin, or something like it, that will forever prevent man from achieving perfection. This attitude produces a disposition that tends to be both skeptical and tolerant, deeply dubious about overhauling society. Societies and traditions can’t be built from scratch; as Burke said, we must build out of existing materials — that is, real human beings and their habits, rooted in history.

Liberals, on the other hand, speak freely of “ideals,” imagined perfections that we can achieve if only we have the will. “I have a dream,” as Martin Luther King said. Hence liberals typically talk of abolishing evils — “eliminating poverty,” “eradicating racism,” “doing away with prejudice,” “ending exploitation,” and so forth. This usually means strenuous government action, massive coercion and bureaucracy, because these things don’t just evaporate of themselves.

Conservatives don’t speak much of “ideals.” They think, more modestly, in terms of norms, which are never perfectly realized, but only approximated by sinful man. Consider homosexuality. Whereas the liberal wants to impose “gay rights,” by law and coercion, the conservative sees homosexuality as a defect, which to some extent can and must be tolerated, because it can’t be “eradicated,” but it can’t rationally be exalted to the plane of normality; and he knows that all talk of “same-sex marriage” is nonsense, like trying to breed calves from a pair of bulls. But to the liberal, the only issue is equal rights; human nature and normality have nothing to say to him. What the conservative sees as life’s mysteries, the liberal sees as mere irrationality.

One word is notably absent from the liberal vocabulary: enough. For the liberal, there is hardly such a thing as “too much” government. There is no point at which liberals say, “Well, we’ve done it. We’ve realized our dreams. We have all the government we need, and we should stop now.” No, they always want more government. There is no such thing as enough government.

Again, Chesterton sums up liberalism in a phrase: “the modern and morbid habit of always sacrificing the normal to the abnormal.” We see this again in the grisly business of abortion. To the typical conservative it is an ugly thing, something that may not be entirely “eliminated” but must be contained, condemned, and above all must never be accepted as normal. But to the typical liberal it is a right — even “a fundamental human and constitutional right”!

The role of Lincoln

Consider Abraham Lincoln, claimed by both liberals and conservatives. Most Americans consider him our greatest president — a view I emphatically reject. But both sides have a point in claiming him. In some respects he was rather conservative — for example, in his willingness to compromise on slavery before the Civil War. He doubted that he had the constitutional authority to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, which he finally justified only as a wartime measure, applying only to the seceding states.

But he finally became an all-out abolitionist, and he had a radical dream of colonizing all free blacks outside the United States; in his 1862 State of the Union message, he called for a constitutional amendment authorizing such colonization! In addition, Lincoln was a high-handed centralizer of power, who suspended habeas corpus and crushed freedom of speech and press throughout the North. Like most liberals, he talked of freedom — “a new birth of freedom,” in fact — but the reality was power. Under the Constitution, he insisted, no state could withdraw from the Union for any reason. This was a view Jefferson did not share. The United States had begun in secession. Lincoln himself had once called secession “a most sacred right, which we believe is to liberate mankind.”

A more recent conservative, Willmoore Kendall, who died in 1967, argued that American conservatism is rooted in its own constitutional tradition, best understood in the light of The Federalist Papers, where the limits of the Federal Government are clearly set forth. As far as I can tell, Lincoln was entirely ignorant of The Federalist Papers, as well as of the Articles of Confederation — a point I’ll return to.

An even more recent conservative, Michael Oakeshott, who died in 1990, was English rather than American, but he had much to teach us. Oakeshott, like Burke, decried “rationalism in politics” — by which he chiefly meant what we call liberalism. He observed that some people (liberals) see government as “a vast reservoir of power,” to be mobilized for whatever purposes they imagine would benefit mankind. By contrast, Oakeshott argued, the conservative sees governing as “a specific and limited activity,” chiefly concerned with civility and the rule of law, not with “dreams” and “projects.” I consider Oakeshott the most eloquent expositor of conservatism and the conservative temperament since Burke.

I have already said that Lincoln was poorly acquainted with the Founding Fathers. By contrast, Jefferson Davis was thoroughly familiar with them, and in his history of the Confederacy (too little read nowadays) he makes a powerful, I would say irrefutable, case that every state has a constitutional right to withdraw — to secede — from the Union.

In the North, secession is still seen as a regional “Southern” issue, inseparable from, and therefore discredited by, slavery. But this is not so at all. At various times, Northern states had threatened to secede for various reasons. On one occasion, Thomas Jefferson said they should be allowed to “go in peace.” After all, the whole point of the Declaration of Independence was that these “are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States.” Not, as Lincoln later said, a single “new nation,” but (to quote Willmoore Kendall) “a baker’s dozen of new sovereignties.”

And the Articles of Confederation reinforced the point right at the beginning: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” And at the end of the Revolutionary War, the British specifically recognized the sovereignty of all 13 states! This is flatly contrary to Lincoln’s claim that the states had never been sovereign.

But didn’t the Constitution transfer sovereignty from the states to the Federal Government, outlawing secession? Not at all. The Constitution says nothing of the kind. And as Davis wrote, sovereignty cannot be surrendered by mere implication. In fact, several states ratified the Constitution on the express condition that they reserved the right to “resume” the powers they were “delegating” — that is, secede. And if one state could secede, so could the others. A “state” was not a mere province or subdivision of a larger entity; it was sovereign by definition.

Claiming sovereignty for the Federal Government, Lincoln felt justified in violating the Constitution in order to “save the Union” — by which he meant “saving” Federal sovereignty. One of the best-kept secrets of American history is that many if not most Northerners thought the Southern states had the right to secede. This is why Lincoln shut down hundreds of newspapers and arrested thousands of critics of his war. He had to wage a propaganda war against the North itself.

Were you told this in your history classes? Neither was I. We are still being told that Lincoln’s cause was the cause of liberty; just as we are told that he was the friend of the black man, though he wanted the freed slaves to be sent abroad, leaving an all-white America. Lincoln had a dream too, but it wasn’t Martin Luther King’s.

Lincoln achieved what the Princeton historian James MacPherson calls “the Second American Revolution,” giving the Federal Government virtually full authority over the internal affairs of the states. Columbia’s George Fletcher credits him with creating “a new Constitution.” A third historian, Garry Wills of Northwestern University, says he “changed America,” transforming our understanding of the Constitution.

Mind you, these are not Lincoln’s critics — they are his champions! Do they listen to themselves? They are saying exactly what Jefferson Davis said: that Lincoln was abandoning the original Constitution! But they think this is a high compliment. Lincoln himself claimed he was “saving” the old Constitution. His admirers, without realizing it, are telling us a very different story.

