Posted on 12/30/2004 12:25:54 PM PST by Miami Vice
The assault on America's religious beliefs is based on a distorted interpretation of the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment. Those clauses are " Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Everyone should understand the plain meaning of those words -- that is everyone who is not burdened by a post-graduate education from an Ivy League college. It means that the government is prohibited from setting up a state religion and that no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion.
Despite its plain meaning, the First Amendment has been used to forcibly remove religion from not just our classrooms, but all government institutions, and to dilute the religious content of much of American life. Neither the establishment clause nor the free-exercise clause was intended to preclude all interactivity between church and state. This is despite the fact that the courts have ruled to the contrary. However, theophobes -- like the ACLU -- believe in the infallibility of the judiciary when determining First Amendment cases. How they reconcile judicial infallibility with the Dred Scott case, Plessy v. Ferguson, and other similar rulings is another matter.
Yet, the judiciary is the preferred weapon of choice for the secularists. They understand that imposing their beliefs via the ballot is futile. They know that a sympathetic judge can replace millions of votes. They also know that they would not get those votes anyway.
Ironically, the same people who decry the Supreme Court’s ruling Bush v. Gore are the very same people who hijacked the judiciary to become a superlegislator. Some judges, who are all too happy to do so, have become dictators. They levy taxes, they conduct military policy, and they tell people where and when they can practice their religion.
Most people, especially those benighted Red Staters, do not understand how it can be argued legitimately that college football players voluntarily praying after a touchdown is tantamount to Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion. They do not understand how a Christmas tree in the quadrangle of a state university campus will contribute to the establishment of an ecclesiocracy.
One can ask why someone has not made the argument that to deny children the time to voluntarily pray comes closer to violating their free exercise of religion than the allowance of that time violates the establishment clause. Prohibiting free exercise of religion is a direct violation of the First Amendment.
Theophobes believe they can use the First Amendment to eliminate religious expression. They have propagated the myth that religious expression in certain public institutions is unconstitutional. They have persuaded the elites in government that their opinion is law. The theophobes and their allies in the media and the judiciary have in effect made God unconstitutional. They want to demonize religion.
However, help is on the way -- to borrow a phrase. Organizations like the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) act as the antidote to secularism. The ACLJ litigates cases where the ACLU and other groups are suing to eradicate religion from the public square. They are very successful at counteracting the ACLU. The Let Freedom Ring Foundation is another organization responding to attempts to make religion a sin (pun intended).
How successful these groups will be depends on the public. The mainstream media will not be helping to communicate the fanaticism of the theophobes (Indeed they do everything they can to make religious people seem like fools) . It is necessary for the public to let the government -- all branches, federal, state, and local -- know how they feel.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Until now, religious people have not squeaked much. When they did it was usually something that made religious leaders look silly.
The cacophony of complaints by theophobes is now seismic. The pious need to start organizing and respond. They need to respond and to persuade the judiciary of the error of its ways. Religious people cannot expect others to do this.
Religious people are not very activist, they do need to understand that if they depend solely on elections to change things change will not occur. They are delegating their responsibility for maintaining the law solely to their elected officials and only during elections do they speak. They need to do more. They need to express their discontent other than the first Tuesday in November.
Remember -- God helps those who help themselves. Mr. Tremoglie is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Philadelphia Daily News, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Insight magazine, and Front Page magazine among others. He is the former Vice President of the Pennsylvania Association of Scholars, a member of ISI, and a member of the American Society of Criminology.
If it comes off of our money, we've had it.
In my house, the squeaky wheel gets replaced.
bttt
God is the perfect gentleman. If we ask him to leave, he will. But if we invite him, he will join us.
Unfortunately you, and many others, miss the point entirely by attempting to clarify the 1st Amendment. What you should be questioning is where in the Constitution was the federal government empowered to be involved in the public school system. Once America accepted the government's unconstitutional involvement in the public school system the door was open for the government to exercise what ever control they wished.
And in Denver the Div. of Fire Safety was chastised because
the chief Paul Cooke sent a Christmas e-mail that dared
mention Jesus, and suggest His teaching ought be our guide. Only one of six people that recieved the E-Mail
complained A guy named Johnny Walker(no less) And the Dept.
of Public Safety sided with the troublemaker claiming the
E-Mail violated Dept. Policy -- and that they try to "recognize the holiday without promoting any particular religious belief,and by respecting everybodys'perspective."
Precisely opposite of what was intended ,and not reconciled
to the Court decisions on the Establishment Clause and
holiday displays.Certainly not reconciled to the US Constitution(which sets apart the Christian Sabbath)nor to
Public Law which allows yearly proclamation of a National
Day of Prayer.
You made two mistakes in your post.
1- The fact is that the public schools are essentially just that public - which means government controlled. So it is not a question of inviting. They are the ones who own it.
2- The second point you miss is that Tremoglie says that they are invading prviate rights against religious expression in public.
Read it again.
What in your education of America's history and her Constitution allowed you to conclude that the federal government owns the public school system? We the people established a government with only the specific and clearly enumerated powers outlined in the Constitution. Owning, controlling, or funding, the public school system was not one of those powers.
Congress which created the Department of Education in October of 1979. The question I posed was where in the Constitution was Congress granted the power to create a Department of Education?
I did not say the federal government- I said the government.The government,the government, hellloooo the government. Get it.
It does not matter whether it is state, local, or federal because the Constitution has been interpreted as the Supreme law of the land. So, for example, if the death penalty is found unconstitutional that applies to ALL death penalties state and federal.
Please do not waste my time with such silly arguments. You libertarian types always make these " once you let government take control of ..." (fill in the blank)specious agruments.
Just because the role of the government is perverted by a group of people does not mean government should not have a role. The idea is to make sure the government understands what its role is. It is not the choice between absence of government or total control of government. This is a spurious argumnent always made by libertarians.
BTW the author also said private as well.
Since you are such a Constitutional scholar where is Congress granted the power to create the Dept of Defense, Dpeartment of State. Where in the Constitution is Congress granted the power to create a death penalty.
Don't make me laugh. You know all about the Constitution. Are you telling me you read Madison's notes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.