Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report


Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Order Books






Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

20 years


The Constitution of the United States does not provide any individual in, or agency of, the federal government with the legal prerogative to restrict any American citizen's right to worship God in any manner that citizens chooses. More important, the federal government is barred by the Constitution from showing favoritism or disdain to, or for, any religion, or mandating that the people of the United States either practice a specific religion, or be forcibly indoctrinated in any religion's doctrine.

The Constitution does not stipulate—nor even imply—that a legal or moral wedge should separate the tenets of Christianity from the principles of law other than to mandate that "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." All of the restrictions contained in the 1st Amendment were placed on the government. None were placed on the people. Yet, the United States government has flip-flopped the intent of the 1st Amendment and now places all of the restrictions on the people—but only if the restricted class of people are Christians.

In October, 1801 three officials of the religious minority in Danbury, Connecticut—the Danbury Baptist Association—wrote a letter to President Thomas Jefferson complaining that, in Connecticut, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not construed by the State legislature as immutable rights, but privileges granted by the politicians—as retractable "favors" from the civil authority. The complaint of the Baptist Association was that the language of the Connecticut State Charter—not the United States Constitution—was not specific in the area of religious liberty since, they said, "...our ancient charter...[was] adopted as the basis of our government...and such, had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered the first object of legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minority part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted and not as inalienable rights..."

Jefferson responded to Nehemiah Dodge, Stephen Nelson and Ephraim Robbins of the Danbury Baptist Association in a letter dated Jan. 1, 1802. The crux of Jefferson's reply was to use a metaphor to assure the church leaders that the Bill of Rights prohibited Connecticut from interfering in church business—or the religious affairs of their congregations: "...Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, but that legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." Jefferson added: "Congress is thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive [is] authorized only to execute their acts..."

The people aren't inhibited, the lawmakers are. Please note that in this context, the federal courts—which now believe its their right to legislate from the bench—are also prohibited from infringing on your right to worship God as you see fit. The role of the federal courts is to protect the right of the American people to worship God, not determine ways in which that right can be denied or restricted because a vocal minority disagrees with their doctrines.

Prohibiting a Christian from openly worshipping Jesus Christ because it offends an atheist or is viewed as blasphemy by a Muslim is not a right possessed by any court or any judge—or any Congressman or Senator—in this land. The Constitution is very specific in this area. Any federal judge who trips over the wording of the 1st Amendment should not be allowed to remain on the bench. The Bill of Rights is "Constitution 101." It's written in plain, simple working class language to make sure that not only will every American understands it, but every lawyer will, too. Our right to worship God without interference or restriction from government is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. To circumvent the Constitution, courts like to pretend they are not interfering with the constitutional prerogatives of the people, but that they are merely restricting cities, counties and States from the appearance of promoting a religion. But, these cities, counties and States only end up in court when the religion they are accused of promoting is Christianity in violation of the Establishment Clause's separation of Church and State.

Two days after he wrote the Danbury Letter, Thomas Jefferson began attending a makeshift church in the nation's capitol. He attended services there almost every Sunday for the balance of his two terms as President of the United States. Where was this makeshift church? On the floor of the House of Representatives. While Thomas Jefferson was admittedly not what you would call a theologically-orthodox Christian, Jefferson nevertheless viewed himself as "...a Christian," he rationalized, "in the only way [Jesus Christ] wished anyone to be."

The first attempt to construe a personal letter from a president to a group of citizens as "tenet of law" came in 1899 when the minority justices in US Supreme Court, in Bradfield v Roberts, attempted to use Jefferson's words to argue that the federal government could not fund a Roman Catholic hospital in New Jersey. The majority found that the hospital was not a religious institution but a secular one, so the separation metaphor used by Jefferson—that was never a law enacted by anyone—was not debated. The separation metaphor was judicially codified by the Supreme Court in Everson v Board of Education in 1947 in a landmark ruling by Associate Justice Hugo Black. Black successfully argued before his peers that "...the 1st Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable." It was bad law. It was lifted from the minority opinion—which is not codified—in Bradfield v Roberts. From that point on not only did the Establishment Clause exist, it was now codified, and is now used whenever the bureaucracy wants to curb the right of Christians to practice their religion—which is always. Surprising as it may seem to the disinterested observer who's not keeping score, only Christians are affected by the Establishment Clause..

The United States Department of State launched a series of web pages on the US government's official State Department website in Oct., 2002 that extoll the virtues of Islam as the fastest growing religion in the United States. When I reported the web address and the content of the web page in 2002—and another Muslim web page in 2004—thousands of angry Christian Americans flooded the State Department with emails. The web page was pulled in four to five hours—or so I thought. In reality, the State Department merely changed the URL making it appear the page was pulled. The new URL was http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/muslimlife/. Throughout President George W. Bush's entire "war on terrorism" the Islamic web pages have been part of the State Department's website. There has not been a single outcry from the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] that the US government is promoting a religion—which it is. There have been no outbursts from atheists that the US State Department violated the constitutional separation of Church and State by openly promoting a religion. Those who hate Christianity have been mute. So, also, have been the advocates of Christianity who should be asking the Bush-43 Administration why the Department of State has devoted a portion of its website to extolling the virtues of Islam.

From 1998 forward the federal courts have strangely turned a blind eye on Islam by giving it a dual dimension it does not deserve. The courts have chosen to view the most militant religion in the world as a philosophical rather than a theological system. When Bill Clinton took office in January, 1993, his administration took a very subtle view of Islam. Islam—the most political religion in the world—suddenly enjoyed a privileged place in Washington, DC.

From 1981 to 1992, GOP talking heads connected to both the Reagan and Bush-41 administrations acknowledged that the world was experiencing a culture clash between the free market system of the West and the theocratic thinking of the Muslim Mideast. In reality, from the collapse of the Soviet economy and the fabricated fall of the Iron Curtain, the rise of radical Islam has replaced the Cold War in the clash between East and West as the free market globalists strived to create a global economy—the first step in creating a world government modeled on the European principles of parliamentarian socialism. None of this sets well with the Muslim's theocratic views of the world since they view the free market system as the tool of the "Great Satan"—the United States—and the non-Muslims in the evil society as infidels. When he took office in 1993, President Bill Clinton poophahed the notion that there was a civilization clash brewing between the industrialized nations and the Muslim world, arguing that it was "...terribly wrong [to believe in] an inevitable clash between Islam and the West."

Clinton conveniently ignored the following • 52 hostages were taken hostage when militant Muslim students stormed the US Embassy in Tehran on Nov. 4, 1979 and held until Jan. 20, 1981

. • A Hezbollah suicide bomber in a pickup truck loaded with explosives rammed into the US Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon on April 18, 1983. Sixty-three people died.

• On Oct. 23, 1983, a suicide bomber detonated a truck loaded with explosives at the US Marine barracks at the Beirut International Airport killing 241 marines and wounding over 100 others.

• Six people died in a series of bombings in Kuwait on Dec. 12, 1983 in which both the US and French embassies and a residential community for Raytheon employees were bombed.

• On March 16, 1984 Iranian-backed Hezbollah radicals kidnapped and later killed CIA Station Chief William Buckley in Beirut. Between 1982 and 1992, thirty Westerners—including Terry Anderson and Presbyterian minister Benjamin Weir.

• Hezbollah radicals bombed the US Embassy in Aukur, Lebanon on Sept. 20, 1984 killing 24 people. • On Dec. 3, 1984 Muslim terrorists hijacked Kuwaiti Airlines flight 221—enroute to Pakistan—and diverted it to Tehran. The hijackers killed two US officials on board.

• On June 14, 1985, Hezbollah terrorists hijacked TWA Flight 847 enroute from Athens to Rome and forced it to land at Beirut where the hijackers held the plane for 17 days as they demanded the release of some 700 Shi'ite Muslims held in Israeli prisons. When the demands were not met, US Navy diver Robert Stethem was shot and his body unceremoniously dumped on the airport tarmac.

• On Oct. 7. 1985 four PLO terrorists hijacked the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and demanded the release of Palestinian terrorists held in Egypt. When their demands were not met, they pushed a wheel chair-bound Jewish-American tourist, Leon Klinghoffer, overboard to his death.

• On Dec. 21, 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 enroute from London to New York exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 people on board and 11 people on the ground died. The bombing was approved by the Libyan government. One Libyan intelligence officer, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was tried for the bombing and convicted in the World Court in May, 2000. He received a life sentence.

• Islam declared war on the West in 1979—and reiterated that claim on Feb. 26, 1993 when a 1,500 lb. urea nitrate-fuel car bomb detonated in the underground parking garage below Tower One of the World Trade Center exploded killing six and injuring 1,042.