Peaceful secession was a state’s ultimate constitutional defense against Federal tyranny. Without it, the Federal Government has been able to claim new powers for itself while stripping the states of their powers. Lincoln neither foresaw nor intended this when he crushed secession. But today the states are helpless when, for example, the Federal Courts suddenly declare that no state may constitutionally protect unborn children from violent death in the womb. If even one state had been able to secede, the U.S. Supreme Court would never have dared provoke it to do so by issuing such an outrageous ruling, with no support in the Constitution.

But Lincoln has been deified as surely as any Roman emperor. Today he is widely ranked as one of our “greatest presidents,” along with another bold usurper of power, Franklin Roosevelt. And as I say, even conservatives, so called, join in his praise. President Bush and his supporters invoke both Lincoln and Roosevelt to justify the war in Iraq and any powers he chooses to claim in its prosecution. In the old days, Americans told the government what our rights were; now it tells us. And we meekly obey.

If Bush and his right-wing supporters are conservatives, what on earth would a liberal be like? In these last six years, the Federal Government has vastly increased in power, with a corresponding diminution of our freedoms. Every American child is now born $150,000 in debt — his estimated share of the national debt, which he had no say in incurring. And of course the figure will be much higher when he is old enough to vote.

Meanwhile, he will go to a school, where he will be taught that he enjoys “self-government,” thanks to great men like Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Bush.

What passes for “conservatism” now is a very far cry indeed from even the limited-government conservatism of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan just a generation ago. It is merely a variant of the liberalism it pretends to oppose.

How do these pseudoconservatives differ from liberals? Chiefly, for some reason, in their reflexive enthusiasm for war. Ponder that. War is the most destructive and least conservative of all human activities. It is big government par excellence; it breeds tyranny and, often, revolution. Yet most Americans now identify it with conservatism!

I am very much afraid that the next generation will have forgotten what real conservatism means: moral stability, piety, private property, and of course the rule of law (as distinct from the mad multiplication of regulations).

But genuine conservatism will reassert itself, even if it has to find another name and new spokesmen. If the Bushes and Limbaughs have usurped and discredited the word conservatism for the time being, we must try to take it back. If we can’t, we’ll just have to find a label they can’t steal.

http://www.sobran.com/articles.....lead.shtml

Margie| 10.19.09 @ 5:53PM

Propaganda whore!

JimE| 10.19.09 @ 6:30PM

Toddard the moron boy incapable of independent thought, his life is cut and paste jibberish.

S.L. Toddard| 10.19.09 @ 6:42PM

If you have found some flaw in Mr. Sobran's reasoning, by all means let's hear it.

victor| 10.19.09 @ 8:59PM

Next time reference the bloody article instead of taking up valuable bandwidth.
Besides, you just do it because you have nothing constructive to say yourself.

Margie| 10.19.09 @ 8:01PM

Rush Limbaugh IS Conservatism. So's Sarah Palin.

S.L. Toddard| 10.20.09 @ 7:55AM

Pfffffhahahahahaha

Margie| 10.21.09 @ 3:00PM

Your intellectualism won't save you, Toddard. Truth saves. But you're too good for it. I feel sorry for you!

victor| 10.19.09 @ 9:01PM

"If we can’t, we’ll just have to find a label they can’t steal. "
Liberalterrorist comes to mind.

SoCon| 10.22.09 @ 1:15AM

Blowhard. Wish we could secede from your arrogant azzhat comments.

victor| 10.19.09 @ 8:55PM

Yes, yes, anything but that blasted Cross, eh?
Can't stand the sight of the Cross, very telling.

Paul Zissserson| 10.19.09 @ 8:59AM

Reading Ben's column--and, as usual,an insightful one--and the first comment which raises a question that probably many other well-meaning people ask--reminds me of a comment from the recently deceased Irving Kristol about Jews' fear of Christians: the problem for Jews is not that Christians want to persecute them, it's that they want to marry them.

victor| 10.19.09 @ 9:10PM

Actually, their greatest fear is that we will tell them about That Man.
And read them Isaiah and read them the prophecies in Zechariah, Jeremiah and the Psalms.

Ned S.| 10.19.09 @ 9:01AM

Daniel T., by all means put one up. But you will soon find, like the cross before, the flag is now targeted as offensive and divisive by those who know better than the common folk.

davelnaf| 10.19.09 @ 10:38AM

Mr. Stein had an important point to make and he made it in the last paragraph of his article.

Patrick from South Dakota| 10.19.09 @ 10:42AM

Next they will want all memorial crosses removed from government land......ie Arlington cemetery and other military cemeteries. the day that happens is the day the ACLU will no longer be an organization. After all of the law suites from the counter suites from anguished families of the deceased will bankrupt them... one could only hope. I just hope we can sue the ACLU!

I know its just a pipe dream.

Andrew B| 10.19.09 @ 10:48AM

Has anyone at the ACLU thought out the logistics of what they request? I mean, removing one cross cannot possibly make any difference. There must be tens of thousands of crosses on US Government property across America (not to mention in military cemeteries overseas, which are also US territory.)

Every major battlefield in America has multiple crosses engraved on monuments on the field. How can we leave so much as one of them in place if the ACLU wins? Gettysburg battlefield alone must have 500 crosses, not to mention thousands more in the National Cemetery. Will the ACLU raise the funds to remove and relocate all of these to private lands? Or shall we disinter all the deceased from what we can no longer call "Hallowed Ground" and put them elsewhere?

L. Banks| 10.19.09 @ 10:55AM

The ACLU is divisive. Its sole purpose is to destroy the Republic and the law based upon the majority through the initiation of cases aimed at the right of a few or minority. The more laws that are past in this vane, the more restrictive the rights of the majority become and the more this country heads towards the destruction of everyone’s basic rights. The action described above of the “cross” in the desert being offensive to Jews and Moslems is the latest in a series of attacks on our rights. This is not a Jewish or Moslem question since both have the right to erect their own symbols to honor their own war dead in the desert. This is an attack on religious freedom and the right of any individual to display the symbol of his religion (Christian, Jews, Moslems and others). Just where will this attack stop? Take down the crosses in the cemetery? Take down the crosses outside of churches? Take off personal jewelry?

This is the time for all of us to unite regardless of religion or what symbols they represent and see this for what it really is…an attack on everyone’s faith and the right to express it. It is time for each of us to remind our congressional representatives and senators that we value our freedoms and in particular the freedom of religion.

The ACLU will continue down its path of destruction because that is its reason for being. We can ignore them and they will continue to move forward on this path or we can unite and stand firm against them saying “no”, you have gone too far.

