Secular Spaces (said like Sylvester the cat)

by Brad Nelson11/13/15

First, allow me a bit of drama. Whether it was standing for an hour or not having had lunch or dinner, I left a school board meeting last night feeling somewhat spiritually ill. Picture Dr. Smith from Lost in Space lamenting, “Oh, the pain.”

There’s a local issue that’s become a national issue: A football coach has been suspended for praying with his players.

This site’s friend and acting Koch Brother (Pat) and his wife stopped by my office yesterday and grabbed me to go to this school board meeting where we watched (mostly silently…more about that) various speeches regarding the suspension of Coach Kennedy, pro and con, but mostly pro.

Three speeches in particular were outstanding. One was by a man and two by two ladies. They were outstanding. Most of the pro-prayer, pro-coach arguments were thoughtful and eloquent.

There were three or four pro-atheist (let’s call it what it is) arguments for the suspension (and hopefully firing, from their point of view) of this coach. Their general shtick was the idea that if the public schools allow prayer it is then officially endorsing religion and thus breaking “the separation between church and state.”

I won’t get into all the fine-tuned arguments on that fallacy. Most of you know them already and can recite them from heart. (Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, for example.) But suffice it to say, there are more than a few Christians who are willing to fight back (Mr. Kung will be glad to hear), and in a principled and informed way. I was thoroughly impressed by the pro-First-Amendment speeches.

One lady read prepared remarks which I thought were the best of all. I didn’t get a chance to linger behind and ask her if I could publish the speech here. A pity. You would have enjoyed it.

I was a bit disappointed that most of the pro-prayer speakers gave a nod to Cultural Marxism by stating, in essence, “We’re for diversity…no matter your race, sexual orientation, etc., you have a right to express your religion.” I don’t see how reciting the Pledge of Alinsky helps their cause in the long run. They were saying in essence “We’re the nice Christians. Not those bigoted, homophobic kinds.” Their speeches would have been enhanced without this PC blather.

The pro-atheist/anti-Christian speeches (and that’s who these people are, despite couching themselves in “diveristy” and “sensitivity”) were the portion of the program that made me somewhat ill (assuming it wasn’t the lack of food or all the blood rushing to my feet for standing in the back of the room for so long).

Two or three of the pro-atheist/anti-Christian speakers were crying, and it was obvious that their crying was well-rehearsed and on-cue just as they stepped to the mic. Most of the pro-atheist/anti-Christian speakers were students from the local college (surprise, surprise). The sickening part was seeing how screwball these yutes are.

The first pro-atheist/anti-Christian speaker was your typical angry atheist. He was spitting venom. And yours truly committed a small social faux pas when he coughed, in the style of Bluto from Animal House, “tolerance” as this mean-spirited atheist explained how watching Christians pray traumatized him.

A wiccan-looking womon (who lamented that her Satanic Society wasn’t granted whatever privileges she wanted) gave a creepy speech. But the worst of all was the final pro-atheist/anti-Christian speaker who was a “man.” And those scare-quotes are needed for I’m not sure which shower this guy would use, assuming he showers at all.

He was your typical fully indoctrinated Marxist/Progressive. He went on and on about the need for “secular spaces,” pronouncing that phrases like a leaky tire. If anyone was in need a both a little hard-nosed football and prayer, it was this guy. He could be the poster child for Pajama Boy if that spot were not already taken.

I don’t pretend to have been one of the adults in the room. To get up there in front of a microphone with the larger-than-life board members seated behind their curving desk in leather chairs takes some guts. And, remember, I’m the one with the Animal House shtick. That said, one couldn’t help but get the impression that the pro-atheist/anti-Christian speakers were caught in suspended adolescence. They had reverted to the tactics of a 3-year-old…basically crying and pouting in a manner that was obvious that the emotions were stage-managed.