The civilization clash—the clash between East and West—is real and, ultimately, it will lead to a global conflict of catastrophic proportions. Islam is not the benign, peaceful religion it is touted to be by most of the liberal politicians in the United States who prefer to view the world through rose-colored glasses. Islam is a militant religion in which all people who are not Muslim are enemies of Islam. But, in face of the death and destruction caused by radical Islamists, politicians worldwide blindly deny that a catastrophic clash between Islam and the West is inevitable.

At a statement made to her guests at a dinner hosted by then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright for the nation's most influential Muslims shortly before the end of Bill Clinton's second term, Albright assured her guests that "...The United States doesn't have a political policy towards Islam. Islam is not a factor in our policymaking." The fact that Islam—the most political religion in the world—enjoys a privileged status in Washington, DC suggests that Islam is a key factor in policymaking. And, not just in Washington, DC. Islam is treated as the privileged guest in every nation in Europe. Not because Islam is a desired religion, but because the Islamic nations are sitting on what was beieved, at that time, to be the world's largest oil reserve. In the final analysis, its always about money.

During the Clinton years as Bill Clinton was theoretically diligently searching the world for Osama bin Laden, the official Clinton Administration mantra was: "The United States has no interest in a clash with Islam. To the contrary, there is no inherent conflict between Islam and the United States." Clinton complained that so many many people unfairly identified "...the forces of radicalism and terrorism with Islam." He admitted that "...we have had problems with terrorism coming out of the Middle East," but, he insisted, "[it's] not inherently related to Islam—not to the religion, not to the culture." A State Department white paper echoed Clinton's words. "Terrorism is not a principle of any major religion—including Islam." Hillary Clinton would privately disagree with that assessment. In her mind, the real terrorists in America have always been Christians—and all of them, members of the vast rightwing conspiracy.

Bill and Hillary Clinton's war on terrorism was not fought against Islamic terrorists in the training camps in the Sudan, or in Saudi Arabia or Yemen, or in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran or Iraq. Clinton's Islamic war was fought in the federal courthouse. But, once again, the enemy was not Islam—it was Christianity and Christians who resisted Hillary's planned remodeling of America when she unconstitutionally served as co-president of the United States. In a White House meeting in the evening of Nov. 11, 1993, attended by Bill, Hillary, Chief of Staff Thomas "Mack" McLarty, deputy-chief of staff Roy Neel, Ira Magaziner, Gene Sperling, and Richard Herget, the first term legislative agenda of the Clinton Administration was discussed in detail. Halfway through the meeting the recorder noted that Hillary complained about the dangers "...the religious right posed to the programs of this administration.".

A few minutes into the dialogue, Hillary took to the floor with a tirade of words that anyone seriously contemplating voting for her nomination to the highest office of the land should read—and remember. Hillary views the culture clash in America as a class struggle in which the White middle class practices what she called "...an intolerable elitism." Hillary chastised what she called "white flight." "When middle class whites," she jowled, "flee from an area that has a significant African-American population, they take the tax-base with them. This only perpetuates a vicious cycle wherein tax money is no longer available for our entitlement programs. These whites are practicing an intolerable elitism when they move into moated communities with fences and guards....The elitists [should be] forced to come to grips with the plain fact that this is going to be a multicultural and multiracial country very quickly and we are not going to tolerate or perpetuate de facto segregation." [Whatever Happened to America? by Jon Christian Ryter; pg. 241; Hallberg Publishing). Hillary ranted that "...home teaching is rightwing religious in nature and that children involved in it do not have the opportunity to mix with other racial and religious groups during the children's most impressionable years..." adding that "...this practice [must be] stopped by the means of requiring home school parents to enroll in expensive education training and certification programs that would be lengthy...and expensive. Our children," she said, "are our greatest resource. We owe them the right to grow up as interacting and socially conscious citizens, ready to take their places in the interracial global community that all of us in this room see as the wave of the future. If we have to be severe or even cruel in furthering this doctrine, we must realize that the end is certainly worth whatever means we have to employ." [Whatever Happened to America? by Jon Christian Ryter; pg. 242; Hallberg Publishing). Hillary Clinton's words on Nov. 11, 1993 were more than the privately spoken rhetoric of a woman who hates the Christian right. They were the utterances of a woman at the pinnacle of power who clearly understood both the agenda and the timeline of the New World Order, and who eagerly awaits its arrival. If Hillary Clintona person who cannot constitutionally run for the office she seeks—were to become President of the United States, she would have the power to carry out her utopian dreams.

