Comments on: Religious Freedom Inconvenient for Public Schools

By: Doug Payton

Doug Payton — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:36:18 +0000

Which is why the term “strict Constitutionalist” is not a denigrating term for a judge; it’s a job requirement.

By: Potrzebie

Potrzebie — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:28:07 +0000

American Judges have “evolved” over the last several decades. They no longer base their decisions on the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, national laws. Many decisions are based on their own “feelings” (opinions) about social issues. Their substantiation offer depends upon laws of other nations, and the goals desired (whether or not those goals are legally obligatory).

There are violent revolutions and peaceful revolutions. I believe the United States is in the pit of a pre-revolutionary phase. Like frogs in warm water, Americans accept continuously increasing taxes and continuously decreasing freedoms. Eventually the frog will utterly, irredeemably die if it does not do something to change its situation.

By: Doug Payton

Doug Payton — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 01:43:21 +0000

Thank you for your work in this.

Yes, while imagined constitutional rights are the means by which this agenda is spread, what I’m pointing out is that there is another right, just as constitutional, being removed. I’m hoping that pointing this out will wake folks up.

By: H. Terry Buchanan

H. Terry Buchanan — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:48:47 +0000

3/22/07

Dear Doug Payton:

I read with great interest your blog “Religious Freedom Inconvenient for Public Schools” and vigorously concur with your criticism of the liberal judges (federal and state) who have issued these rulings.

Brian Camenker and his MassResistance movement (www.massresistance.org) in Waltham, MA has been taking the battle to the Mass. Legislature
on the Gay Marriage and Homosexual Agenda in the Mass. public school system for years.
Sadly, a very paltry number of citizens respond to the call to defeat the homosexual
lobby juggernaut in their State House. I have encountered the same opposition at my Andover, MA private school where I graduated in 1948 (then finished at Yale in 1952).

In California we face the same powerful homosexual lobby in the Democrat-controlled State Legislature with the same obsessed goals of homosexual educational indoctrination.But contrary to your article’s title, this is not about “Religious Freedom”. The insideous strategy of the Gay lobby is to stress bogus Constitutional Rights and Safety and Fairness doctrines. These are easy target goals for homosexual advocates to promote to young, unsuspecting teenagers (and even Kindergarten age children).

Pro-family value, traditional marriage citizens must stand up in the public square and counter attack the above “enemies” with relentless public protest and logical argument. Only then, will we prevail, as we did in California last year with Governor Schwarzenegger’s veto of homosexual indoctrination bills. Only problem: the homosexuals keep coming back like a creeping fungus.

Press on with your blogging exposures — the more citizens learn the truth about the Gay Agenda the better.

Sincerely,

H. Terry Buchanan
Glendale, CA