One of the pro-First-Amendment speakers said something like, “Even if you fire this coach, let it be known that this will not end it. We will attend the football games as spectators and will be openly praying in the stands in large numbers.”

One fellow I talked to on the way out said that the regressive behavior from these “Progressive” school board members had already had an ill effect on the schools. He had heard that several people considering moving to that district had changed plans and gone either north or south to different school districts. One hopes this is true.

One of the women speaking, and one of the last pro-First-Amendment advocates, gave a very good church-lady-like speech. She did not refrain from the religious angle, including noting the truth that these pro-atheist/anti-Christian speakers clearly were angry with God. Yep. That’s the same impression I had.

However one feels about Christians and prayer, I urge all those out there who have mindlessly lapped up the Left’s “separation of church and state” baloney to go to an atheist meeting or somewhere where they are speaking. You need to understand that “secular,” for all intents and purposes, means the predominance of atheism with all religion (perhaps except Islam) forbidden. And you should understand that these atheists are generally screwed up and twisted people.

Brad is editor and chief disorganizer of StubbornThings.
About Author  Author Archive  Email

Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (1170 views)

Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.
This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Secular Spaces (said like Sylvester the cat)

  1. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    But suffice it to say, there are more than a few Christians who are willing to fight back (Mr. Kung will be glad to hear), and in a principled and informed way.

    This is good news, indeed. I found the one man’s response about no matter whether the coach is fired or not the people will keep attending football games and praying in public. This is exactly the approach which must be taken. Christians cannot be retiring in their actions. They must stand up, particularly in local questions. It is on the small stage, where more people know each other and have more in common that direct Christian action can have its greatest effect. The people must be converted in order to move the school boards to any type of action and even then the school boards will likely ignore the people. Then the people must organize and throw the school boards out.

    This is a long term battle and will not be easily won. But there is no other choice if we wish to keep the America we love.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Mr. Kung, had I been allowed to speak I might have said something like this (I’ll type this almost completely impromptu as well);

      Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve heard a long line of eloquent speakers speaking for our unalienable right of freedom of religion as outlined in the First Amendment. This country has a secular government — that is, we are not to be a theocracy — but we are, or it was hoped we would be and continue to be, a religious people.

      When expressions of innocent religiosity causes atheists and other axe-grinders to get the vapors, we should realize that we’re dealing with a political agenda. Frankly, I did not believe the tears that we saw here today were sincere. They seem scripted….especially from the younger members. Perhaps this is why man needs to nurture the spiritual side of himself lest he become a hollowed out man — so hollow that seeing others engage is humble prayer is deemed offensive.

      We need to recognize that this opposition to prayer has nothing to do with separation of church and state issues and everything to do with separating this culture from its foundation in a belief in God. It is highly offensive to a certain cast of people to believe in God. And I think it’s highly offensive to a certain cast of people to just live a life of joy, humility, love, and hope. We all have hard knocks to deal with. But shall we become hateful of our neighbors who find joy and peace and express it in prayer?

      The infantile-like defense of prohibiting the free exercise of religion should be a clear warning that man needs more than just a political mind. We dare not reduce ourselves to the lowest common denominator where society is sanitized to fit the desires of the few, the cranky, and the aggrieved.

      Thank you.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Such speeches are the mortar which will bind the disparate people needed to create a movement.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Pretty good. An important point to make would be that the atheist militants aren’t merely hostile to God, they’re actively hostile to all who believe in God, and wish to have nothing to do with them — even to see them pray. That’s the goal of all these Draculites.

      • Rosalys says:

        A good speech! To bad you didn’t get a chance to make it. I’m wondering if another way to deal with these delicate little pansies, who become offended and can cry at the drop of a hat, is a huge dose of sarcastic play acting and ridicule. Maybe we should become offended, fearful, and tearful when confronted by these Draculites (a nod to Timothy’s usual magnificent turn of phrase!) To paraphrase an Alinsky principle, act like them and use their own tactics against them.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Thanks, Rosalys. No doubt I would have stumbled over my tongue but I can at least write these thoughts out impromptu. 🙂 Thus I understand why a couple speakers spoke from prepared remarks…and generally read them very well.