Patrick from South Dakota| 10.19.09 @ 11:35AM

Christians saved Jews in WWII. What a show of gratitude towards those service men that died.
Makes me Vomit.

Dave| 10.30.09 @ 1:25AM

Excuse me? Do you have any evidence that anyone who was saved in WWII (or even their descendants) is working to remove this cross?

If not, maybe you ought to see people as individuals, not groups who have to show gratitude to one another.

roger| 10.19.09 @ 11:39AM

Thanks Ben for you comments. Although you say "Those of us who are not Christians might want to stop pushing Christians around. They don't deserve it. It won't be pretty if they are ever start pushing back." I say "The time to start pushing back is NOW".
I wrote this article a few months ago and I believe it may be time to post it again:

The only way “We the People” can effectively stop the insanity of this government is to stop the life blood that keeps it going. That is, the cash they are stealing from us. Government cannot and will not heal itself. The one force, which still holds the power in this country that can do it, is “We the People”. But, that power is being taken away daily and it won't be long before we no longer have the power of “We the People”.

I believe the time has past for talk and symbolic protests like the Tea Parties. Although they are a start, we need to mobilize a real effort to stem the tide of socialism that is being thrust upon us. The socialized liberals are not talking and making symbolic gestures, they are stealing our freedoms and making laws at an alarming rate. If we truly believe in the Constitution and in the fight our forefathers fought to give this country it's Freedom and Liberty than we must not be complacent, or any less aggressive at preserving those rights then they were. If we don't act with the same determination our forefathers did, than we disgrace them and make null all they fought and died for. We cannot and must not let that happen! We will be held accountable by future generations. What will we say when our grand kids and great grand kids ask the question! Why did you let this happen? You saw what was happening and did nothing to stop it.

The Boston Tea Party was not a symbolic activity! It was a revolution where by the American people said we would rather throw our goods into the harbor, and not sell them, rather than sell them and have to pay taxes to an oppressive government, thus cutting off the life blood. Even though it meant they would sacrifice income to support themselves. That is the kind of belief, bravery and tenacity it took to stop the tyranny then, and it will take no less effort and fortitude to stop it today.

I believe we need to cut off the governments source of power by withholding taxes, and there is a way it can be done without the government being able to stop it. Like our forefathers knew, the government cannot force us to open our business. They cannot put us in jail for not selling our products in effect throwing them into the harbor.

It has been said over and over that small businesses in this country are its backbone. If that's true, it's time to get America’s backbone back. We have been treated like the assholes long enough. We don't even need a majority to accomplish this task. Can you imagine if we could rally 100,000 small businesses in this country to close their doors every Monday? How about 500,000? No sales tax, no income tax, no payroll tax, no VAT and on and on. If Monday doesn't get their attention then Monday and Tuesday? And so on. Even 50,000 would make a huge impact. This would be the kind of movement our forefathers would have made. This is the kind of belief and fortitude that our forefathers and the future generations would be proud of. This is the kind of tenacity that made America Great!

I have been trying to get people to understand the power we have as Americans when work together as a team. T.E.A.M.
meaning T.ogether E.veryone A.chieves M.ore!

We need a T.E.A.M America!!!!!!!

We must regain our position as the backbone of this once great nation or forever be it's asshole.

I remember this great story about who needs to be the boss:
When the body was first made, all the parts wanted to be the boss.

The brain said, "since I control everything and do all the thinking, I should be the boss."

The feet said, "since I carry man where he wants to go and get him in position to do what the brain wants, then I should be the boss."

The hands said, "since I must do all the work and earn all the money to keep the rest of you going, I should be the boss."

And so it went with the eyes, the heart, the lungs, and all the other parts of the body, each giving the reason why they should be the boss.

Finally, the asshole spoke up and said it was going to be the boss.

All the other parts laughed and laughed at the idea of the asshole being the boss. The asshole got so angry that he blocked himself off and refused to function.

Soon the brain was feverish and could barely think, the feet felt like lead weights and was almost too weak to drag the body anywhere, the eyes grew bleary, and the hands hung useless at the sides. All pleaded with the brain to let the asshole be declared the boss.

As the great philosopher Hillel wrote: If not now when, if not us who?

I am but one small person who is trying to inspire us to greatness for the good of our Nation.
If we believe in the Constitution, Freedom, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, which is, what our forefathers fought and died for, then we owe it to them, and to the future generations, to stand up boldly, and say enough is enough. Every day we stand in complacency, every day we try to send a symbolic message, every day we try to fight this battle on their turf we lose. We lose credibility and freedoms. Government will never heal itself; only We the People can stop this insanity.

I pray there are still enough Americans left (on the right) that are willing to fight on the side of Freedom, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness in the country, and save it from this tyranny. Please! Help me get the word out for real Americans to once again be part of the great T.E.A.M. America!
In the words written by General John Stark, July 31, 1809

"Live Free or Die,"
God Bless you and God Bless America!

Go to T.E.A.M. America on Facebook

S.L. Toddard| 10.19.09 @ 12:45PM

I don't see any links on the T.E.A.M. America website to your theme song for some reason. Here it is, in case you guys need it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZdJRDpLHbw

victor| 10.19.09 @ 9:20PM

Hey Toddard, when I want your opinion, I'll give it you.
Now, make like old paint and flake off.

victor| 10.19.09 @ 9:30PM

This link is not connected to Texican in any way shape or form.
What Toddy is implying is that we are puppets controlled by unseen hands and have no thoughts of our own.

Margie| 10.19.09 @ 10:47PM

Unless you are a Ron Paul follower, of course.

Mike| 10.19.09 @ 11:42AM

The ACLU is just like ACORN. An anti-American and anti-Christian organization. They should be prosecuted.

This is an organization that files suite to remove crosses from public land and to forbid people from wearing jewlery with a cross while at the same time represents a Muslim woman wanting to wear a full face scarf for her drivers license photo.

So what is ACLU? Freedom of religion or freedom from Christian religion. The ACLU is comprised of a bunch of left wing bigoted idiots using the courts to do what legislation can't.

To hell with the lot of them.

Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)

Margie| 10.19.09 @ 7:47PM

Well said. Thank you, sir.

victor| 10.19.09 @ 9:36PM

The ACLU was started by Godless Communists with the intent of protesting WW I. They were anti-war and anti-American.
And yes, unless they confess and repent of their sin, they will be going to hell.

