Somehow we have equated permissive inaction with "making laws which establish religion". Is the phrase, "Separation of Church and State," anywhere in this, the first article of the Bill of Rights? Even more interesting, is there any language in this article which says that religious messages (Ten Commandments) or religious displays (manger scenes) or religious activity (praying) is not permissible on public property?
US Constitution, 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.
The politically correct position regarding religion is obscene for its blatant obfuscation and sophistry. Am I the only one who finds it at least curious, if not infuriating, that when trying to identify and define pornography, the Supreme Court applies the following standard (from Miller v. California):
"Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest . . ."
But when defining impermissible religious action there is no such requirement for applying contemporary community standards. Thus, the standard for the impermissible establishment of religion in Knoxville and Birmingham is the same as in San Francisco, Seattle, and Manhattan.
I submit that we now have a government which is anti-religion and, at the direction and guidance of the ACLU, is actively engaged in and making laws "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Why is this not in the public discourse and debate? Where is the leadership from an elected official? One Alabama judge tried to lead, and paid a heavy personal price when The People refused to defend their rights.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Other posts of interest
Aug 8th, 2007
Loading ...