          I think push back, push back, push back is the order of the day whether using tears, feigning offense (or real offense), sarcasm, whatever. The Establishment Republican ethic (such as it is) is that proper and wise gentlemen do not take part in such things as vigorous disagreements (unless it’s against conservatives, of course).

          It’s a fine line between patsy and foaming at the mouth sometimes. We see the screwballs on the Left foaming from the mouth and we rightfully think We ought not to be like that. And yet we can differ in technique (as we should) even while taking up their tactics which is to push back, be active, do not just go-along-to-get-along on important points.

          There’s no set formula for this other than to not do what the noodle-spines such as McCain and Romney have done. Presented with tremendous political ammunition during their presidential bids, they didn’t use it.

          The question of prayer and freedom of religion is an affront to those brainwashed on metaphysical materialism, atheism, and the Utopian promise of Big Government — and is also a result of the just plain immaturity and bad manners of a juvenile. For that is what I see from the Left, especially the younger people. They are stuck on anger. Or, to be more exact, many of them are stuck at the stage of being in a high chair and throwing their strained peas against the wall because they want their ice cream now and they’ll hold their breath and turn blue unless they get it.

          This is not to deny the indoctrination that people are inflicted with that sets them against their own cultural heritage. This is real and this is widespread. And there are plenty of adults with this mindset as well. But what we see more and more in society is the lunatics running the asylum. Actual expertise has been replaced by the mere ramping up of idealogical fervor.

          As I’ve been saying for quite some time now, one of the definitions of the Left is that it is an ideology attractive to people who are internally a bit screwed up (for whatever reason). And instead of trying to fix themselves they turn outward and blame the outside world for their problems. This is directly consistent with Pascal’s idea of “All men’s miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone.”

          What separates conservatives from these forever-juveniles and ne’er-do-wells of the Left is that the first question we ask (or should ask) is “How can I overcome or learn to live with my afflictions or shortcomings?” This is the attitude that says “Physician, heal thyself.” This is not the mindset that blames everyone else for one’s problems. There are, of course, many problems that are external. But the mindset that never thinks of self-responsibility can never see the difference. The whiny, blame-someone-else-first mindset will be hard-pressed to find an internal fault and thus hard-pressed to actually improve and reform oneself. Forever they will be jousting with the external windmills.

          We are seeing the results of this attitude. The Left is full of little barbarians who are spoiled, selfish, and probably a little bit dangerous in their sanctimonious narrow-minded zealousness. None of this excrement has squat to do with religion, praying, or the First Amendment. But they wish to drag everything else down to their level of mental angst.

          Fortunately, we can speak deep truths here and save the speeches for later — and avoid, for the most part, getting trapped in the drama of their self-alienation and angst. Perhaps we can become a repository for the kind of wisdom that has trouble reaching that outer world. I read an interesting quote today from an article by Dan Flynn over at The American Spectator.

          Dan, like many conservatives, is still obsessing a bit over Rubio’s “Don’t need so many philosopher’s” quote. But I think it’s just as fair to interpret what Rubio said as “Better to learn a practical skill such as plumbing at a technical institute than to get a degree in gender studies at college.” Whatever the case may be, Dan cited a great quote by Robert Maynard Hutchins from his introduction to The Great Books of the Western World:

          “The reiteration of slogans, the distortion of the news, the great storm of propaganda that beats upon the citizen twenty-four hours a day all his life long mean either democracy must fall prey to the loudest and most persistent propagandists or that the people must save themselves by strengthening their minds so that they can appraise the issues for themselves.”