S.L. Toddard| 10.19.09 @ 11:44AM

Though I find few areas of agreement with Mr. Stein, this is one of them. That the ACLU is dedicated to the defense of our civil liberties is admirable in the extreme, and much of the work they do is noble and important, especially now that the current and previous administrations have done so much to destroy our constitution's protections. But they (the ACLU) are wrong - morally and Constitutionally - in their fight against religion. We need to recognize and restore the original and common-sense understanding of the 1st Amendment - it bars the establishment of an offical U.S. religion - nothing more. The separation of Church and State means just that - it does NOT mean barring religion from the public sphere. "Freedom of Religion" certainly does *not* mean restricting the right of the people to practice or respect or reference their religion wherever they see fit - including in public schools or courthouses. Nor does it mean erasing from the public sphere and memory the role religion played in the discovery, founding and expansion of our country.

The ACLU needs to revise its agenda, and stop hounding America's traditions out of existence. It should also do more to defend those Amendments many of its members find inconvenient - like the 10th and 2nd. Until it does that, it will continue to be seen as a radical leftist group with a clear political agenda despite the good work it actually does.

Seek| 10.19.09 @ 12:02PM

There is no such thing as a "gentle" religion. All religions by their very nature, including Christianity, seek to expand their domain of influence by any means within the realm of possibility. That's why "loving" religions use what amounts to psy-ops warfare against those stubborn types who don't want to be converted or who want to leave. Show me a successful religion and I'll show you a "pushy" one. I'll match my own campus God Squad stories with anyone else's.

As a libertarian of the Right, I find myself in typical disagreement with the socialist ACLU. They are wrong, for example, on immigration, the welfare state, affirmative action and public school spending. But on church-state separation, they are right.

S.L. Toddard| 10.19.09 @ 12:40PM

You are a Libertarian, not a Conservative. You glorify the individual, we believe the individual must be grounded by custom, traditional institutions and conventional morality and wisdom. The wish to *conserve* these things - and the religion of our fathers is by definition one of them - is what makes one a Conservative in the first place.

While Libertarians and Conservatives often respect the same things (small government, self sufficiency etc) we do so for wildly different, often mutually exclusive reasons.

victor| 10.19.09 @ 9:21PM

I've always thought you were a conflicted individual.

Pingback| 10.19.09 @ 12:13PM

Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : America's Cross [spectator.org] on T links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Links Linking to the spectator.org page http://bit.ly/17AbQt info Add Topsy to Your Blog Turn tweets into comments for your WordPress blog. Topsy Plugin for WordPress 2 tweets Tweet The American Spectator : America's Cross spectator.org/archives/2009/10/19/americas-cross – view page – cached So, the ACLU is at it again. They are suing to take down a cross on a huge public swath of desert in Southern…

Tim| 10.19.09 @ 12:38PM

I, for one, never even knew about that cross until the ACLU sued. Perhaps that is the point, it's about publicity for the ACLU and fundraising from it's base of abnormal wierdos.

Son Of Sam | 10.19.09 @ 1:15PM

I am not a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or an atheist. I don't feel the slightest "insulted" by a giant cross out in the middle of nowhere, nor do I feel "intimidated" by all the crosses at Arlington, nor am I "distressed" by people who want to put up manger scenes in the public square. It's a big country, and there's plenty of room for everyone. The only people who seem to have a prob lem with that are the handful of self-hating misfits at the ACLU and their control freak brethren in the judiciary

stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com/

Brian Westley| 10.19.09 @ 1:37PM

I find it amusing that Scalia managed to deny Christ during the oral arguments of this case.

Mike Giles| 10.19.09 @ 1:47PM

One thing that should be understood. The ACLU isn't about banning religion from the public square. It;s about replacing all other religions with it's own. It strives to make belief in non belief the state church. If it was just a case of them not believing, they would care about religious symbols. To a non militant atheist, religious symbols are simply odd looking sculptures. But to a militant atheist it's a sign of not accepting "the true faith". It also constantly raises the possibility that they may be incorrect. Traditional religious symbols are a constant test of their "faith" - or lack thereof.

Margie| 10.19.09 @ 5:28PM

Dear Ben,
"And blessed is he who is not offended in Me." Luke 7:23.

Margie| 10.19.09 @ 5:32PM

*I inadvertently posted this here, but is to Ben Stein.

SoCon| 10.22.09 @ 1:19AM

Good post, Mike. So true!

Mike Giles| 10.19.09 @ 1:50PM

Okay.
It's for It;s
Wouldn't care for would care
For some reason I never notice misspellings until after I post.

tbonespop| 10.19.09 @ 2:44PM

Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief in supernatural gods or powers. A belief is something you take to be true without supportive evidence. It doesn't take any "belief" to be an atheist, just simple observation.

Margie| 10.19.09 @ 6:52PM

Actually atheists deny God's existence. Agnostics are more of what you say here. Perhaps you are an agnostic rather than an actual denier of God, perhaps?

tbonespop| 10.19.09 @ 7:27PM

Hard for me to "deny" God when I don't acknowledge that he/she/it exists. It's like denying ghosts or spaghetti monsters or witches or vampires. I haven't seen any established evidence for any of these "things" so I simply don't believe in them. Easy as that. An agnostic entertains the idea that there may be something supernatural out there. I don't.

Margie| 10.19.09 @ 7:55PM

I suggest to you that there is proof all around you. For example, have you ever looked at the ocean and marveled at its amazing beauty, it's sheer awesome power, considered its unbelievable volume, the amazing things that live within it, how it stays in its place, how it produces food for man and beast, how it flows according to the Moon, just to name a few things about it?

Johnny Knuckles| 10.19.09 @ 2:47PM

This atheist is offended by boxes covering crosses. The ACLU offends me. Put a box around them.

Seek| 10.19.09 @ 2:56PM

S.L. Toddard:

Libertarianism doesn't "glorify" the individual. It merely recognizes that State power, especially when exercised on behalf of a religious doctrine, is quite fearsome. Centuries of recorded history supports us on that.

There's nothing wrong with custom and tradition -- that's why I'm an immigration restrictionist. But in the end it is not for government to prescribe a religious tradition. The Framers, contrary to common myth, fully concurred.

Liberal Reader| 10.19.09 @ 5:30PM

I agree with Mr. Stein's argument here, but I think I can make an argument that ought to satisfy liberals and civil libertarians.

While many people might object to raising a cross on government property NOW, the fact that former generations did so ought to be respected.

If people who claim that crosses slighted the service of religious minorities are correct, removing these monuments would in a sense be erasing the evidence.

There's something Soviet-like about removing monuments: they're a part of our past. Jewish people -- say -- whose contributions are neglected by such monuments can add that neglect to their own history and to the history of the country: "We helped in the war effort," let them say, "and we weren't properly recognized."

Now this may or may not be fair or true; the point is, with the monument standing, that conversation can happen.

