The Ethics and Philosophical Implications of Celebrating Death: The Case of Charlie Kirk and Beyond

The Ethics and Philosophical Implications of Celebrating Death: The Case of Charlie Kirk and Beyond

The act of celebrating or cheering for someone’s death, such as the hypothetical case of Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, raises profound ethical, philosophical, and psychological questions. 

This phenomenon is not merely a reaction to an individual’s passing but a reflection of deeper societal, moral, and psychological currents. When people express joy or satisfaction at someone’s death—particularly in public forums like workplaces or university campuses—it creates a complex dilemma. This issue intersects with free speech, moral philosophy, psychological disorders, religious teachings (specifically from the Bible and Catholic doctrine), and the tension between individual expression and societal harmony. Below, I explore the ethical and philosophical dimensions of this behavior, the psychological underpinnings, the religious perspectives, the free speech paradox, and potential paths toward balance, while addressing the hypocrisy of those who champion free speech yet demand punishment for such expressions.

 Ethical and Philosophical Perspectives

Philosophically, celebrating someone’s death challenges foundational ethical principles. From a deontological perspective, rooted in Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative, actions should be judged by their adherence to universal moral laws. Kant argued that we must treat others as ends in themselves, not as means to an end. Celebrating someone’s death, particularly a public figure like Charlie Kirk, reduces their humanity to a symbol of ideological opposition, violating their intrinsic dignity. This act fails Kant’s test of universalizability: if everyone celebrated the deaths of their adversaries, it would erode mutual respect and foster a culture of vengeance.

In contrast, consequentialist ethics, such as utilitarianism proposed by John Stuart Mill, evaluates actions based on their outcomes. Celebrating a death might bring temporary satisfaction to a group but risks long-term harm by deepening societal divisions and normalizing dehumanization. Mill’s harm principle suggests that free expression is permissible unless it causes significant harm to others. While cheering for a death may not directly harm the deceased, it can create a hostile environment, particularly in workplaces or campuses, where such expressions may alienate or intimidate others.

Virtue ethics, drawing from Aristotle, emphasizes character and the cultivation of virtues like compassion and justice. Celebrating death reflects a failure to embody virtues such as empathy or magnanimity, instead fostering vices like spite or cruelty. For Aristotle, living a virtuous life requires striving for the “golden mean” between extremes—here, balancing honest critique of someone’s actions with respect for their humanity, even in death.

 Psychological Underpinnings

Psychologically, celebrating someone’s death often stems from intense ideological polarization or personal animosity. This behavior can be linked to schadenfreude, the pleasure derived from another’s misfortune. While schadenfreude is a common human emotion, its extreme manifestation in celebrating death may indicate deeper issues. For instance, individuals with narcissistic or antisocial personality disorders may exhibit heightened tendencies to dehumanize opponents, viewing their demise as a victory. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) notes that antisocial personality disorder involves a lack of empathy and disregard for others’ rights, which could manifest in callous celebrations of death.

Group dynamics also play a role. Social identity theory, developed by Henri Tajfel, suggests that individuals derive self-esteem from their group affiliations, often leading to in-group favoritism and out-group hostility. When a figure like Charlie Kirk, who is polarizing due to his conservative activism, dies, members of opposing groups may celebrate as a way to affirm their group’s moral superiority. This is amplified in echo chambers, such as online platforms or ideologically homogeneous campuses, where groupthink reinforces extreme reactions.

 Biblical and Catholic Teachings

The Bible and Catholic teachings provide clear guidance on the sanctity of human life and the moral response to death. In the Old Testament, Ezekiel 33:11 states, “As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” This verse underscores God’s desire for redemption over destruction, suggesting that celebrating death is contrary to divine will. Similarly, Proverbs 24:17-18 warns, “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles, lest the Lord see it and be displeased.”

Catholic teaching reinforces this. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2302) emphasizes the importance of cultivating peace and avoiding hatred, even toward those who hold opposing views. The Fifth Commandment, “You shall not kill,” extends beyond physical acts to include the “murder of the heart” through hatred or contempt (CCC 2262). Celebrating someone’s death, particularly in a public setting, violates this principle by fostering division and dehumanization. The Church also calls for forgiveness and charity, urging believers to pray for the souls of the departed, even those considered enemies.

 The Free Speech Dilemma

The act of celebrating death, while morally troubling, falls under the umbrella of free speech in many democratic societies, particularly in the United States under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has consistently protected controversial speech, as seen in cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which allows speech unless it incites imminent lawless action, and Texas v. Johnson (1989), which upheld flag burning as expressive conduct. Publicly cheering for someone’s death, while distasteful, is unlikely to meet the legal threshold for unprotected speech unless it incites violence or constitutes a direct threat.

However, the workplace and campus settings complicate this. Employees or students celebrating a death—say, of a figure like Charlie Kirk—may create a hostile environment, particularly if their expressions target colleagues or peers who share the deceased’s views. For example, a faculty member tweeting, “Good riddance to Charlie Kirk,” could alienate conservative students, undermining the inclusive environment universities strive to maintain. Similarly, employees openly celebrating in a workplace risk violating codes of conduct that prioritize professionalism and respect.

The paradox arises when conservatives, who often champion free speech, call for firings or expulsions over such expressions. This hypocrisy is evident when figures like Kirk himself defend controversial speech (e.g., his advocacy for free expression on campuses) but their supporters demand punishment for speech they find offensive. This selective application of free speech principles undermines the very liberty they claim to uphold. It also highlights a broader societal tension: how to balance free expression with the need for civility in shared spaces.

 The Workplace and Campus Context

In workplaces and universities, the celebration of death poses unique challenges. Employees are often bound by codes of conduct that prohibit behavior creating a hostile work environment, as outlined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If an employee’s celebration of a public figure’s death is perceived as targeting coworkers with similar beliefs, it could lead to disciplinary action. For example, a company might argue that such behavior disrupts team cohesion or violates diversity and inclusion policies.