          That could be, and probably should be, pasted on the banner of this site.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    Christians must learn to stand up to the forces of christophobic atheism that seek to eliminate all public expression of Western-oriented religion (i.e., Judaism and the various Christian sects) lest their tender sensibilities be afflicted by the horrible sight of someone who openly believes in Yahweh and/or Jesus Christ. Perhaps the best way to respond is by pointing out the infantile nature of their responses, and also by comparing their reaction to the Cross to that of Dracula. If they want to be seen as vampires, let them.

  3. Rosalys says:

    How appropriate the movie, Woodlawn, to this discussion!

  4. Pst4usa says:

    Thanks for joining us Brad, (sorry for the damage to your feet). There was one other moron… err, I mean atheist..err, I mean concerned citizen, who’s comment stuck out to me, the one lady, (and I do use that term very loosely), who said that the first amendment is complicated, “it’s got like six complex ideas in it, how could we even understand it”

    Well had I been able to respond to her I would have been much more rude than you. I would have told her that she, the other morons in the room that thought as she did including the cowards on the board, are a special kind of stupid. The first line in the Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” seems simple enough.

    So if Congress is the only group of people that this amendment restricts in any way; and Congress prays before each session. How is it that this amendment that does nothing to prevent the same congress from praying before a session; can be used to prevent a football coach from going out to the center of the field after a game and praying with anyone that chooses to join him?

    Oh yeah, I forgot about the Jefferson amendment he did in that one letter to the Danbury Baptist, you know the one where he added the “Separation of Church and State” clause.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Many Draculite atheists object to such official non-sectarian prayers, of course. They also seem to think the Danbury letter actually is the First Amendment, which no doubt is one reason they never seem to quote it in discussing issues of religion in the public square.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Central to Leftism, despite all the claims of kumbaya, is the formalization of grievance. In Islam, God is an outlet for fascism. In atheism, that religious outlook is an outlet for disappointment and anger. In Judeo-Christianity, God is the outlet for thanksgiving, hope, pleading, and charity.

        I find there are plenty of reasons to question the idea of a benevolent God. But there is no good reason to formalize alienation, grievance, anger, and bitterness. And that is what atheism does. I know of no atheist for whom atheism is a mere philosophical speculation about the nature of reality on par with whether the neutrino has mass or not. It’s about formalizing grievance, anger, and alienation, and a cold, pointless universe is just a useful backdrop to that, a way of telling god to shove it, you’re not needed, you failed, you don’t exist.

      • Pst4usa says:

        Timothy, I think everyone of the anti-christians that spoke that night, did say in one form or another that “The Separation of Church and State” was a bedrock principle of our nation and our Constitution. I am quite sure this is very much like the early church, where the church wanted all scriptures to be interpreted by the clergy, because it was just too confusing for the masses, in the same way, members of the educational industrial complex and the legal profession do not want people to read the Constitution because it is just too complex for the masses. In both cases, it is or was all about control of, not concern for the masses.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          By the way, “Separation of church and state” = respecting of Leftist dogma and nothing else…aka “sssecular ssspaces.” Might as well say “Stalin spaces.”

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Given liberal worship of the Fascist Messiah, “separation of church and state” should exclude him from office. And as for Planned Parenthood . . .

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I think “secular,” in practice, means atheism. And note that I’m the first to admit that our Federal government is forbidden from establishing religion, which originally meant favoring one Christian denomination over another. The Founders had no problem with prayer and all kinds of displays of Christian and Jewish religiosity on public buildings, etc.. Heck, Congress even printed Bibles and distributed them. What they didn’t want was the power of government to use taxes and other means to support, say, the Presbyterians at the expense of the Catholics. But there was no intent to expunge religiosity from the public square. Any attempts to claim otherwise either come from ignorance or willful and corrosive atheism.

              Many things have been propagandized into the heads of young skulls-full-of-mush (and who have grown up to be your typical low-information voter). One of these is that “secular” equals neutral. But we are not required to share this lie. “Secular” is not neutral the way the Left uses it. It means atheism uber alles.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Note that most of those religious acts, like displaying the Ten Commandments, are technically non-sectarian since they don’t reflect any specific religious sect (indeed, they mostly reflect Judaism as well as Christianity).