But there's a much more important point to be made:

If people have been slighted by past monuments, let us raise NEW ONES.

The existence of a cross in S. Carolina or Arizona does NOT prohibit the raising of a Star of David to honor the Jewish war dead. Nor does it preclude a more ecumenical symbol of public gratitude.

Let's have MORE monuments, MORE books, MORE public statements, not fewer.

If anything, the last few decades have seen a troubling impoverishment of our public spaces.

Tearing down crosses won't undo whatever neglect of which they once may have been guilty; it will just continue to empty our public sphere and our public life of meaningful content.

But then again, there's always television.

Tom Bruner| 10.19.09 @ 7:43PM

My dog tags said "No Pref" for religion. I, for one, prefer that the crosses stand.

Jim O'Brien| 10.19.09 @ 8:55PM

The ACLU must object to the Declaration of Independence. After all, it says that "... all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...." (And) "for the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

The ACLU must object to language used by every President in American history (perhaps excluding BHO). For example, "... so let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth, God's work must truly be our own."

The ACLU has its head up its ass.

Liberal Reader| 10.19.09 @ 11:59PM

Well, O'Brien, if you'd listened to ANY of Obama's major speeches since he's been president you'd have heard him say the customary "God Bless America" at the close; he's also spoken about religion and his faith on several occasions.

The ACLU can't sue Thomas Jefferson; you're right about that. But T. Jefferson would probably want to sue YOU:

He was NOT a Christian and not devout, and he had pretty acerbic contempt for people who were. This is not something I admire about him; but there you are. It's just the truth.

The Declaration's language is fearlessly ecumenical -- actually deist in nature. Nothing about Jesus there, son.

But as I wrote about, I'm with Stein on this particular issue. I think the crosses should stand.

Then again, I admire and appreciate the ACLU for bringing their suit and for all the work they do.

SoCon| 10.22.09 @ 1:22AM

We are a Christian nation, always have been.

Pingback| 10.19.09 @ 9:27PM

Photomaniacal » Blog Archive » America’s Cross links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Photomaniacal » Blog Archive » America’s Cross Photomaniacal Music information, releases, and more! Home SiteMap America’s Cross America’s Cross By Ben Stein on 10.19.09 @ 6:08AM The American Spectator http://spectator.org/ So, the ACLU is at it again. They are suing to take down a cross on a huge public swath of desert in Southern California.…

Pingback| 10.19.09 @ 9:31PM

To Our Brave Fallen Troops: The Last Full Measure (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Taliban ARE our enemy. The Taliban are terrorists. The Taliban are enemies of the Afghani people. Radio Vice Online: Taliban not the enemy after all – Obama willing to deal Ben Stein, American Spectator: America’s Cross Cao’s Blog: Airmen March Through Baton Rouge To Honor 12 Fallen Brothers Registan.net: HIGs are Pigs Brigadier General (R) Anthony J. Tata, Big Government: Note to the Commander in Chief: Make a…

Pingback| 10.19.09 @ 9:34PM

Mark Levin: More of “Us” Than There Are of “Them” - Gallup Proves Him Right, Conserv links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…politically incorrect point of view The Patriot’s Mind: Left is Attacking Capitalism - Not Just Health Insurance Lipstick Underground: Act Like Men…Or Get Out. Ben Stein, American Spectator: America’s Cross Michelle Malkin: August 22: Recess Rally and Conservative books on top, but NYT concludes Marx is “back in vogue” and Culture of Corruption: #1 on NYT best-seller list for 3rd week and Inconvenient…

Pingback| 10.19.09 @ 9:38PM

Bravo, Lt. Dan Band: Gary Sinise on USO Tour, Headlines Free Concerts for US Troops, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Monsoor Road2Recovery, Big Hollywood: Profiles in Courage: Army Spouse Edition Robert J. Avrech, Big Hollywood: Flashback: Hollywood Celebrates American Military Resolve Ben Stein, American Spectator: America’s Cross Pam Meister, Big Hollywood: Bono’s Classless Act - Endorsed by ‘The Won’ Just Americans Making Ethical Statements Weblog: Honoring Our Heroes Frugal Café Blog Zone: Hollywood Patriot: CSI NY’s…

Bydand76| 10.19.09 @ 11:32PM

Aye!!
I agree. The ACLU has become nothing more than a puppet front movement for Liberal causes. Their penchant for going after ANYTHING Christian is well documented,
Christians must come to the realization that in order to stop the onslaught from the ACLU they are going to have to start fighting back and hitting the ACLU where it hurts.

I agree that there are many examples of different theologies represented when a nation goes to war. America being the melting-pot that it is, there should be no suprise that many diferent flavors of Christianity, Judaism. Islam, Buddhism, Native American Spiritualism and a whole host of other creeds and Faiths have gave the ultimate sacrifice in defense of their Homeland.
Every single religion already has a testament to their sacrifice and some are on public land. Think of national parks that have some Native American Great Spirit quotes!

The point being is that the ACLU for a long time has conducted a war against Christianity and only Christianity has the power to stop it. A cross in te desert is just one more thing that adds up the tally for the ACLU.

A more fundamental question might be. Since when is it against someones civil liberties to hold a belief of a higher power? To display a symbol of that power oppresses no one. as far as I can see. Unless of course you already are a theological bigot like Alyeska. ( Where are you Aly? I thought for sure I would read a rant or two from you in here)

Taking the ACLU at its word in its stated mission. Would'nt it be more logical for the ACLU to argue for the Cross remaining where it is?

Also, I defy anyone to argue to me in a clear, well researched, non-partisan manner, that this country was not founded upon Christian principles. I defy you! All of the Framers were deeply religious (Christian) men. It defined them and helped them frame everything that they put into the Constitution and the Revolution. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Patrick Henry, George Washington. All of them.

To deny Christianity is a part of America is shortsighted and moronic at best!

We are a Country that upholds many Christian values and principles with in its culture. Like it or not that is the way it is. I suggest the ACLU take this into consideration before its too late.

Kira| 10.20.09 @ 1:47AM

"Look, this is a nation founded on faith."
This was a nation founded on personal freedoms and rights, not faith.

"The dominant faith is Christianity and I am happy it is."
Of course you are, because you are a Christian.

"It is a generous, tolerant faith that has been incredibly good to every other faith and to atheists."
You think so? Do a little experiment. Spend one week wearing a piece of jewelry, shirt or other item that indicates you're a Jew. Then do the same with something that says to the world your a Muslim. Then pretend for subsequent weeks you're a Pagan, a Satanist, an atheist, etc. See how "tolerant, good and generous" your fellow Christians are to you.

