I have written a lot about politics. Frankly, I'm tired of it. Ninety percent of those in office should be taken out behind the barn and have a good beating administered. They are stupid and avaricious people for the most part. Most of the ones that are reasonably smart are power mad. I need to give myself a vacation from that pig sty.
Being a cranky conservative, there is always something that disturbs me. I have recently been ordained as a Christian clergyman. There is a story there, but not to be shared here. Catch me in a local public house and offer me a touch of the Irish and I will share. What disturbs me greatly is the current attitude, among "intellectuals", against religion in general and Christianity in particular.
These brilliant intellectuals, they're actually no smarter than a fence post, never come down against Islam. Do they fear those peace loving Muslims will track them down and behead them? But peace loving Christians are an easy target. Nothing to fear there. Well maybe there is.
I, for one, am tired of having my freedoms, delineated under the Bill of Rights, my God given freedoms, trod under foot by a bunch of troglodyte politicians and lawyers espousing a legal precedence that never existed. And getting away with it.
There is no separation of church and state. None. Nada. Never was. The state can not "establish" a particular religion. But they cannot prevent the"free exercise" of religion.
Once again, they cannot exercise the "free exercise" of one's religion. If you wish to bend a knee and pray, even as a coach at a football game, you have that right. It is as much your right as the right a criminal has not to answer questions.
Why does the ACLU work so hard for criminals and against Christians? M-O-N-E-Y. They get paid when they win cases against our rights and for criminals rights. So, Congress, shut off that money hose.
Freedom of religion is covered under the first amendment, as is freedom of speech. As one can speak about anything at any time, one can practice their faith any place at any time. Both freedoms have some caveats like shouting fire in a theater or killing as part of ones faith. But, other than such excessive behavior, any removal of personal freedom is unconstitutional.
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.
ReplyDeleteWhile the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.
It is important to distinguish between "individual" and "government" speech about religion as the Constitution protects the former and constrains the latter. The First Amendment assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views--publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school coaches attending to students at school events), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
Wow! It is late at night and I just found your comment. I will read it again tomorrow when I am not tired, but I think you just said what I said but used a lot more words to say it. Basically, I don't think we disagree.
Delete