Matt Barber and ‘Religious Cleansing’


Here’s a great example of why it’s so hard to take the Christian right’s claims seriously. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel’s latest Worldnetdaily column is about the legislative prayer case being decided by the Supreme Court, which he says is an attempt at “religious cleansing.”

Another day, another secularist attempt at religious cleansing.

The United States Supreme Court, which, with jaw-dropping irony, opens every session with prayer, recently heard – for the umpteenth time – oral arguments on whether local governing bodies can likewise open every session with prayer. (The U.S. Congress does it, too. Always has.)

The answer, of course, is a resounding “yes,” and, unless the high court goes completely off the rails this time (anything’s possible under its presently imbalanced liberal makeup), so it shall remain.

The case is Town of Greece v. Galloway. Hyper-litigious atheists – always on the prowl for a reason to be offended – sued the town of Greece in upstate New York for, you guessed it, opening its town meetings with prayer (you know, just like nearly every other legislative body in America has done since day one).

It’s this kind of hysteria and hyperbole that makes their arguments so idiotic. Here’s how Wikipedia defines religious cleansing:

Religious cleansing is a euphemism for a form of religious persecution in which members of a religious population are subjected to imprisonment, expulsion, or death by a majority to achieve religious homogeneity in majority-controlled territory.

In other words, the kind of thing carried out by Barber’s Christian forebears for centuries. The kind of thing advocated by Martin Luther against the Jews and carried out by the Catholic Church in their pogroms for hundreds and hundreds of years. The kind of thing that Thomas Jefferson was referring to in making the argument for a strict separation of church and state:

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.

Preventing you from forcing non-Christians to sit through your religious rituals is not “religious cleansing,” not by the most ridiculous of definitions.

Comments

  1. Abby Normal says

    To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.

    Credit to Matt Barber for serving as a bridge between the two factions.

  2. says

    I don’t see why you Atheists are raising such a fuss over this. They have the freedom to pray in God’s name, and you have the freedom to pray with them. That looks like freedom all the way ’round, to me.

  3. Pierce R. Butler says

    … not by the most ridiculous of definitions.

    [citation needed] Please quote or link to the most ridiculous definition.

  4. gopiballava says

    I disagree. I think he is right. Have you seen what God does to nations who don’t honor Him properly? It ain’t pretty – and sounds very similar to religious cleansing. So, yes, if we don’t open our legislative bodies with prayer, it will result in religious cleaning. By God.

  5. jnorris says

    I have developed a hypothesis (I’m seeing a doctor about it tomorrow). To wit, The World Net Daily must have a monthly contest to find and award The Most Persecuted Christian(s). Nothing else could explain their constant stream of Christian Boo-Hoo.

  6. Doug Little says

    The United States Supreme Court, which, with jaw-dropping irony, opens every session with prayer

    Yep but not for the reason he thinks.

  7. Nihilismus says

    anything’s possible under its presently imbalanced liberal makeup

    I guess in his mind, “balanced” would mean the Supreme Court would take the conservative position on every case. To him, the fact that the current Court actually swings in their favor sometimes and in liberals’ favor other times makes it “inbalanced” in favor of liberals.

    Hyper-litigious atheists – always on the prowl for a reason to be offended

    Talk about “jaw-dropping irony”

    sued the town of Greece in upstate New York for, you guessed it, opening its town meetings with prayer [emphasis mine]

    This is a pet peeve of mine. I’ve seen other people do this, even non-wingnuts. The speaker/author tries to emphasize that their opposition is doing the same old thing and wants the reader to connect with the author by having the reader predict that thing and have that prediction validated. I don’t have a problem with that by itself — my problem is with using “you guessed it” after already stating what “same old thing” is being done.

    Barber does that here by stating that SCOTUS and Congress open with prayers all the time, then invites the reader to guess what the town of Greece did. Obviously the reader is going to guess the same thing that Barber mentioned in prior paragraphs, else there is little reason why he would have written them (though this is WND, so sometimes there literally are non sequiturs). Had he started the article with having the readers guess what atheists are suing the town for, before arguing that SCOTUS and Congress do the same thing, then his invitation to guess would have more impact at expressing his point: these atheists keep doing the same old thing!

  8. raven42 says

    If atheists are really “always on the prowl for a reason to be offended,” then that means atheists and Christians aren’t so different after all.

Leave a Reply