"Those of us who are not Christians might want to stop pushing Christians around. "
Nobody is pushing you around. They're simply telling you to stop shoving your religion on everyone at the expense of the general population. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if someone erected a giant crescent and star on public property using *your* tax dollars. It's the same principle at work here. Your free to practice your religion all you want, and to put up whatever you choose on your own property. The public property, and the tax dollars of the public, however, are not at the disposal of any one church/faith.

BYdand76| 10.20.09 @ 8:31AM

Kira,
This was a nation founded on personal freedoms and rights without a doubt. However, the Founders used their Faith as an integral part of how they formed their opinions and molded the Revolution and Constitution. Thus it is in part founded on Faith.
You need to go back to school and study your history. The Framers incoprorated faith into everything they did including how they thought the new goverment should be formed. To say otherwise is ignorant.

I will give you some examples,

Thomas Jefferson said:
"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted."

Benjamin Franklin:
"It is that particular wise and good God, who is the Author and Owner of our system, that I propose for the Object of my praise and adoration.

Patrick Henry:
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

James Madison:
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

John Jay:
“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Alexander Hamilton:
For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests."

Thus you can see that according to the original Framers of the Constitution that they did not have any intention of prohibiting goverment and religion co-existing. They quite clearly wanted the freedom of religion and our ability to follow it as we will. Clearly they thought that the new country they had helped create was to be a Christian country. However, the Framers did not want a state sanctioned religion like the Church of England to become so dominant. If you look at the history of England, Scotland, and Ireland much less the whole of Europe, you would understand why.

I find your supposition that simply by wearing a piece of jewlery that proclaims fidelity to a different belief system will automaticaly get you targeted by evil intolerant Christians laughable. This is ridiculous to say the least. In my experiance it is usually people who are NOT Christian, who end up being the most INtolerant. Which I might point out is the topic of this article. The ACLU IS a bastion of militant intolerant blowhards who rail against any perceived insult to their obvious atheist/agnostic agenda!

"Nobody is pushing you around. They're simply telling you to stop shoving your religion on everyone at the expense of the general population."
A fair point if you arent talking about Christians. I havent heard of any instance of Christians shoving their religion at the expense of anyone. At least not in the civilized world Can you name one for me? Waco TX perhaps? When and where do Christians do this supposed shoving?

I can however prove to you that the ACLU is guilty of this. take the subject of same sex marriage. It is an argument the ACLU will vehemently argue for, yet seemingly they will quite pointedly ignore the Latter Day Saints in Utah. Who pushing who around now? What about the schhol in Virginia that teaches Islamic fundamentalism at taxpayer expense? ACLU there? Or is there some Christians being intolerant? Perhaps you can tell me why CAIR and numerous mosques around the US receive Govt $$ for security yet the ACLU says nothing about it? How about that?
Or is it just Christians who arent allowed Govt support right? Because they see people who wear different types of religious jewelry and get their tolerance panties all twisted up?

There is a constant undeclared war on Christianity in the US underway as I write this to you. Don't believe me? Then tell me why the ACLU consistently goes after Christianity? A Cross in the desert for fallen soldiers who paid the ultimate sacrifice for people. This is what the ACLU is upset about. We cant honor them with a cross? I guarantee you if it was some Native American "Great Spirit" sayings on a tablet of some type. There would be nothing said at all!

One more thing.
I know many Christians and many non-Christians. I have never once seen any of this ridiculous assertion that intolerance is endemic to Christianity alone. This is somewhat insulting to me.

Last I heard it wasnt Christians that I am fighting over here (Afghanistan)! Sure wasnt Christians who have tried to kill me that's for sure! I wonder how a Jewish person who would dare to wear a Star of David in front of the Taliban would fare. Any ideas?

SoCon| 10.22.09 @ 1:30AM

BYdand76--God bless you and keep you safe, and Thank you.

SoCon| 10.22.09 @ 1:25AM

Kira, you want some real religious tolerance? Get your butt over to the Middle East or China and see how your Star of David works out for you. Moron.

Paul Crowley| 10.20.09 @ 8:22AM

“The Boston Tea Party was not a symbolic activity! It was a revolution where by the American people said we would rather throw our goods into the harbor, and not sell them, rather than sell them and have to pay taxes to an oppressive government, thus cutting off the life blood. Even though it meant they would sacrifice income to support themselves. That is the kind of belief, bravery and tenacity it took to stop the tyranny then, and it will take no less effort and fortitude to stop it today.” [roger| 10.19.09 @ 11:39AM]

Hi Roger:

This is completely wrong. All of it.

The Boston Tea Party was no Revolution.

The Boston Tea Party is a lousy example to choose, for much of anything.

First. It was not American goods, but East Indian / Chinese goods that were thrown into the harbor; at Boston in 1773: TEA.

Where the Boston Tea Party is concerned, then the London Tea Parties of 2009 are counter-tea parties. If you want the equivalent today, then go burn down Walmarts (which I don't recommend).

In its consequences, then the Boston Tea Party was, in fact, little more than a symbolic act. An act of vandalism by a small group of men (themselves manufacturers and traders) that accomplished absolutely nothing in and of itself. It presented no threat whatsoever to the English parliament at Westminster.

Parliament’s response to the Boston Tea Party was mass punishment of the city of Boston. It did not simply order the city to find the perpetrators of the act of vandalism.

Parliament ordered the city to pay for the tea that was destroyed, and, adding insult to injury, to Clean Up The Harbor.

That’s all that the Boston Tea Party resulted in.

Traditionally, it has been a common example chosen by what were little more than rabble rousers in British colonies in the 19th century, whenever such as so-called Representative Government, later re-dubbed Responsible Government was being introduced by Parliament to a colony for the first time. Threats of a new ‘Boston Tea Party’ commonly preceded public announcements.

Rhetorical threats of a ‘new Boston Tea Party,’ made in public speeches in the British Crown Colonies of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Lower Canada, Upper Canada, New South Wales, Victoria, to name a few that I’m aware of, between about 1824-50, resulted in NOTHING What So Ever of substance. They were accompanied by the purely British-coined phrase, “No Taxation without Representation,” and were standard fare preceding Parliament instituting limited self-government in the colonies.

Whatever the limited self government was called, the British colony had extremely little, or no, control over its own trade and commercial or military (i.e. defense) policies.

THE REAL REVOLUTION

Both of these latter (lack of control of trade and military policies), were fundamental reasons for the American Revolution of 1775-76.

