“God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.” ... Daniel Webster ... These posts will reflect my personal opinions, and views, of the world in which we live from, of course, the viewpoint of a conservative "Southern American".
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Seperation of Church and State ?
(This post first ran in March of 2005)
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. Anything.
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 again. Our freedoms are being eroded away and we have no recourse. To continue along this course is bound toend 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?
Longstreet
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
That's it Longstreet, keep kicking this ball around... This is a political football only used to "Get play" while these guys in government make havoc over real issues...... All I say to people who complain about the situatuion Bush has us in is, "I am so glad that gays can't marry." now before you call me a biggot I say it sarcastically to point out real issues that don't get addressed just to get a particular group with sectarian beliefs to the poles.
"now before you call me a biggot"
**********************
Frank, I wouldn't call you a bigot, nor a racist, nor any of those perjorative terms. Believe me, when I tell you, I KNOW a bigot when I see one... and a racist, when I see one, too. I don't see near as many now as I did as a boy growing up.
One other thought and I'll drop the subject... being a bigot or a racist is not limited to the caucasion race. THAT is important for all of us to understand.
My point sir, was with so many real issues out there I don't care who marries whom. Which is what seems to get the most play from our fearfull leaders to bring people to the poles to vote based on hatred, instead of running on real issues.
I don't hate gay people. I don't care what they do in their bedrooms as long as they keep it out of my face.
But, I DO think that gay marriage strikes at the "family" which is the basic building block of any society. Once that is gone, or the definition becomes unclear, the anchor for an entire society is gone.
From earliest man, family has been the anchor for everything which followed.
I believe it is an important subject and one worthy of being decided and set in law.
If gays want to live together, fine. But they cannot be considered a "family".
Granted, the above is strickly MY opinion and isn't worth a cent. But it's mine.
Really? Here is Jefferson's letter to The Danbury Baptists.
Please I urge you and your readers to read this.
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
also from his letter:
"Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Is where you'd want to cling but social duties are not necessarily moral ones... It is immoral to collect wealth while your neighbor starves.... plain and simple, but it seems a social duty to have more and keep more and show more.
Since James Madison actually wrote the first amendment, Thomas Jefferson is simply expressing his opinion on that "wall of Seperation" same as me.
As I said, if "the wall" was actually in the constitution, I could, in all likelihood, support it. As it is, I don't recognise any seperation.
I mean, look at the Democrat candidates who go from Black church to Black church during their political campaigns and make political speeches from the pulpits. I expect Republicans do, also. If there were, in fact, seperation of church and state, those churches would be fined heavily and most likely lose their tax exempt status.
As it is... they continue to be tax exempt and continue to mix religion and politics and nobody says a thing.
If you are correct and the Constitution does, in fact, have that "wall" then the feds ought to come down on churches HARD!
"Is where you'd want to cling but social duties are not necessarily moral ones... It is immoral to collect wealth while your neighbor starves.... plain and simple, but it seems a social duty to have more and keep more and show more."
*****************************
Just add this to the stack of stuff with which T.J. and I disagree.
Post a Comment