The plan has been a work in progress since 1906. Prior to that date America's school teachers were represented by a union appropriately called the National Teachers' Association which was formed in 1857. In 1870 the NTA morphed into the National Education Association as the association's agenda changed from representing teachers to structuring a national curriculum. The NEA was so successful the US government saw an opportunity to control the philosophical direction of learning in the United States. The government agreed to covertly fund the NEA with substantial grants. In 1906 the marriage became official. The NEA became a congressional corporation. Marxism would not creep into the classrooms of America for another two decades, and the surrendering of the classrooms to Islam would not begin until the end of Clinton's second term. If Clinton had been allowed a third term Arabic, not Spanish, would be the second language in the United States.

The collapse of educational standards and the polarization of America began long before the federal court decision in June of this year that allowed Muslim students to pray in school. It began with a State-orchestrated curriculum of cultural diversity that now forces students of one religious persuasion to practice the culturally-diverse religious customs of Islam under the guise of broadening the understanding of other cultures and customs.

The program started at the Carden Hall Elementary School in Fountain Valley, California, when the State of California gave office space (an unused classroom) to Shabbir Mansuri, founder of the Council on Islamic Education. CIE distributes both the Qu'ram and their "cultural education program" presented in the textbooks, "Across the Centuries," "World History and Geography: Medieval and Early Modern Times," and the spiral-bound "The Crusaders from Medieval Europe," from that office to elementary and secondary schools, first in California and then, across the entire nation beginning in 1998. Both books slant Islam as a religion of peace and Christians as the bloodthirsty aggressors who slaughtered Muslims during the Crusades when in fact, during the 11th century, the Muslims conquered much of civilized Europe and subjugated the Christian and Coptic people from Spain to the Balkans. When the California State School Board began to introduce the books into the K-through-12 curriculum they used such stealth and secrecy that only key teachers with a "need to know" were in the loop.

Mansuri founded CIE in 1990. Using his Islamic connections in the oil rich Mideast, the foundations of American oil companies who partner with the Arab oil moguls, financed CIE and used their clout to open constitutionally-locked doors for CIE and Mansuri.

When California became the first State to require school children to study a course in Islamic religion—which was hyped as a "ancient culture" and not religion—the State violated the separation doctrine as perceived by the Founding Fathers. California implemented a State-sponsored religion. Of course, to the liberal judges sitting on the federal bench who believes that racism is a crime practiced only by Whites against African-Americans and Mexicans and never by minorities against Anglo-Saxons, the separation doctrine is violated only when Christianity is the religion taught in school. When the Carden Hall travesty happened in 1998, Bryon Union School District teacher Elizabeth Lemings—one of those conservative teachers not in the loop—told the media that "...We can't even mention the name Jesus in the public schools. But over there..." she pointed to the elementary school across the street "... they teach Islam as the true religion. Students are taught about Islam—and how to pray to Allah."

When the program spread to nearby San Luis Obispo after the World Trade Center tragedy, several Christian parents tried to "opt out" of the program on the grounds that the Muslim indoctrination program was contrary to their Christian beliefs. Parents were told they could not "opt out" of the program on religious grounds. Children were forced to don Islamic garb, memorize verses from the Qu'ram, stage make-believe pilgrimages to Mecca and stage a Jihad. One of the mothers, Jennifer Schroeder, complained to the Washington Times (the only major newspaper in the country to report the story) noted that they "...could never teach Christianity like this."

Christian students who cannot bring a Bible to school were given copies of the Qu'ram by the school district—without any cries of protest from anyone except Christian parents. If the school board of the San Luis Obispo public school system held a three week study on Christianity and forced Muslim and Jewish students to memorize New Testament scriptures and take part in staged reenactment of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, such an egregious act would have headlined the evening news on every TV network, and the New York Times would have had a media field day demanding the immediate firing of every school official and teacher involved. The ACLU would have filed a multi-million lawsuit against the school board and enough heat would have been generated that the Justice Department would have been obligated to launch a federal investigation, and Congress would eagerly have held hearings.

When the story first broke in the Washington Times on Feb. 13, 2002, Peggy Green, the superintendent of the Bryon Union School District alibied the school board's decision by saying that the schools were only teaching about Islam, not promoting Islam as a faith. "We are not teaching religion," she said defensively. "We are teaching the California state-mandated standards with state-adopted textbooks. Dressing up in costumes, role-playing and simulation games are all used to stimulate class discussion, and are common teaching practices used in other subjects as well. There's really nothing to get upset about. My schools teach all religions in the same way." All religions, by the way, meant non-Judeo-Christian religions—or, more specifically, it exclusively meant Islam. In comparison, Christians who wear even the smallest, most unobtrusive gold crosses around their necks on a chain to school are construed to constituted to be proselytizing and will be forced to remove the offensive Christian symbol, or they will be expelled from school.

Roger Wolfertz, Deputy General Counsel for the California Department of Education told the Washington Times that the school system was aware that promoting any religion in the public schools would violate State code. But, if wearing a crucifix to school constitutes practicing religion, by what stretch of the imagination could Wolfertz not think that forcing students to memorize and recite verses of the Qu'ram could be construed as anything but promoting a religion? Tragically, a terrible double standard exists. It is perpetuated by the federal courts that view Christianity as the enemy of government. The interlinked, federal government-regulated public school systems across the United States exclude anything that smacks of Christianity while everything from New Age to Wicca to Islam is acceptable.

Anyone who has been watching closely since 2002 is almost forced to conclude that the United States government has become the patron saint of Islam—CAIR's accusing the Bush-43 White House of promoting Islamophobia in the United States to gain support for his war effort notwithstanding. Islam, in America, now qualifies as "most favored religion"—and it's the religion of choice of politicians—even many of those on the far left who are practicing Roman Catholics or Jews.

The current debate is new. The substance of that debate is not. America has been sticking its head in the sand about the true nature of Islam since the first oil wells were sunk on the Arabian peninsula. To the politician, its not about religion. It's about money. To protect the money stream, politicians are willing to stifle the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause and force feed Islam into the American culture. Furthermore, the politicians are not willing to risk the money stream—and the flow of crude oil—by referring to Islam as a militant theology or as a religion of that fosters hate for non-Muslims. Suggesting that Islam is a theology that also fosters terrorism is a political taboo in Washington—and in Hollywood, California, where Jewish-movie mogul controlled Tinseltown is Islam's strongest advocate. Even though Islam is the source of most of the terrorism in the world, politicians, transnational industrialists, bankers and oil moguls have declared Islam to be a force of good for America.

That's why America's most powerful politicians—financed by the world's wealthiest oil cartels and transnational industrialists, bankers and merchant princes with a vested interest in black gold—have surrendered the psychological keys to the mind of our youth to CAIR. And that's why CAIR and CIE are working as fast and as covertly as possible to entrench Muslim-slanted textbooks into the United States public school system. Muslim "education" groups are increasingly developing, writing and editing textbooks that paint Islam as a benevolent, peace-loving religion and Christianity as the theology racism, bigotry and hate.

When the 2002 Union School District case which was originally filed by the Thomas More Law Center in the US District Court for San Francisco in 2003, Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled that the school board was not indoctrinating the students about Islam but was merely teaching them about the Muslim faith. Clearly, a social studies course that taught students about the life of Jesus Christ—but not about Christian theology—would still be viewed by the courts as Christian indoctrination. The double standard that is practiced by our courts today is so transparent that its nuances are lost on nobody. Edward White III, the trial lawyer for the Law Center argued that the school district crossed the line with respect to both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause, and they were, very deliberately, indoctrinating the students about Islam. When the 9th Circuit issued its unpublished decision on Nov. 17, 2005, the three judge panel ruled that the school district did not violate either the establishment clause.

In 1995 President Bill Clinton instructed then Education Secretary Richard Riley to order the US Department of Education to issue guidelines allowing students, by themselves or with fellow students to take "prayer breaks" in public schools during school hours. The guidelines specifically preclude teachers or other school officials from leading, or otherwise participating. The guidelines were very deliberately crafted to permit Muslim school students the prayer breaks Islam requires of its adherents.

In 1998 the GOP-controlled House narrowly missed passing a constitutional amendment to allow prayer in schools. The House voted 224 to 203 to reject the measure. The guidelines were codified under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Specifically, this legislation provided students with the right to pray on campus—alone or in groups—during school hours as long as learning time is not interrupted. It also allowed students to bring their Bibles into the classrooms and read them during lunch breaks or idle time. And, finally, the guidelines mandate that public schools must release students for parent-approved, off-campus religious instruction (banned by the Supreme Court in McCollum v Board of Education in 1947).

