(NOTE: THIS POST FIRST RAN A NUMBER OF WEEKS AGO.)
Bill of Rights Amendment I:
"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."
Look closely at the above amendment. Do you see anything regarding separation of church and state? No? That’s because it isn’t there.
Now, before I dive headlong into to this post, allow me, please, to say that after years of wrestling with this, I have concluded that if the “separation clause” was, indeed, in the Constitution, I could probably support it. As it is, I haven’t that choice… because it simply isn’t there.
The Supreme Court is deciding an issue, I happen to believe, they have no authority to even consider. The case of the Ten Commandments displayed on public property, namely courthouse lawns and such. Elsewhere in the Constitution, it is plainly stated that if it is not in the Constitution, then the matter is left up to the states. That's anything not already in the Constitution!.
This issue should be a state matter… decided by each separate state’s legislatures and, when necessary, their state courts.
What we have here is another case of the Supreme Court assuming powers it doesn’t have…again. When will the Congress grow the cajones to rein in that runaway court?
Maybe the time has come, if not it is surely approaching, when we have to convene a Constitutional Convention and clear up a few things. One would be to amend the Constitution to allow term limits for ALL Federal Judges including the Supreme Court Justices. The "insulation" of lifetime appointments has the effect of cutting them off from any contact with the real world, outside their tiny little world, and results in a disconnect with the American people. The same thing has happened to Congress. The answer to the Congressional disconnect? Term limits. Well, guess what, the Court ruled Term Limits are unconstitutional. I wonder why.
We are faced again with the oligarchy thing. Our freedoms are being eroded away and we have no recourse. To continue along this course is bound to end in a very unpleasant mess. I would advise the government to review the events of
the 1850’s with even closer attention to the events of 1861 through 1865. The underlying cause of that unpleasant period was overbearing government. The Congress and the Federal Judiciary would do well to consider that period in our history because, as we all know, history has a way of repeating itself. (The US government didn’t believe it could happen then, either.)
The people must have recourse. We are well past being tired of the legislation coming out of the Federal Courts including the Supreme Court.
The great unwashed, out here in the hinterlands, have begun the inevitable rumbling and the momentum will only build. Congress would do well to be attentive to these dissatisfied constituents and put the brakes on the Federal Courts. Congress has the power. The question is, are they men, and women, enough to do it?
Your Obedient Servant,
“Longstreet”
3 comments:
did our fore fathers ban abortion? No they left it up to the States as well. Did they define marriage? Again No. were they Religious fundamentalists? again No! Jefferson said all organized churches should be burned. Their intent was not to have religion ruling the country but to give people the right to practice their religion freely and Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion means religion doctrine or images can't be forced onto someone by the government! I can't wait until Muslums are the majority so I can hear you guys Flip-Flop on the whole thing. I am a Christian but wake up!
Using your logic, if we look at Exodus 20 (or Deuteronomy 6) and couldn't find the words "Ten Commandments", we should therefore conclude that it isn't there. The passage you quoted is definitely the essence of the Separation of Church and State in the Constitution. Your inability to understand it does not mean it's not there.
Oh, and check your bible again, where does it say Sermon on the Mount? Remember your logic, if it ain't explicitly labled or noted, it's not there.
Knowing man's penchant for looking for loopholes, God spelled those ten commandments out so that even a fool could understand them. The same with the Sermon on the Mount. God had no need to define either of those scriptural events by envoking a "title" as man does.
I see no "vagueness" about the "Church and State" clause... at all. I believe that the writers said exactly what they meant and, meant exactly what they said. I have no need, nor any desire, to search for hidden clauses to support some "idea" I have that such a law MUST exist just because I NEED it to exist.
Thanks for your comments. Feel free to visit often!
Longstreet
Post a Comment