The English government did not reinforce the garrison at Boston with 25,000 troops in response to either the Boston Tea Party (1773), or to the results of the Boston Massacre (1770), or to any other protest, 1763-74. That action was taken by parliament in late 1775-early 1776. The only adjustment made before 1775 by Parliament was to repeal the new taxes imposed by the post-1763 acts of parliament, but NOT the reformed government structure formed by those acts.

The American Revolution was the mutiny of the colonial legislatures (ignoring the orders of the colonial governors to disband), the formation of the American Congress, the development of a government, and the mutiny of the colonial militias principally in the New England colonies and the coastal port cities). It was “continental” only because of the Royal Navy (otherwise some of the maritime colonies would have joined). The colonial militias at that time were not merely farmers with muskets, but but were as near to professional army as an organization could be without being regular army (more akin to the National Guard today).

Without a functioning government and without a professional military (including artillery, and now air forces), then no revolution has any chance of success, today more than ever.

Without a navy, which was provided by France and Spain (1778-83), then the United States of America (U.S.A.) would have ceased to exist.

A Boston Tea Party, as well as mere threats of of more of them, which are mere rabble rousing, accomplish nothing of substance, and are no threat whatsoever. They were useful to the British government in making the proverbial “college socialists and parlor pinks” of the time FEEL as if they were revolutionaries and in leaving the impression that reforms made by parliament were the idea of the colonists.

Keep in mind the principle, that “people like to think that it’s their idea.”

Paul Crowley| 10.20.09 @ 9:35AM

“To deny Christianity is a part of America is shortsighted and moronic at best!” [Bydand76| 10.19.09 @ 11:32PM]

This is true.

“We are a Country that upholds many Christian values and principles with in its culture. Like it or not that is the way it is. I suggest the ACLU take this into consideration before its too late.” [Bydand76| 10.19.09 @ 11:32PM]

It is False that this is a country that is now in any meaningful way “Christian.”

I disagreed with Hillary Clinton’s populist cant last year about ‘people with a profound religous faith.’ Your phrasing is too qualified and vague to make a stand on.

It is true that there is some Cultural residue in this country.

The United States of America (U.S.A.) is NOT a country that upholds “Christian values and principles” (as such would have been defined in the pre-reformed U.S.A.).

At this point in time, then it most emphatically is not a country that can be called a "Christian Country."

This is simply to state the obvious.

It has been true in a de facto manner for at least 45 years.

The population of this country has been radically reformed over the course of the past 45 years, with more gradual reforms dating to at least the period between the world wars, and post-WWII.

Due to reform of American legal codes (especially the elimination of laws and precedents associated with them), accompanied by the Cultural Reformation (and the physical reformation that all of this facilitated) of American society, then this now true, de jure.

The reforms of the American legal code of the past 45 years have steadily de-christined this country.

Over 50 percent of the American population today is made of up of individuals that now practice religions that are different from those that they were born into.
The religions that native Americans, at least 50 years old and older, were born into have been radically reformed.

It is no longer a country of individuals who are overwhelmingly either Catholic, Protestant (of one kind or another) or Jewish (religiously speaking), with a TINY group of Greek Orthodox, and Greek Catholic, as was true even 45 years ago.

Practioners of oriental (i.e. Asian) religions were an extremely TINY group. The pop-varity of oriental religions, philosophies, and African practices (syntheses), now common, were only beginning to emerge, and still virtually nil.

Judaism has undergone numerous reforms, including what is now dubbed “Orthodox.”

Catholicism, including Greek Catholics (now Byzantine Catholics) is now reformed and thoroughly Protestant.

The Eastern Orthodox have undergone major reformations, and are also thoroughly Protestant.

Protestantism, of all denominations has been radically reformed (again).

Neither the many Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, or Presbyterian denominations (so-called Main Stream Protestantism) bear any resemblance to what they were even 25 years ago.

The many Congregational Protestant denominations have been reformed into the new post-1979 "Evangelicals.” A consolidation of the numerous denominations, especially a merging of the many small Baptist conventions that were dying rapidly, 1969-89, and such into the Southern Baptist Convention, and the many TINY Pentecostals into the Assembly of God. The Moody Bible Institute appears to me to have been the principle agent used in the reformation.

Almost everything that calls itself “Christian” today would not be seen as such by Americans of 45 years ago (the majority of who that were adults are now dead, while those still living are highly compromised themselves and now VERY old).

Almost everything that calls itself “Christian” today is more neo-pagan, completely new, bears little resemblance to its forbears, and relative to 45 years ago are not only unrecognizable, but are disgusting and repulsive (by pre-reformed standards).

Pornography, itself anything but "Christian," now routinely shows individuals wearing crosses while engaged in acts of sodomy, oral or anal, and other acts of debauchery. A form of instruction to the young, I suppose?

Catholic, Protestant, and Jew: Americans today are like The Old Gray Mare.

Effectively, legally and culturally, there is little to nothing of substance to conserve.

The U.S.A. is now a divided and neo-pagan, with some residue from numerous religions.

Sorry, but it needs to be said.

Paul Crowley| 10.20.09 @ 10:11AM

Corrections (spelling and phrasing).

The reforms of the American legal code of the past 45 years have steadily de-christened this country.

The U.S.A. is now a culturally-divided and neo-pagan country, with some residue from numerous religions and cultures (oriental and occidental).

Catholic, Protestant, and Jew, and in every other way: Americans today are like The Old Gray Mare (i.e. Not What They Used To Be). Americans are now more like Australians. Culturally speaking, then this is actually true of peoples and cultures, world-wide now.

Paul Crowley| 10.20.09 @ 11:54AM

“Last I heard it wasnt Christians that I am fighting over here (Afghanistan)! Sure wasnt Christians who have tried to kill me that's for sure!”

Plenty of Americans who were Protestant or Catholic fought other peoples who were Protestant or Catholic. My namesake, who was a native American, an Italian American who was a practicing Catholic to be precise, died in 1945 within 20 miles of the town that his parents had emigrated from in northern Italy.

He had good reason to serve (1939-45) and to be fighting with the 10th Mountain division when he died.

A clean, decent, and honorable man who died fighting for an honorable cause.

What is any American doing in Afghanistan today?

Or, operating remote-control drones over Afghanistan or Pakistan?

What is any American doing in Iraq?

It sure has absolutely NOTHING to do with spreading anything remotely Christian.

Exactly the opposite so far, in all of the post-Cold War punitive expeditions, but especially those of the past six years (Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Pakistan).

If any invader was in my country, then I’d have no compulsion in killing him myself, regardless of his religion, or lack thereof.