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      who said that the first amendment is complicated, “it’s got like six complex ideas in it, how could we even understand it”

      Oh, goodness, gracious. What a dishonest bit of talking coming from that sour mouth. Yes, that was a memorable moment. And good points on the amendment. I’m not a lawyer. I just play one on TV. But I don’t know how this amendment got re-interpreted to apply to not just Congress.

      Of course, as you would point out, most states have a similar clause in their constitution, so that would be the relevant verbiage.

      And although it may seem that you and your lovely wife were standing next to a punk (me) who couldn’t quietly observe the rules of parliamentarian conduct and instead resembled Joe Wilson who said “You lie!”, I just couldn’t take any more of that punk going on and on about how traumatic it was for him to hear and see people praying while using all the usual weasel-words of the Left. He sounded more fascist than anything else so God himself I think prodded me to the Belushi-like cough of “tolerance.” This guy was anything but.

      And I told you before, and perhaps now you believe me (can’t take Brad anywhere), one of the reasons I declined more than once to join you in Olympia to testify for this or that bill is that I do not trust myself to sit there and just smile in the Halls of Baloney. You can do it. You are amazingly poised and eloquent. But I can’t. I’d rather shoot spitballs at these Progressives flakes.

      • Pst4usa says:

        Brad, your response to the creep was altogether appropriate, as I recall he said something to the effect that the intolerance shown by this coach trying to force his indoctrination down the throats of the mindless socialist leaning robotic yutes they were trying to create and the coaches lack of understanding and appreciation for the opinions of others was so bad we should take him out and have him hung, or something loving and tolerant like that.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Yep. And I thought the speakers all did a good job of defending the First Amendment. But someone (me) should have stepped up and disambiguated the Orwellian language of the Left:

          Diversity = respecting of Leftist dogma and nothing else
          Tolerance = respecting of Leftist dogma and nothing else
          Equality = respecting of Leftist dogma and nothing else

          These malcontent clowns have all learned the weasel-words of the Left. But have we learned to defuse and defang them? No.

          • Pst4usa says:

            So how does one “defang” jello? Although I suppose that jello is far too firm as to be an accurate description of these Draculites to use Timothy’s term.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              These are people who are drama queens, who have become addicted to self-righteousness and anger. Although these punks would like to present themselves as protectors of liberty, the truth is that the idea of a benevolent God who tasks them with certain duties is repugnant to them. They hate the idea of God, for all intents and purposes, and despise people who find sustenance from worship.

              Unless, of course, that worship is of Mother Gaia, political correctness, the inherent racialism of “diversity,” the inherent disintegration of “multiculturalism,” and the inherent moocherism of “equality.”

              The problem with authentic Judeo-Christianity (such as it is ever displayed these days) is that it runs contrary to dividing people into grievance groups (we are all equal in the eyes of God), opposes mooching (if one would eat, one would work), and opposes retrograde veneration of mere nature which harkens back to pagans for whom wine and the groin was the center of everything. Yes, Christians have sex and drink wine, but they also bathe, listen to Mozart, and help out with the Boy Scouts or other wholesome community group.

              At least I’ve been told that Christians have sex. I’d hate to be presumptuous on this point.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                The “anti-terrorist” liberals are quite happy to pray for Paris (but not for anything else) and talk about solidarity. They may spew about how the terrorists won’t win (I just read Mark Steyn’s article today). But they won’t support actually doing anything to bring that about.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                They may spew about how the terrorists won’t win (I just read Mark Steyn’s article today). But they won’t support actually doing anything to bring that about.

                There are reasons we have aphorisms. In this case, it is because there are a large number of constants in human behavior.

                “Talk is cheap” is appropriate here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *