The New York Times carried a story on February 3, that painted a picture of a town gone mad with anger.  Abby Goodnough reported from Cranston RI  (article here) that a 16 year old atheist by the name of Jessica Ahlquist sued the local high school over the fact that the school keeps a prayer hanging on the auditorium wall.   

Often, as in this case, the media and local politicians and parents immediately fix on the plaintiffs in these suits with great anger and frustration over the infringement on the majority’s right to freedom of expression while the courts cow-tow to the small minority who have lived their entire (or most of their entire) life in the darkness of not knowing the Truth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, or worse yet as in this case, were raised among believers but turned their back on God when they didn’t get what they thought they wanted at the time they wanted it.  But then, how many ten year olds truly understand that they cannot have everything they want?  In Jessica’s case, an illness in her family is allegedly the reason she turned against God.  That is truly unfortunate. 

What is even more unfortunate is the fact that when Jessica started attending Cranston High School, the prayer was pointed out to her but she did not react at the time.  Two subsequent things had to happen before she found herself the center of anger and frustration in her home town.  First, an anonymous adult – having no strength of conviction to let her identity be known – complained to the local school board that the prayer  violated the much-touted “separation of church and state” which is totally a figment of atheistic imagination to begin with.  But I digress.  The school board met publicly and voted to keep the prayer in its place on the wall.  Written by a seventh grader at the school a year after the Supreme Court outlawed organized prayer in schools,  a large replica of the prayer was presented as the gift of her graduating class to the school. 

But even then, Jessica, did not file the suit.  It was only after she was approached by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that she agreed to put herself in the position to take the brunt of the city’s wrath.   And this brings me to the point that was totally unquestioned in the Times article. 

Was it just “perchance” that the ACLU happened upon this case.  I think not.  Is the ACLU actually interested in upholding the letter of the law and the U.S. Constitution?  That is what they would have you believe.  However, if you look into the history of the group, you will quickly see that they have been intimately tied progressive sympathizers in this country since their inception.  There have been claims that they were purged from the group in the 1930s but it is interesting to see the similarities between the goals of the increasingly aggressive progressive movement over the past 60 years and the proliferation of attacks on traditional moral standards and laws that govern the liberty of people who express conservative views with regard to faith, family, and limitations on government influence in our lives. 

What is undeniable is that for the long-term, end-game of these progressives to succeed - fundamentally changing the United States of America- they must prevent religion and morality from maintaining any foothold within the minds of anyone connected with government.  Removal of faith and religious expression from any portion of the public forums is essential to the success of those efforts.

With few exceptions, the ACLU has been the instigator of every lawsuit aimed at stripping faith from the public square.  They were instrumental in establishing the fictitious doctrine of “separation of church and state” which is not even part of the U.S. Constitution.  The ACLU is no friend of  freedom of religion.  They promote freedom from religion.

 Nothing would lead one to believe while reading the original article that there was any rationality to the anger felt by the people of Cranston, RI.  But then again, little about the information provided in the New York Times could be classified as balanced or without liberal bias.   Perhaps we need to look closely at motives and biases in the sources we use for news.  One thing is certain.  The trend in these suits will not shift directions until we understand that for the long-term survival of religious freedom and our way of life that we make our vote count through the careful selection of moral leaders, being guided by prayer and faith that our God is in control of the affairs of mankind.