On campuses, the issue is even more fraught. Universities are marketplaces of ideas, where free speech is paramount, yet they also have a duty to foster inclusive learning environments. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) emphasizes academic freedom, but this is balanced against the need to prevent harassment. If students or faculty celebrate a death in a way that alienates others, it could chill open discourse, contradicting the university’s mission. Yet expelling students or firing faculty for such speech risks overreach, particularly if the expression occurs outside the classroom or workplace.

 Finding Balance

Balancing free speech with ethical and social considerations requires a nuanced approach. Here are some principles to guide this balance:

1. Promote Virtue Over Vengeance: Drawing from Aristotle’s virtue ethics, individuals and institutions should cultivate compassion and empathy, even toward ideological opponents. Public discourse should emphasize critique of ideas rather than dehumanization of people.

2. Context Matters: Free speech is not absolute in private settings like workplaces or campuses. Institutions should establish clear policies distinguishing between protected speech and behavior that disrupts their mission. For example, a university might allow controversial speech in public forums but discipline students for targeted harassment in classrooms.

3. Encourage Dialogue, Not Punishment: Instead of firing employees or expelling students, institutions should use these moments as opportunities for dialogue. Facilitating discussions about why celebrating death is harmful can foster understanding without resorting to censorship.

4. Model Consistency: Conservatives and others who champion free speech must apply their principles consistently. Calling for punishment of offensive speech while defending one’s own undermines credibility and fuels accusations of hypocrisy.

5. Religious and Ethical Reflection: Religious communities can play a role by emphasizing teachings like those in the Bible and Catholic doctrine, which call for forgiveness and respect for human dignity. Secular society can draw on similar ethical frameworks to promote civility.

6. Psychological Awareness: Recognizing the psychological roots of celebrating death—such as schadenfreude or groupthink—can help individuals and groups reflect on their motives. Education about these dynamics can reduce knee-jerk reactions.

Ultimately, the goal is to create a society where free speech is preserved, but individuals are encouraged to exercise it with moral responsibility. This requires both personal reflection and institutional clarity about the boundaries of acceptable behavior.

 Conclusion

Celebrating the death of someone like Charlie Kirk or any individual is a morally complex act that raises questions about human dignity, free speech, and societal harmony. Philosophically, it violates principles of respect and virtue; psychologically, it reflects deeper issues like schadenfreude or group polarization; and religiously, it contradicts biblical and Catholic teachings on love and forgiveness. The free speech dilemma, particularly in workplaces and campuses, highlights the tension between individual rights and collective well-being. Conservatives who demand punishment for such expressions while defending free speech expose their own contradictions. Finding balance requires fostering dialogue, promoting ethical reflection, and establishing clear institutional boundaries. By grounding our responses in philosophy, psychology, and religious wisdom, we can navigate this fraught terrain with greater compassion and clarity.

Sources  

1. Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. 1785.  

2. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. 1859.  

3. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by W.D. Ross, 1925.  

4. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). 2013.  

5. Tajfel, Henri. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. 1982.  

6. Holy Bible, New International Version. Ezekiel 33:11, Proverbs 24:17-18.  

7. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd Edition, 1997.  

8. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).  

9. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).  

10. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  

11. American Association of University Professors. Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure. 1940.

July 4: Independence Day - Freedom Only Comes From God

The Fourth of July, also known as Independence Day, is a significant date in United States history that marks the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. This historic document proclaimed the thirteen American colonies as independent states, no longer under British rule. The day is celebrated with various traditions, including fireworks, parades, and barbecues, symbolizing the freedom and liberties that Americans enjoy.

The Signers of the Declaration of Independence: A Legacy of Courage and Conviction

The Declaration of Independence is not just a seminal document in the history of the United States; it is a symbol of freedom and human rights that resonates worldwide. The signers of this document were a diverse group of individuals who shared a common belief in liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They were representatives from the thirteen American colonies, and their signatures marked a moment of immense historical significance—the birth of a new nation.

Among the signers were esteemed figures such as John Hancock, whose bold signature is perhaps the most recognized. Hancock, along with Samuel Adams and John Adams from Massachusetts, were influential leaders in the early stages of the American Revolution. Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration, was a Virginia delegate known for his eloquent writing and philosophical depth.

These men, along with their fellow signers, came from various backgrounds and professions. They were lawyers, merchants, plantation owners, and physicians, each bringing their unique perspective to the Continental Congress. Some, like Benjamin Franklin, were already well-known for their contributions to science and public affairs. Others, such as Roger Sherman, would go on to sign other foundational documents of the United States, including the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The act of signing the Declaration was one of bravery. By affixing their names to this document, the signers were committing an act of treason against the British Crown and risking their lives and livelihoods. The Declaration's concluding statement, "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor," was not mere rhetoric; it was a solemn vow that bound these individuals together in a cause greater than themselves.

The signers represented a cross-section of colonial society, with the largest number (nine) hailing from Pennsylvania. The New England Colonies were represented by fourteen signers, the Middle Colonies by twenty-one, and the Southern Colonies also by twenty-one. This geographical diversity underscored the widespread desire for independence that had grown across the colonies.

The signing took place primarily on August 2, 1776, at the Pennsylvania State House, later renamed Independence Hall, in Philadelphia. Contrary to popular belief, it did not occur on July 4, the day the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration. The New York delegation abstained from voting on July 4 because they had not yet received instructions to vote for independence, but they later signed the document.

The legacy of the signers is not only in their act of defiance against tyranny but also in their vision for a nation built on principles of freedom and equality. Their signatures on the Declaration of Independence laid the foundation for the United States of America, a country that continues to strive toward the ideals they set forth over two centuries ago.

As we celebrate Independence Day, we remember not just the document they signed, but the courage and conviction of the 56 men who stood united in their quest for a better future. Their actions remind us that freedom is not free; it is won through determination, sacrifice, and an unwavering belief in the unalienable rights of all people. The signers of the Declaration of Independence are a testament to the enduring power of these ideals and the spirit of a nation that cherishes liberty above all.

The concept of freedom is deeply rooted in philosophical and religious thought. Many believe that freedom is a divine right granted by God, which is reflected in the Declaration of Independence itself with the famous phrase, "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." This intertwines the idea of freedom with a higher power, suggesting that liberty is not just a human invention but a sacred gift.

Freedom of religion, a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance, is also a cornerstone of American values. It is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits laws establishing a national religion or impeding the free exercise of religion for its citizens. This reflects the belief that the ability to worship freely is a fundamental human right, possibly bestowed by a divine presence.

The intertwining of freedom and divine providence has been a topic of discussion and interpretation throughout American history. It has shaped the nation's understanding of liberty and justice, influencing the way Americans celebrate their independence and how they perceive their rights and responsibilities.

As we reflect on the history of July 4th and the broader concept of freedom, it's important to recognize the diverse perspectives that contribute to the ongoing dialogue about liberty, rights, and the role of the divine in human affairs. Whether one views freedom as a gift from God or as a secular right, it remains a defining aspect of the American identity and a cause for celebration each Independence Day.

SCOTUS Knocks Down LGBT Tyranny & Student Freebies

The Supreme Court is on a roll this week!  First, they knocked down Affirmative Action which is on its face racist and discriminatory, and now has affirmed the first amendment matters. The Court in a 6-3 decision ruled in favor of Lorie Smith, a Christian web designer who refused to create a website promoting so-called "same-sex marriage." She was of course sued on the pretense of discrimination. 

In the past, Christians became the target of gay couples who were seeking to make an example out of them when the odds were in their favor. Back then, more liberals controlled the court and legislated from the bench. They often decided in favor of the LGBTQIA community setting aside the text of the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, in favor of inferences that made no legislative or rational sense when compared to the Constitution. 

Well, things are different now. The Court decided to protect the First Amendment rights of Christians and overall conscience rights. Immediately the left cried out "Second-class citizenship!" In other words, they feel the LGBTQIA community will not be seen as second-class citizens. Justice Sotomayor wrote in a dissent,

"Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public. The Court also holds that the company has a right to post a notice that says, “‘no [wedding websites] will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’”

There is speculation that Sotomayor herself may be a lesbian due to her passionate responses whenever the other justices decide against the LGBTQIA community. What she and other leftists fail to realize is that one party cannot force another party to go against their beliefs whether religious or not. No one is being denied service. Cakes, pizzas, and websites can be made for the LGBTQIA community, but not ones with content that goes against the provider of the service. This should be common sense to anyone who has reasoning skills. For example, one cannot ask a Jewish caterer to create Nazi theme meals or a Muslim-run business to create something that contains pork. Not only is it disrespectful, but an affront to the person's conscience rights.

The Supreme Court also gave a huge blow to President Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness program which sort to erase all or most of the debt students have accrued during their studies in college. The plan was welcomed by many students who feel that student loans are like owing money to a Mafia loan shark. However, many others protested the idea believing it to be fiscally irresponsible and teaching students in college to be irresponsible. The reason they go to college is to earn a degree so as to get a better-paying job to pay for living expenses including debts and mortgages. Paying off their student debt with taxpayer money sends the message that they do not have to pay back debts. It creates an atmosphere of irresponsibility. Students can study on loans and then not pay them back while relying on the government to use taxpayer dollars to pay back loans. The idea sends the wrong message.  

What is next? Will people who owe rent or mortgages demand the government uses taxpayer dollars to bail them out?  Some may bring up the 2008 bailing of banks, but that situation was different. Banks are important in a capitalist society. They need to be up and running, not failing and collapsing. The bail money they were given was not free money either. They had to pay it back to the taxpayers. Paying student loans is way different. No one is paying taxpayers back if this plan took hold in the united states. This decision was also a great one.  President Biden is now assuring students in debt of a "plan b" approach in order to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling. 

Are we starting to see the Supreme Court actually upholding the Constitution? It sure looks like it.  It looks like the majority of the justices are interpreting the Constitution as it is and not inferring on it what it does not state. We saw this with the Dobbs decision last year which knocked down Roe vs Wade. Roe vs Wade was decided on the premise that women had equality and the right to privacy. How does this even add up to abortion?  Where does abortion even fit in this?  It made no sense and had to be overturned.  Similarly, cases like Obergefell were decided on claims that equality exists and enumerated rights are granted, therefore same-sex couples can marry.  The Constitution does not even mention marriage or abortion!  

Hopefully, the Supreme Court of the United States continues on this path and will eventually overturn Obergefell restoring marriage as only being between one man and one woman.  Today's ruling ended "Pride Month" on a sour note for the LGBTQIA community.  

You can read the Court's opinions here:

21-476 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (06/30/2023) (supremecourt.gov)

22-535 Department of Education v. Brown (06/30/2023) (supremecourt.gov)

22-506 Biden v. Nebraska (06/30/2023) (supremecourt.gov)

What do you think?  Post your comment below. Remember to follow the rules so your comment can be posted. 

Source:

Gay couple cited by Christian web designer who won Supreme Court case may not exist (yahoo.com)

Supreme Court Just Marked ‘Gays and Lesbians For Second-Class Status’ Declared Sotomayor In Scathing Dissent: ‘Profoundly Wrong’ (msn.com)

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Web Designer Who Refuses to Promote Gay Weddings (mediaite.com)

Supreme Court injustice: ‘legal innocence’ is not enough (msn.com)

'Embarrassing': Sotomayor slams SCOTUS decision that marks 'gays and lesbians for second-class status' (msn.com)

'Nuclear hypocrisy': Legal experts stunned by SCOTUS' 'weird' ruling in LGBTQ rights case (msn.com)

A Huge Win for the First Amendment (msn.com)

'Loaded gun': Expert suggests LGBTQ ruling paves way to return to 'Whites-only' luncheonettes (msn.com)

Biden unveils new student loan forgiveness plan after Supreme Court defeat (usatoday.com)

June 30, 2023 SCOTUS blocks Biden's student loan plan and limits LGBTQ protections (cnn.com)

What Will Happen to Your Student Loans Now - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Roberts scolds liberal justices for demonizing rulings they don't like: 'Disturbing feature' of dissents (msn.com)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/opinion/affirmative-action-supreme-court-repeal.html

SCOTUS to Cuomo: Leave Catholics & Jews Alone

 

After being bullying by dictator governor Andrew Cuomo, Catholics and Jews and breathe a sigh of relief.  The Supreme Court decided today in a 5-4 ruling that the governor/state cannot impose restrictions on religious communities.  

The decision comes after a battle regarding Church and State. While the Constitution explicitly states that the government cannot infringe on the rights of religion, many liberal governors took on powers they did not have in order to do just that. They imposed restriction on Churches and Synagogues during the first wave of Covid-19 Coronavirus threatening bishops and religious leaders with fines and other penalties if they did not comply with closures and other demands.

At first, bishops complied in a good faith spirit of maintaining the common good and protecting others; however, once it became obvious that the Church was targeted when stores like Target, liquor stores and protests were allowed gather, the bishops woke up and sued. They were joined by Jewish leaders who also were targeted by Cuomo and May Di Blasio.  

The justices opined, “Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten...The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.”

This has been my view since the alleged pandemic took hold here in New York City. The restrictions the government was placing on religious communities raised eyebows. It seemed as if the Constitution did not matter.  The government cannot tell religious institutions what to do and vice-verse. This is what the Constitution clearly states.  It was disturbing to see some Catholics on social media attack Catholics who held this Constitutional view. 

Despite science showing that the Mass has never been a conduit for the spread of disease, the government insisted churches and religious gathers were unsafe. The fact that liquor stores, Target and protesting rioters were allowed to gather without restriction made it clear that the state was simply bullying religious institutions.  To what ends, no one can know for sure. However, the agenda seems sinister.  

St. Pope Piux X gave us a clear warning decades ago about allowing the State to control the Mass and Sacraments. He wrote in the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis: 

We can never let the State tell us how to run the Church. This is a huge no-no under the United States Constitution. Virus or no virus, pandemic or no pandemic, this cannot be allowed.  Religious freedom is engraved into the Constitution.  The fact that liquors stores, Target and rioters were allowed to reign free while Churches were forced to shut down is an affront to the Constitution.  It is a disrespect to religion, our Founders and Science.  As stated before, there is not scientific evidence that the Catholic Mass or Holy Communion is a conduit for any disease.  While some priests, nuns and lay people have gotten covid-19, this was in activities outside of the liturgy and Catholic parish.  

What do you think? Post below on Disqus. Be sure to follow the rules for posting.  

Source:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-relieves-religious-organizations-from-some-covid-related-restrictions/ar-BB1bncwo?ocid=msedgntp

https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rules-against-ny-052246804.html

https://www.foxnews.com/us/supreme-court-rules-against-cuomos-coronavirus-limits-with-barrett-playing-key-role

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/26/politics/supreme-court-religious-restrictions-ruling-covid/index.html

NYC Restricts Constitution to Protect Illegal Aliens

As a New Yorker, born in Manhattan and raised in The Bronx, I am ashamed of my home city. The Twitter account for New York City tweeted out this graphic stating that it is now illegal to "threaten to call ICE" on illegal immigrants and that it is illegal to tell someone to "go back to your country."  They also will penalize anyone who calls illegal immigrants "illegal aliens."  No, this is not satire, the Onion or a parody post. This is for real! 

BREAKING:
New York City has made it illegal to threaten to call ICE based on a discriminatory motive or to tell someone "go back to your country." Hate has no place here. pic.twitter.com/8PaIozjQty

— City of New York (@nycgov) September 26, 2019

The new law is unconstitutional. It violates the first amendment. One does not have to be a Constitutional scholar to see this.  ICE exists to arrest people who are here illegally. They are a federal law enforcement agency. To tell a city that they cannot be called is an affront to the first amendment and the rule of law. Moreover, to make the phrase "go back to your country" is the restriction of free speech by the government. This is a gross attack on freedom of speech which is guaranteed by the first amendment.  The government cannot restrict or dictate the speech of the people.

The news has angered many people, both conservative and liberal who value the United States Constitution. This law will not stand in court. I am sure it will be taken to court.  Citizens have a right and duty to call ICE to report illegal immigrants, especially those who have violated a warrant or committed other crimes. Moreover, while telling someone to go back to their country can be rude, it is not discriminatory.

I invite all New Yorkers and Americans to voice their concerns over this new law and encourage lawyers to take the city to court for this gross violation of the first amendment.


What do you think?  Post below on Disqus.  Be sure to follow the rules for commenting.



UPDATED: 10/1/19
The Twitter account for NYC deleted the original tweet which was stormed with disapproval by many and retweeted it as a pinned tweet.  Here it is.

BREAKING:
New York City has made it illegal to threaten to call ICE based on a discriminatory motive or to tell someone "go back to your country." Hate has no place here. pic.twitter.com/1rgQ52oI68

— City of New York (@nycgov) October 1, 2019

Is Fr. Peter West Being Silenced?

Many of you know Father Peter West of Human Life International or follow him on Twitter (@fr_pwest) and/or Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/people/Peter-West/576926938).  He is known for posting his views on conservatism and political current events.

Well, it seems that the media is going after him now. Mark Mueller, a reporter for NJ.Com has been following Fr. West's posts and has written a story describing the passionate priest as an "internet flamethrower." The story has brought the Archdiocese of Newark to investigate Fr. West and limit his free speech which is entitled to him as an American citizen. Mueller is accusing Fr. West of bashing liberals describing millennials as"cryins," and "snowflakes."

Plz spread the word.

A Pro-Life Priest Faces Possible Sanctions by His Archdiocese https://t.co/Pqn65G7ika

— Nick Donnelly (@ProtectthePope) February 8, 2017

I never called all Millennials "snowflakes". I have great respect for family, friends and especially members of... https://t.co/EBri522n2S

— Father Peter West (@fr_pwest) February 9, 2017

Jim Goodness, the Diocesan spokesperson stated, "We are concerned about Father West's comments and actions, and will be addressing them according to the protocols of the Church." Fr. West is a Trump supported and has spoken out against Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party. In light of Newark's new archbishop, Cardinal Tobin, many are speculating that the situation will not go well for Fr. West since the new cardinal has voiced his opposition to Trump's policies. Many are worried that Fr. West may be silenced by his bishop. Please contact Jim Goodness, Director of Communications at 973-497-4186, goodneja@rcan.org to voice your concerns.







Source:

http://linkis.com/com/wFUjJ

http://www.thechristianreview.com/a-pro-life-priest-faces-possible-sanctions-by-his-archdiocese/

http://www.hli.org/authors/fr-peter-west/

July 4th, 2015 - America is Not Free

The image to the left is not a sign of disrespect to the flag but the proper display of the flag when the nation is in distress.

Today, July 4th we Americans usually celebrate our independence from the archaic and tyrannical monarchy of Great Britain.  Our founding Fathers had enough of being taxed without representation.  The British crown in its greed and abuse sought all they could from the progress of Americans in the thirteen colonies.

They taxed, and taxed and even taxed the tax. Things were hairy nearly 300 years ago in America's infancy.  However, the Americans had enough. They rebelled.  These "peasants" in the eyes of the British crown took on the - at the time- world's most powerful military with its exaggerated pomp and circumstance displayed even during battle. The outcome was in favor of the Americans.  We kicked British butt and told the British King to stick the crown where the sun does not illuminate.  However, things are different now.  We are now under a tyrannical sublime agenda which is making itself more public as it gains ground.   This agenda is removing our freedoms little by little . The first amendment is only protected when the speech and expression favors this agenda. Religious freedom which is the reason why European settlers left Europe to America is now being pushed aside and labeled as hate speech and bigotry.

The recent Supreme Court decision attacking the power of the people and the States they reside in which is protected by the tenth amendment, defying the Constitution is testament to the fact that America is being controlled by an ominous totalitarian faction. Is this the Anti Christ at work?  We cannot be sure, but the signs are there.  This faction is pushing God and religion out of the public square denying Jesus coming in the flesh (see 1 John 2:22).  It is forcing Americans to buy something or face a penalty (see Revelation 13). This faction is forcing a colorful mark on all of us via products we use, services we rely on and even on our tax funded government buildings.  It is removing monuments of the Ten Commandments from court real estate despite our nation's highest court having Moses with the tablets on full display on its edifice's facade.  If that is not enough, it is using every tragedy to limit second amendment rights which exists to preserve the people from a tyrannical government and pushes a common core curriculum that does not teach the history of America and the value of freedom.   It is disturbing to know of the many millennials today who have no clue what July 4th is about due to the education they have received which ignores America's history and instead presents this nation as a problem in the world instead of as a global model of how a nation should be.

I lament to write that America is no longer independent nor free.  The great nation that saw me be born and grow into an adult; the nation that took in the poor and the huddled masses seeking freedom; the nation that gives opportunity to all is unrecognizable to me today in 2015.  We are being hijacked by this ominous totalitarian faction.  It is time for the Catholic Church and all Americans to wake up and take back this country which prides itself as being 'under God' and in whom she trusts in.  God save the United States of America, for we do not know what we are doing.    

Senator: Make Church Attendance Mandatory

News outlets are reporting that senator Sylvia Allen, a Republican from Arizona is trying to pass legislation making it mandatory for citizens to attend church services. She claims that "corrupt souls" are the root of the problems in America, particular, gun violence.  Allen told the state's appropriations committee, "It is the soul that is corrupt and how we get back to a moral rebirth in this country, I don’t know. We are slowly eroding religion at every opportunity that we have. We should probably be debating a bill requiring every American to attend a church of their choice on Sunday to see if we can get back to having a moral rebirth."

I am not sure what to think of this proposal.  First, it would violate the Constitution as the government is not supposed to endorse any religion. Second, what of those people who do not go to church or may be atheists?  Should they be forced to attend church services as well? Lastly, people must be open to going to church and cannot be force. God gives us free will. We can accept or reject Him.  It seems Sylvia Allen is proposing this idea out of nostalgia. She described missing how religion played a big role in society, "People prayed, people went to church, I remember on Sundays the stores were closed.”  I do not see this bill or anything similar even making it to a discussion.  Instead of forcing people to attend church, churches need to go out to them and present their message in a way that is faithful to God and speaks to the people of today.  This is what Pope Francis is doing and calling all Catholics to do.







Source:

http://www.kpho.com/story/28620533/az-senator-church-attendance-should-be-mandatory

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/03/27/pkg-arizona-senator-church-attendance-mandatory.ktvk

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/arizona-lawmaker-church-attendance-mandatory-article-1.2164602

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2015/03/26/nostalgia-but-no-apologies-senator-sylvia-allen-explains-church-law-comment/

Religious Freedom Wins!

There is a big commotion going on social media and in the traditional media regarding a bill that was signed into law in Indiana. The bill was signed by Governor Mike Pence after passing 63-31 in the House and 40-10 in the Senate and serves to protect religious freedom in the state.  Liberals and other LGBT supporters are calling this new law an open invitation to discrimination. However, those in favor of the law say that the reaction the LGBT agenda is giving the law shows exactly why the law is needed.

Since the LGBT has been gaining wins in courts throughout the states, religious groups have suffered greatly.  Bakers, churches, and other institutions have been sued for refusing to endorse the LGBT lifestyle which is contrary to their religious beliefs.  This law "“prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest.”

On Twitter and other social networks, #BoycottIndiana has been trending with frustrated individuals crying foul at the passing of this bill.  Businesses and other institutions are threatening to take their business elsewhere if Governor Pence does not veto the law.  Talk about bullying...  This goes to show you how this tyrannical minority wants to be the one to "run the show," so to speak. They do not care when religious businesses and persons are sued for adhering to their religious beliefs. Religious people have to take their agenda or suffer the consequences.  Well, Indiana said "enough!" This law is not meant to discriminate against anyone.  It is meant to protect religious freedom which has been under attack. Recently, a ban was placed on an archdiocese in New Jersey preventing it from selling headstones for its own cemetery!  In California, Archbishop Salvatore is being pressured to change his hiring practices in favor of one that rejects the Church's moral standard.

Those protesting the Indiana law are ignorant of the facts.  This bill has been a work in progress for over 20 years. Ironically, Democratic, president Bill Clinton signed the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was passed almost unanimously by Congress.  There was no protest then because the LGBT agenda did not enjoy the power and audience it does now. Also, president Obama while senator in Illinois was in favor of a Religious Freedom Act that was brought up in 1998.

The passing of this bill in Indiana is testament of what religious people can do.  We cannot sit back and let tyrannical minorities pervert society, our children, marriage and our laws. It is time to stand up to this Goliath and bring it down to size. Our nation was founded on religious freedom. European settlers fled Europe in search for a land where they can believe, pray and worship how they wished without interference from the government or anyone else.  Kudos to Governor Pence for signing the bill into law and protecting religious freedom.  Let us pray that other states follow.








Source:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12574928/big-ten-officials-discuss-new-indiana-religious-objections-law

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/mike-pence-religious-freedom-bill-gay-rights/

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/no-indiana-did-not-just-pass-a-law-discriminating-against-gay-people-heres-why-13174/

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/a-grave-problem-nj-ban-on-religious-headstone-sales-could-violate-constitution-58838/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/petitions/i-stand-with-archbishop-cordileone

Free Speech On Facebook, Twitter etc

Free speech is something we Americans value. Most of us would die for this basic right. However, when our Founding Fathers included this in the Constitution, they weren't thinking of social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, Instagram etc.

They had in mind verbal speech and written speech via literature such as pamphlets which were popular at the time,  as well as books and the like.

Now that we're in the 21st century, free speech is in question again. Is what we post in the cyber world considered "free speech?"  This is what the Supreme Court of the United States of America will be deciding on in June of 2015.  A case involving a Pennsylvania man - Anthony Elonis - is in the works and being debated by the Justices.  This man was convicted and sent to prison for posting threatening posts or statements regarding his wife, FBI and police, as well as others.

According to Elonis, the statements or posts are "rap lyrics" and were not meant to be taken seriously.  Nevertheless, one can see how the words clearly depict threatening messages.   Justice Samuel Alito said of the defense, "This sounds like a roadmap for threatening your spouse and then getting away with it."

He has a good point!  How many times have harassing, threatening and libelous statements made online gone unpunished and led to consequences in real life?

I myself am being targeted by several atheists via Twitter, Facebook and blogs.

See:
http://www.sacerdotus.com/2013/11/help-remove-harassing-blogs.html
http://www.sacerdotus.com/2014/10/catch-wolf.html
http://www.sacerdotus.com/p/bounded-atheism.html

On Twitter, do a simple search for "Sacerdotus" and you will find the same accounts constantly bringing me up, claiming I am someone else or a collective of Twitter accounts and what not.  They are not shy about their libel and even promote it.

These people are mentally ill and use the apparent sense of anonymity to do these things.  This has been a big problem ever since the internet became public.  I remember AOL used to suspend accounts for harassment.  People often say things online that they will never have the nerve to say in real life.  This cowardice brings out these big bad trolls online who collectively harass others and many times go unpunished by Twitter etc.  Well this all can change if the Supreme Court clarifies how free speech applies to social networking.  I have been in communication with several law enforcement agencies from the United Kingdom as well as here in the United States regarding these people who are targeting me.  So far I have their IP addresses and other information, but will need more details after filing papers and forcing their ISP to hand it over in order to see what is the next step since IP addresses do change and are not static.

I support freedom of speech.  We all should say whatever we want, but we must remember that their are consequences to what we say.  If freedom of speech is used to disparage, slander and threaten others, then there has to be consequences.  These consequences are not censorship because you have a right to say whatever, but you don't have the right to dictate the consequences.  Nations should not have to police the behavior of its citizens.  Each citizen should know how to use the gift of freedom of speech intelligibly and in a way that is civil.  However, since some citizens don't know how to behave, then their speech must be penalized whenever it is used to violate another.

I truly hope the Supreme Court will set a precedent that will stop or prevent people from using freedom of speech as an excuse to harass and threaten others online.  In regards to the trolls targeting me, I will make an example out of them.      








Source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/supreme-court-death-threa_n_6250520.html

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-facebook-threats-free-speech-20141201-story.html

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/01/366534452/is-a-threat-posted-on-facebook-really-a-threat

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/supreme-court-to-debate-whether-facebook-threats-are-free-speech/2208494

http://gizmodo.com/what-todays-facebook-supreme-court-case-means-for-free-1665161378

Houston We Have Problem

Many people ask me, "why is gay marriage and gay rights such a problem for you?"  Well this post is about to show just ONE of the reasons why.

Houston's mayor, Annise Parker, has subpoena pastors in the Houston area to force them to hand their sermons for review.  Can you believe this?  A mayor in the United States of America is violating the first amendment which  impedes the free exercise of religion or abridging the freedom of speech of Americans. Apparently, the pastors have been outspoken against "HERO" or "Houston Equal Rights Ordinance" which is supposed to prevent discrimination against members of the LGBT movement. Annie Parker is a Lesbian - surprise surprise.

Pastor Hernan Castano who is one of the pastors targeted had this to say, "For a city government to step into churches and ask pastors to turn in sermons, it's gone too far. This is not what America, the nation is about."  Castano is correct!  This is not what America is about. The Constitution clearly states that the government CANNOT interfere with religion nor abridge any speech. The agenda is clear from this lesbian politician: censorship of religion. Citizens of Houston must speak out and get this lady and those in the Houston municipality removed from office.  They are not fit to govern and are not fit to even be in America, in my opinion.  This tyrannical minority must not be allowed to destroy our nation, its values, laws and principles.

God help Annise Parker if she tries to start a fight with the Catholic Church...    

Here is her Twitter account.  I invite all people of faith to storm it with complaints: https://twitter.com/AnniseParker








Source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/houston-pastor-sermon_n_5992044.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/16/these-pastors-sermons-on-homosexuality-were-subpoenaed-and-houston-officials-seemingly-defended-the-act-but-now-theres-a-twist/

http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/10/15/texas-ag-houston-rescind-subpoenas-issued-pastors

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/14/houston-subpoenas-pastors-sermons-equal-rights-ordinance-case-prompting-outcry/

Ferguson, MI Riots

Shortly after the shooting death of Michael Brown, riots broke out in Ferguson, MI. However, these riots were a sign of something coming: civil unrest. Every day since the shooting, hundreds have gathered nearby to protest the Michael Brown shooting, the treatment of African Americans by Ferguson police, and the delay in releasing information.

The riots have destroyed many stores and led to looting. It is just troubling to see people breaking the property of others and stealing from them. These people are taking advantage of the tragedy of the shooting in order to benefit themselves. This is unfortunate indeed. However, the looters and rioters are not the only problem.  The police, yes the police have been a big problem in Ferguson.  They have demonstrated too much aggression against peaceful protesters which has even the media shaking their heads in disbelief.

Peaceful protesters have been shot with rubber bullets, gassed with tear gas, harassed and even manhandled by police solely for exercising their constitutional right to freedom of assembly and speech. It got so bad that the governor of Missouri had to remove  the police of Ferguson from their duty and place State troopers in charge. Captain Ron Johnson has been in charge since.  In his first day in charge, things seem to be calming down. He walked with protesters, shook hands with them and reassured them.  However, this would change the next day. More civil unrest would take place.  Even the media were gassed by police and prevented from capturing the events going on before them. Watching the scenes of police in tank-like vehicles, with army clothing, assault weapons seemed more like a scene from the Middle East, a Communist nation or Egypt during the riots.  However, these scenes were in the United States of America! Is this seriously going on?

Many have voiced their concerns of the abuse of power police have demonstrated in Ferguson.
Others have complained about the heavy armament these officers have.  Apparently, the military give away excess equipment to police departments throughout the United States. Do police really need to be this armed?  The whole situation is scary especially when more and more laws are passed restricting the ownership and use of weapons by civilians.

I don't condone the rioting or looting, but understand why the people in Ferguson are upset. It is clear that these people who are mostly African American have had enough. This protests seems to be creating a movement in America where the people will not take police abuse anymore. I have always been a critic of how the police do their job and the excess protections they have when compared to citizens. Police officers can stop you for any reason, if you argue with them or gesticulate too much you risk being arrested.  Seriously? Moreover, there seems to be a culture where police officers tend to cover for one another making it hard for investigations to carry on without tainting.

Police officers can use "force," but this is not really defined leaving it open to anything which is dangerous and often leads to the death of civilians. Furthermore, if a citizen feels like his/her life is in danger while being arrested, he/she cannot defend himself because if he/she strikes an officer, he/she will be charged with a felony, granted he/she is not gunned down first.  These protections are unfair and leave the door open to abuse.

It is not news that minorities are stopped by police officers. Growing up in the Bronx, I myself have witnessed my friends being stopped just for looking like a typical youth.  I have also witnessed African American and Latino American youth driving trendy cars being pulled over because they are suspect of stealing those rides. This is just horrible.

I don't blame the people of Ferguson for protesting and continuing to protest. They have had enough; we all have! The police system throughout America needs to change. America is becoming a Fascist nation I'm afraid to say. The images on CNN and other networks showing these overly armed cops pointing assault weapons at protesters and even the media is not what America is supposed to be.  This is not just a "minority" thing, but an American issue.  We are losing our freedoms.

 






Source:

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/20/peaceful-night-of-protests-escalates-ferguson/14324613/

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ferguson-protests-michael-brown-020140819-story.html#page=1

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ferguson-missouri-peaceful-protests-turn-tense/

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/darren_wilson_ferguson_protests_name_of_officer_who_shot_michael_brown_revealed.html

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/johnson/article/Ferguson-protests-should-spark-peaceful-uprising-5690000.php

No Buffer

Eleanor McCullen, the plaintiff on the "bufffer zone"

Freedom of speech and assemble are rights we as Americans hold dear.  However, for quite some time, these principle ideas have been challenged.

Pro-Abortion advocates who run abortion clinics have taken Pro-Life people to court claiming they are harassing their clients and staff.  In reality, these Pro-Life people just stand outside, pray, offer counseling and other services with the intention of helping women make an educated choice.

This of course is threatening to those who support abortion. If they have no clients; if these Pro-Life counselors convince women not to abort, then they will lose money.  It's all about the money. In order to counter this, they have gotten activist judges to side with them in creating "buffer zones" meant to keep Pro-life advocates away - far away.  These "buffer zones" pretty much pushed people onto the streets making it nearly impossible to counsel women or even protest.  This of course is the intention of the zone.  

The issue went all the way to the Supreme Court with the case of McCullen v. Coakley.  The Court heard the case and decided UNANIMOUSLY that these "buffer zones" were unconstitutional and had to go.  Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted interests.”  He is correct!  The space outside of any clinic, home or store is public domain. Anyone can stand on it, walk on it, protest, pray or whatever as long as he/she is not breaking quality of life laws. To force Pro-Life people to stand over 35 feet away is a violation of the First Amendment.

Once again the Supreme Court got it right, but the decision is not perfect.  Nevertheless, now Americans can exercise their freedom of speech and assembly in front of abortion clinics in order to save women and children from the evil that masquerades as "healthcare" - abortion.


For the official text of the decision, visit: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1168_6k47.pdf 

The "Buffer Zone" extends right onto the street!

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/opinion/a-unanimous-supreme-court-abortion-rights-lose-a-buffer.html?_r=0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/09/abortion-clinic-buffer-zo_n_5571516.html

http://www.pressherald.com/2014/07/11/anti-abortion-protest-resumes-in-portland-without-a-buffer-zone/

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-buffer-zone-laws-struck-down-20140707-story.html

http://www.thenation.com/article/180474/supreme-court-decision-abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-opens-door-further-challenges

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/supreme-court-strikes-down-abortion-clinic-buffer-zone-law

Satan-ism Gone Wild

First homosexuality, atheism, then marijuana use, now satanism. It seems that ideologies that were deemed "bad" are now gaining steam in the public square as a "good."

In Oklahoma, over $28,000 was raised on indiegogo to erect a statue of satan after Satanists were angered that a monument of the 10 Commandments was placed on state capitol grounds.  They claim that they want to be represented as well.  A similar thing was done with atheists who made their own statue of a bench claiming to be represented on government property as well.  I guess atheism is now a religion?  The whole thing is silly to say the least.