With the right of elementary to secondary school students to pray in school affirmed under No Child Left Behind, the same California public school system which gave birth to the Council on Islamic Education during the latter Clinton years once again became the center of the firestorm on the religion-in-school debate. This time the school in the limelight was Carver Elementary in Oak Park. With the closing of a charter school for Somali Muslims in the San Diego area, more than a hundred Islamic students enrolled in Carver. To accommodate them, the school system added Arabic to its curriculum. And, apparently in a quid pro quo to accommodate the school system, it appears that several of the charter school's Arabic language teachers were added to the Carver staff as teachers' aides. Also added to the curriculum was a 15-minute prayer break in the afternoon for Muslim children who are required to pray to Allah each day at specified times. (Non-Muslim students in the classroom were not required to pray, and were allowed to read, write or nap during the "non-instructional" time.)

In April, a substitute teacher at Carver Elementary observed that one of the teachers' aides was leading the Muslim children in prayer during one of the prayer breaks and reported it as a violation of the establishment clause. The school board "investigated" the allegation but failed to corroborate the teacher's allegation. It did, however, bring the California public school system back into the spotlight and, once again, the question was raised about religion in public schools. And, once again, the California public school system took the high ground, defending "religious freedom." (Too bad the public school system won't defend the religious liberty of Christians as zealously as they protect Islam's religious rights.)

Once again, the issue attracted the Thomas More Law Center and the Pacific Justice Institute. Richard Thomas, chief counsel and president of the Law Center said when you examine the Carver situation its obvious that a double standard was being used. While specific prayer time was allocated for Muslim students, no such arrangements were made for Christians. While the courts have ruled on the issue of school prayer several times since 1998, legal scholars claim the issue is still murky. Perhaps that why Christians are still denied the right to pray in school and Muslim students have a protected right to do so. The federal courts still insist the only clear right Christian students have with respect to prayer is to say grace over their lunch.

Officials of the nation's second largest school district claim its a grey area for them as well since Christianity does not require its members to pray at a specific time each day as does Islam. Muslims are expected to do their afternoon prayers each day between 1 and 2 p.m., thus they require "special time" for prayer. Not in the least surprising, when it comes to accommodating the needs of Christians, the view of the public school system—and the federal government—has always been..."not my problem!"

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute said the policies of the California school board "...presumes that Christians are less inspired to worship and praise the Lord, and come together." The Pacific Justice Institute has petitioned the school board to set up special rooms where Christians can pray, too. But Dacus and Thomas both know that won't happen. Nor will the federal courts ever attempt to open that can of worms by entertaining the notion. The politicians and the money barons who fill their campaign coffers have decided that Islam—that spells oil wealth—is good for America; and Christianity—which teaches fidelity to God through Jesus Christ and encourages moral character—is bad. The latest outcry from conservative groups suggests the "most-favored religion status" of Islam by the federal government and the public school systems controlled by the NEA will end up in the federal courts. Unfortunately, those in government who wish Islam to enjoy this special status are the same people who appointed the judges who will hear this—and other—free exercise clause cases.

While the Christian voter base probably viewed both Clinton's 1995 and Bush-43's 2001 prayer initiative—if they paid any attention to it at all—as an effort to gain political support from Christian voters in the next election, it now appears more likely that both presidents were taking steps to "legally" accommodate Islam's growing presence in the United States. What makes this worrisome are two things. First, neither president—nor their GOP-controlled Congresses— who acted swiftly to assure that the Islam-mandated prayer cycles were protected in American schools showed any inkling to protect the religious liberties of working class Christian Americans—and still don't.

Second and most troublesome is the fact that one in every eight Muslims in the world—and, by extension, in the United States—are adherents of radical Islam. (It is important to remember that most Muslims—7 out of 8—are not militants. They pose no threat to the United States and can, and will, coexist peacefully with the rest of the world. The Islamofascists—the ideological paradigm—not only fight the culture of the West but that of the moderate Muslim as well.) Sadly, it is impossible to accommodate the needs of one without accommodating the other. Radical Islam has already impacted life in the United States. Criticism of Christianity, Christians and Jesus Christ specifically is more prevalent as Christians in the first decade of the 21st century are treated with the same contempt as Christians in the first century, and criticism of Mohammad in any form is carefully avoided by government, by teachers and by the media.

There is no common ground between Islam and Christianity. And, there is no common ground between Islam and Judaism. And finally, there is also no common ground between Islam and atheism. Islam has no interest in finding common ground with any other religion nor with the free enterprise system. Nor does Islam have any interest in preserving the American way of life. If that is so, why does the US government, its educational system, and the American media go to such lengths to coddle Islam? It's designed to lessen hostility towards Islam, and lessen Muslim hostility towards Americans in the United States.



Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved