Christian Derangement Syndrome: Bill Maher and the Huffington Post Have It!

by Diane Rufino, March 2012

Not long ago, a blogger wrote: "Recently, my Biology teacher threw a bible across the classroom! Not that I am a Christian, but that's not how you treat other peoples religion. When we asked him why he did it, he said 'That book is full of lies.' Every time I'm in his class, he always talks about how there are many mistakes in the Bible. He's always criticizing the Bible."

What is it about Christianity that causes so many people to become deranged? Why do they it so much more than other religions?

Years ago, liberals suffered a similar type of derangement whenever President Bush was in the limelight. It was called the Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a perfect example. She couldn't pass an opportunity to use the microphone, on any occasion, to call Bush names and criticize his every move. I remember one year, President Bush started his State of the Union Address by congratulating Pelosi on being the first woman Speaker of the House and graciously introducing her as a woman of integrity. She sat there, all smiles, taking in the moment and lavishing the praise he was giving her in front of the entire nation. Yet the minute the Address was concluded and Pelosi was able to get in front of a microphone, her demeanor changed, the rabies kicked in, and she let loose a vitriolic diatribe against Bush. I believe I saw saliva foaming at her mouth. The foaming was not always indicative of BDS, but we often saw it in members of the liberal media. Its goal was not necessarily to show that President Bush was bad for the country - because they never were able to make that case - but rather to show that he was bad for people's mental health. At least that's the way I saw it.

And now we have a similar syndrome - Christian Derangement Syndrome. Similarly, while their goal apparently is to show that Christians are bad for the country, they will never be able to make that case. In fact, the more they carry on, it's much clearer that they are the ones that are harmful. Rather, their default goal is to show that Christians are bad for the mental health of non-believers.

A teacher at Capistrano Valley High School in Mission Viejo, California, was accused of violating the Establishment Clause by repeatedly making statements critical and derogatory of religion in his AP European History class. For example, he told his class: “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.”

He also said: “Aristotle was a physicist. … He argued that there has to be a God. Of course that’s nonsense.” And he made this comment, among many others: "The people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon." The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the teacher was using appropriate critical thinking skills to teach his students. I imagine that if it were the other way around, and the teacher had been praising God, the Ninth Circuit would have held that there was an improper establishment of religion.

A kindergarten teacher in New Jersey saw the name "Jesus" on a Thanksgiving poster made by one of her students and instantly removed it from a display she made of the class posters out in the hall. God forbid someone should walk by and see that name!! In the spirit of the Thanksgiving holiday, the teacher asked the students to make posters depicting what they were "thankful for." The child at issue wanted to thank Jesus. The child was 5 years old. It was a kindergarten hallway. Imagine the confusion the child suffered, being taught one thing at home and in church but being punished for it by her teacher.

And then there's the personal, one-man crusade led by rabid atheist Michael Newdow. He is the man who went to court to try to stop children from being able to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school because it includes the offensive phrase "Under God." He alleged that the words "under God" in the pledge amounted to an establishment of religion, in violation of the First Amendment. He brought the case on behalf of his 9-year-old daughter who he didn't even have custody of. He also brought the case in spite of the fact that the girl herself wanted to continue saying the pledge and didn't want the lawsuit filed. The district court held the pledge was constitutional but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 vote, reversed the decision and held that recitation of the pledge with the words "under God" in the school system violated the Establishment Clause. To celebrate the decision by the Court of Appeals, Time Magazine did a story on Newdow and made him their "Person of the Week."

[The case eventually reached the US Supreme Court in 2004. The Court held that Michael Newdow didn't have standing to bring the case in the first place, so the pledge was affirmed].

A little over fifty years ago, in 1954, when the phrase “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance by Congress, the vote was unanimous. The decision to insert the words "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly fighting against atheistic communism." Furthermore, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act which added the phrase "under God," he announced: "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."

CONTINUED:  http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/christian-derangement-syndrome-bill-maher-and-the-huffington-post-have-it/

Sun Journal Letter to the Editor by CCTA Chairman, Nancy Murdoch

If something is said as truth enough times, many will assume that it is true.

However, regardless of how often it is said, the phrase separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. The phrase came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Church, and is co-opted by those wishing to establish a secular, progressive state without God's love or wisdom.


The First Amendment simply states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  A prayer before a public meeting does not establish a religion, but prohibiting of prayer certainly is in conflict with the free exercise thereof. Why exactly is the ACLU so offended? Why is the left so adamant about removing any reference to God or our Creator from the public square?

Anyone who has studied the framing of our Constitution or the formation of our Country knows full well that God and religion had a huge part in determining the form of government we would have. Our Founders were not perfect, but they wished to form a more perfect union. They knew that men are not angels and needed the restraints of religion and morality to guide them. Writings from almost all the Founders show a deep commitment to God and morality, and knew that those precepts were needed for a nation of free men and women to survive. Can anyone argue that as we have drifted away from those guidelines that our Country has not drifted away from freedom and more toward serfdom and tyranny?

Often the left has taken the Bible or religion to boost its own agenda, cherry picking verses to back up their idea of  social justice or fairness, all the while ignoring the parts not fitting their ideology.

How ironic it is that the ACLU would fight to remove the Ten Commandments from public places, but does not fight for those same principles of honesty and decency espoused therein. When did edicts like thou shall not steal, commit murder, lie, or covet become a threat? Perhaps when it was permissible to overlook the lying, stealing, coveting and adultery of our public officials. We don't like to be reminded of how far we have fallen away from decency and honor.


Is the USA to become like Europe: full of beautiful churches and empty people?
Agree: Yes