If that is not crazy enough for you, then there is more. Chaz Stevens of Florida who claims to be a satanist but sounds more like an atheist is requesting that satanist prayers be said prior to council meetings.  This of course is a response to the ruling by the Supreme Court allowing prayer before government meetings. Chaz is no stranger to controversy regarding religion.  He had erected a monument of beer cans at the capitol building out of protest against a Nativity scene.

Chaz has a police record for credit fraud, domestic violence, and has been ordered in the past to get a mental health evaluation.  It appears that this man is not well in the head and perhaps this is just another way of his anti-social behavior attempting to present itself publicly via the mask of the first amendment.

See:

http://myperspectiveis.blogspot.com/2011/04/chaz-stevens-never-arrested-oh-really.html

http://myperspectiveis.blogspot.com/2012/05/proof-of-stevens-psychiatric.html

Some people have cried foul against the Supreme Court for their decision. They have claimed that other religions should be allowed to pray before meetings, not just Christians.  The Supreme Court already addressed this in their decision:

"Finally, so long as the town maintains a policy of nondiscrimination, the Constitution does not require it to search beyond its borders for non-Christian prayer givers in an effort to achieve religious balancing. Pp. 9–18" - http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-696_4f57.pdf

There is no need to have a line up of religious leaders looking to pray before a meeting in order to have each faith represented.  This is just silly.

Lastly, if these are not wild enough, a club at Harvard university - a university founded in order to
teach religion - wants to conduct a "black mass" in the name of "academic freedom" and "education."  They are inviting a satanic group to come and perform the ritual which is a mockery of the Catholic Mass and often desecrates the Holy Eucharist while performing lewd sexual acts.

The Catholic chaplain at the school along with many others are protesting this calling this an attack against Catholicism and humanity.

These stories all deal with the issue of "freedom." From the statues to the "black mass," these people feel that they need to make these provocative moves in order protest what they feel is a favoritism on the part of the government for Christianity.  This is not the case at all.  The United States does not endorse any religion. However, this nation was built upon Judeo-Christian values and ideas.  There is no disputing this. While satanism may claim itself to be a religion, it is just a caricature movement just like atheism. It exists to take a contrarian stance to Christianity.  There is nothing good or positive about satan. Why worship this creature who is limited and has already lost the war against good?

Erecting statues of this creature is just glorifying everything it stands for, namely evil, hatred and stupidity. Lucifer may have been the "angel of light," but its light bulb was not on when it cried out "I will not serve." It gave up glory, joy, happiness for what?  Hell, torment and eternal frustration?

Moreover, Harvard must indeed be a haven for free thought and academic inquiry, but these have limits just like freedom of speech has limits where one cannot shout fire in a crowded movie theater. Academic inquiry and freedom exists to study and learn things, not promote ideas that are evil and full of hate.  The satanist cult often sacrifice human beings and other non-human animals. How is this educational?








Source:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/05/07/satan-statue-should-welcome-oklahoma/QtZFYK4ab9bLyosi9Y88IN/story.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/satanists-perform-black-mass-harvard-university-article-1.1786440

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/08/student-group-at-harvard-says-no-consecrated-host-at-black-mass-reenactment/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/catholic-church-denounces-planned-satanic-mass-at-harvard/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/09/satanic-prayer-florida-town-council_n_5296409.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics

http://americablog.com/2014/05/satanists-build-monument-next-10-comandments-oklahoma.html

http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/3/5678782/satanic-group-reveals-crowdfunded-monument-for-oklahoma-state-capitol

http://myperspectiveis.blogspot.com/2011/04/chaz-stevens-never-arrested-oh-really.html

http://myperspectiveis.blogspot.com/2012/05/proof-of-stevens-psychiatric.html

SCOTUS Sides with Prayer

The Supreme Court of the United States of America has approved public prayer before city council and other political meetings.  This is great news and a victory for the first amendment!

The majority of justices whom are Catholic voted to keep prayer in place after two women represented by the American United for Separation of Church and State organization sued claiming that they felt uncomfortable when prayers were said.  My response to that is "too bad!"

Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "By inviting ministers to serve as chaplains for the month, towns are acknowledging the central place that religion and religious institutions hold in the lives of those present, if some citizens hear prayers that make them feel excluded and disrespected, they should ignore them.  Adults often encounter speech they find disagreeable."  Well said your honor!

Our nation was founded by Christians who believed in the Judeo-Christian belief system.  They prayed before meetings and constantly included God and prayer in the framework of American laws and customs.  Atheists and secularists often claim that the Constitution promotes the idea of "separation of Church and State." However, this is not true at all.  The term "separation of Church and State" is not mention in the Constitution.  It comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.  He wrote:

 "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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." -http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

The first amendment of the United States of Americas mentions no such separation.  It states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

This means that Congress cannot declare any particular religion the official religion of the United States of America, nor can it prevent the free exercise of any religion in America.  This was written carefully due to the fact that America was a nation of diversity.  Its early settlers came to the land to flee religious persecution in Europe. America was to be a safe haven for one to practice his/her religion.  In light of this, it would be foolish for the American Fathers to adopt one religion for the nation when the nation was settled by people of various faiths seeking religious freedom.

It is interesting to note that Moses is depicted on the facade of the Supreme Court building.

Atheists as usual are dishonest in their attempt to distort the law of the land and force religion out of the public square.  Prayer and religion are here to stay.  Atheists or people of other faiths should not feel disrespected or left out.  All prayers go to one God regardless of how man addresses Him.





Source:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-religion-catholics-jews-20140505-story.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/5/divided-court-oks-prayer-public-meetings/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/05/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-prayer-at-council-meetings/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/05/us-usa-court-prayer-idUSBREA440FO20140505

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-upholds-legislative-prayer-at-council-meetings/2014/05/05/dc142ede-cf9d-11e3-b812-0c92213941f4_story.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/05/supreme-court-government-prayer-new-york/4481969/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/05/politics/scotus-new-york-public-prayer/