The thing is I do not particularly WANT to be in charge!
See the problem is that people today behave in a very childish fashion.
How many "adults" are addicted to Spongebob Squarepants?
How many of them are trying too hard to be best friends to their children instead of parents?
We keep thinking only of ourselves (the "me syndrome") instead of others.
Too many people are like that today. And frankly I do not want to have the responsibility for all those people.
I am quite satisfied with having to be responsible for the ones I already have.
So instead I am now Blogging. and today's subject is...
Common sense.
Something that we have apparently lost a long time ago.
The Founding Fathers had it, and there is even signs of it during the 40's.
But the 50's and 60's?... well they seem to have misplaced it.
Let me start, therefore, with the idea that we need to stop "reinterpreting" the Constitution so that it means what we think we want it to mean, and let's start accepting that the founding fathers were simply more mature than us!
The Constitution should stand as is. It is really written in simple enough language. For example...
Since it is the FIRST amendment we come across we will use,
"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now a lot of people want to claim this means "Separation of Church and State". But it does not say that anywhere here does it? No it doesn't it says,
"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF;"
It does NOT say anything about religion not being involved in politics. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say anything about religion not influencing the Government. but it DOES clearly state that the GOVERNMENT cannot influence religion.
The Founding Fathers would have been VERY cognizant of WHY European settlers moved to the north American continent, They knew their history (something we seem to be too immature to consider today). They would have been very aware that one of the BIG problems the pilgrims had faced was government that forbade people from following their faith.
The Founding fathers, therefore, were stating that the government cannot dictate how, where, when or why people are to worship.
I know of people who would say "well that is all that we are asking for anyway." But that's not accurate. see there is still that sticky little point, "OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF"! When we push for legislation to remove the pledge of allegiance because of the words "one nation, UNDER GOD, We are prohibiting the free exercise of religion. When we demand that memorials or monuments be taken down because they might have religious significance, we are saying, "the Constitutional rights do not matter" because we are taking them away.
I can just hear the detractors splutter... "But We MUST NOT have our elected officials influencing us with their faith! We MUST keep them from leading us down that path!!!"
To which I respond.
"The Constitution was written for ALL the citizens of the United States of America!"
I do not care if the person in question is an elected official, or a school teacher, I do not care if we are talking about a Judge or a clerk.
ALL American people are guaranteed the right to worship when, where and as they see fit, or as their religion dictates they do.
When we start trying to limit that we are WRONG. And instead of sitting around being so childish and immature and wishy washy; Maybe we ought to all grow up some, and develop a little character.
If we did that then it wouldn't matter what faith anyone was, because we would be mature enough to handle it.
All of the founding fathers had faith. it may have been different for each but they all had something they believed in, someone they worshiped.
Most of the records show that they had faith in some form of Christianity.
And they used that faith to provide us with a moral foundation on which to build our country.
Here's the thing.
Even my Cultural anthropology teacher had to admit that Religious beliefs exist, at least, to provide us with a moral code or moral values.
See In order for moral principles to exist, the people who hold those principles have to have Character.
Character cannot be legislated, in order for people to have character they must have belief.
In order for their belief to work they have to have faith.
If we want our country to be great we have to return to that.
The proof is all around us. people all around the world are being raised without any moral fiber. and look at the upswing in...
Unwed pregnancies, Gang violence, rape, murder, theft, and so on...
Every violent crime is up in our world. Much worse than it was 60 years ago.
The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the First Amendment. The absence of the phrase in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression the words appeared there and later learned of their mistake. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor is inconsequential--no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
ReplyDeleteAs you observe, some of those who drafted the Constitution professed their belief in a god, some specifically the Christian god. So what? Others among the drafters did not profess, or denied, any such belief. In any event, they drafted a document plainly founding a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity). It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion.
James Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, understood them to "[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government." Madison, Detached Memoranda (1817). Mindful that old habits die hard and that tendencies of citizens and politicians could and sometimes did entangle government and religion (e.g., "the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress" and "for the army and navy" and "[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts"), he questioned whether these were "consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom." His response: "In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion." What then, Madison further inquired, should be made of these various actions already taken in the nation's then "short history" inconsistent with the Constitution? Ever practical, he answered not with a demand these actions be undone, but rather with an explanation to circumscribe their ill effect: "Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex [i.e., the law does not concern itself with trifles]: or to class it cum maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura [i.e., faults proceeding either from negligence or from the imperfection of our nature]."
It is important, too, to recognize that the First Amendment's "establishment" clause constrains only the government not to 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 teachers instructing students in their classrooms), they should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When performing those duties, they effectively are the government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religion as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated.
Congress' addition of the words "under God" to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 was a mistake. The unnecessary insertion of an affirmation of a god in the very pledge that our government calls on its citizens to recite in affirmation of their allegiance to our republic puts atheists and other nonbelievers in a Catch 22: Either recite the pledge with rank hypocrisy or accept exclusion from one of the basic rituals of citizenship enjoyed by all other citizens. The government has no business forcing citizens to this choice on religious grounds.
O.k. I get what you are saying.
ReplyDeleteI guess I was a little unclear about my view.
Let me try to explain my point a little better.
When I served in the Army I was once told I could not practice my faith (through a regular worship service) because the only way I could have made it to the service was to take a military vehicle and that would "Convince people that the military condoned that particular faith and it might influence people".
To me that is a bunch of hooey!
I was denied my freedom to practice my faith. because I was a member of the military.
I signed up to defend EVERYONE'S right to worship as they see fit.
But now I am denied what I am fighting for because people want to legislate what a person can or cannot do in the way of their religion.
This flies in the face of the amendment.
I do not care what religion anyone is.
I am just making the point that in order to have "separation of church and state" we are breaking the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.
The Constitution and all other governing documents weren't written to exclude a certain segment of any of our population.
They were written to be ALL inclusive of ALL Americans. no matter what job they may or may not have.
I understand your point--and agree with you that you have the freedom to exercise your religion, privately and publicly, and you hardly give up that freedom by joining the army. While the First Amendment would constrain the Army from using you to promote religion as part of your official duties, it guarantees you the freedom to practice your religion when acting as an individual "on your own time" so to speak.
ReplyDeleteThere's some irony in what you were told about use of a military vehicle to get to a religious service. In Emerson v. Board of Education, the famous case quoting Jefferson about the "wall of separation of church and state," the Court ruled (5-4) that use of public funds to transport kids to schools, including religious schools, was NOT prohibited by the First Amendment.
Thank you for your thoughts and your service to our nation.