If I saw sights, such as those popularized about 2004-09, of young men and women torturing other men by forcing them to masturbate in public, and other such repulsive tortures as have been seen, and the worse that have now been publicly eluded to by our government (whether they exist or not), then I would damn sure have no compulsion in killing him or his compatriots, or seeing any of them die.

These tortures were the kind of vicous deculturization practiced by Marxists, in the same selective manner, in such as Czechoslovakia, Albania, and Romania, about 1945-55. Such as that was among the reasons that so many of us pre-reformed Americans had no compulsion in serving in the American armed forces, to fight communists, or in the armed forces, or even in such as the Peace Corps, to restrain its spread in this world.

What exactly does a young neo-paganized American (even those who call themselves “Evangelicals” or "Catholics”) fight for today?

Just for their “buddy?” Americans reformed as what the British dubbed “the scum of the earth, so amazingly redeemed by discipline and dangers shared” (only now Taught and formed so as to like it and view it as an ideal).

OR is it ‘To Make the World Safe’ for “Sex, Drugs and Rock N Roll?”

I’m dead serious with this question.

Personally, I prefer not to see the symbol of the Cross of Christ placed over the graves of such people, dying for such a cause, or to have it presented as representative of them, which it is not in the least. It is no more representative of the Post-Cold War American armed forces that it is of the Russian Red Army of 1918-91.

This re-formed country is both un-American in its principles and it is most certainly in no way Christian.

S.L. Toddard| 10.20.09 @ 2:37PM

"If any invader was in my country, then I’d have no compulsion in killing him myself, regardless of his religion, or lack thereof."

As the great American patriot, stalwart Obama critic, indefatigable champion of the American Constitution and tireless defender of our Civil Liberties Glenn Greenwald writes:

"Imagine if every American spent just a day contemplating how they'd react if some foreign army from a Muslim nation invaded and bombed the U.S., occupied the country for the next several years with 60,000 soldiers, killed tens of thousands of citizens here, set up secret prisons where they disappeared Americans for years without charges or even contact with the outside world, imposed sanctions that blockaded food and medicine and killed countless children, invaded and ransacked our homes at will, abducted Americans and shipped them halfway around the world to island-prisons, instituted a worldwide torture regime, armed their allies for attacks on other Western nations, and threatened still other invasions.

Do you think Americans might be seething with rage about that, wanting to kill as many of the people from that country as possible? Wouldn't it be rather obvious that the more that was done to Americans, the more filled with hatred and a desire for violence they would be? Just consider the rage and fury and burning desire for vengeance that was unleashed by a one-day attack on U.S. soil, eight years ago, by a stateless band of extremists, that killed 3,000 people."

SoCon| 10.22.09 @ 1:39AM

Turddard, weasels like you and Crowley are blights on our country. Both of you are bitter old men who have out-lived your usefulness.

Wouldn't bother me a bit if you both offed your sorry worthless selves.

SoCon| 10.22.09 @ 1:33AM

Crowley, you're an asshole.

Paul Crowley| 10.20.09 @ 12:05PM

That was to BYand76.

Sorry, I failed to include the name or reference the post.

My last comment [Paul Crowley| 10.20.09 @ 11:54AM] was directed to you BYand76 and your comments [BYdand76| 10.20.09 @ 8:31AM].

Margie| 10.21.09 @ 3:10PM

What a bunch of bilge from Toddard aka Crowley's crew. You don't get to tell anyone who or what they died for. You wouldn't have the slightest idea of the meaning of giving your life for your country, and therefore for Christ or God.

God bless Bydand76, and ALL the troops, for fighting in our place for our country, as Christ died in our place for our sins.

Your feigned intellectualism won't save you. The Truth saves. But you're too good for it.

Sonia | 10.30.09 @ 9:28PM

Wow! Wonderful words, Mr Stein. I'm an American living in the UK and let me tell you, I miss America so much because of it's faith. The UK is godless and you can see God isn't here. So many people here don't want anything to do with God.

Sonia | 10.30.09 @ 9:28PM

Pingback| 11.23.09 @ 1:04AM

Statism = Death of Christianity « Re-Enlightenment Now! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…institutions in the USA that are at the heart of our modern liberalism–e.g, the ACLU, SPLC, etc. Think these organizations don’t have Christianity specifically in their cross-hairs? (Check out here , or here, here, for just a few examples). The greatest advocates of limited government–and therefore oppose the current healthcare plan–are Christians (and, to a…

Ronny Diaz| 1.7.10 @ 2:11PM

Wow, this was a really quality post. In theory I'd like to write like this too - taking time and real effort to make a good article... but what can I say... I procrastinate a lot and never seem to get something done.

mma pound for pound popular and complete fighter rankings ratings list.

Pingback| 1.9.10 @ 2:42PM

CBS’ David Price Visits Troops in Iraq: “Feel Good Story of the Week” Award « Frugal links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…J. Tata, Big Hollywood: Hollywood Heroes: Boots On the Ground Report Robert Davi, Big Hollywood: Burnt Offerings: Teaching Our Children — Pride in Going Red, White and Blue Ben Stein, American Spectator: America’s Cross Categories: Bless Our Troops, Entertainment, Celebrities, Giving Back, Helping, Holidays and Family, Social and Political Climate Tags: al Qaeda, CBS, CBS News, Christmas, Dave Price, David Price,…

Pingback| 1.9.10 @ 3:08PM

Billy Ray Cyrus Will Visit Troops in Iraq for Christmas « Frugal Café Blog Zone links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Looked at Iraq Surge to Plan Afghan Strategy– The One He Was Against & Said Failed Frank DeMartini, Big Hollywood: SAG Undercuts Employment Opportunities For Actors Ben Stein, American Spectator: America’s Cross Frugal Café Main Site: Send It Secured: How to Properly Pack Your Morale Box for Troops Categories: Bless Our Troops, Conservatism, Entertainment, Celebrities, Holidays and Family, Social and…

www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.3.10 @ 9:47PM

www.us-bapeoutlet.com

lay123 | 4.4.10 @ 1:06AM

Specific ingredients: clothing, accessories, and shoes, but most recently handbags have
become a cornerstone to the aura that is mainstream fashion www.handbagshunting.com

lay123 | 4.4.10 @ 1:06AM

Specific ingredients: clothing, accessories, and shoes, but most recently handbags have
become a cornerstone to the aura that is mainstream fashion www.handbagshunting.com

hio| 4.7.10 @ 8:29PM

America's Cross is good article thanks you very much for your information
Poptropica
Poptropica

jeniffer| 4.26.10 @ 9:03AM

Cheap SSL Certificates
True Business SSL

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|79 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|43 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|58 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|89 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|33 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|25 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 5.24.13

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 5.24.13

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online