Amenment XXVII: A Modest Proposal

Self/Constitution ^ | 2002.06.26 | B-chan

[B-Chan]

A Modest Proposal For A New Constitutional Amendment:

Amendment XXVII

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.

II. The right of the several States to make laws regarding an establishment of religion shall not be abridged.

[B-Chan]

Well, your amendment allows states to set up official churches.

True.

These churches will pass laws very similar to those they had previously.

Really? Says who?

Laws like mandatory attendance under punishment of whippings, mandatory tithings, banishments/exiles for the wrong beliefs, whippings, beatings, executions for heathens, and Catholics, etc...

Well, as a Catholic myself, I'd hardly support the establishment of a mandatory Protestant church -- although I have to admit that would be a possibility. That being said, there's no reason to assume that these new state churches would necessarily enact such draconian laws. It's more likely that any establishmentarian legislation would be more along the lines of protecting the right of persons to display Christian holiday symbols on public property, etc.

Personally, I think a few horsewhippings and banishments would be a boon to society -- but I digress.

And I'll break every one of their damned laws. With impunity. The first guy to come to my house to enforce mandatory church attendence is definitely in for a "religious experience". He's going to meet God.

Let me get this straight: You don't mind when the government confiscates half your yearly income to pay for Piss Christ and midnight ghetto basketball, but you'd shoot somebody for trying make you go to church?

What a man. Thanks for writing.

B-chan

[ex-snook]

"A Modest Proposal For A New Constitutional Amendment: "

The best idea yet. Whatya bet, the big mouth politicians would rather exercise their gums than solve the problem.

[dpa5923]

...It would allow the state legislatures to constitutionally establish Christianity Islam as the official religion of their states.

[libertylover]

I doubt that it would help- for very long at least because the currently adopted words already have that meaning, it's just that the courts over the years have added meaning that simply isn't in the English.

Also, sometimes "less is more". For example, the 2nd Ammendment would be better if it simply stated, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged". The introductory phrase about a militia only serves to give those with an agenda an excuse to skew the meaning.

[B-Chan]

B-Chan, if you like state religions so much, point out some places on Earth where they have worked well. Saudia Arabia, Britain, Algeria, Laos, Nepal, Russia, Greece, Norway and Utah...?

What about England? (Britain is an island, not a state.) Sweden? Canada? Holland? Massachusetts? South Carolina?

B-chan

[B-Chan]

What's your point?

[alfa6]

Shakespere, Merchant of Venice, IIRC

Regards

alfa6 ;>}

[Jhoffa_]

As well as:

IV The stomach of Ted Kenedy SHALL be infringed whereupon it passes beyond the borders of the state he shall reside in and thereby threatens life and liberty.

[B-Chan]

I agree completely. The fact that several states had and maintained established churches after the ratification of the Constitution in 1789 is proof that there is no Constitutional "separation of Church and State" as such. The Bill of Rights only prohibits Congress from creating a Church of the United States; nothing in the Constitution prohibits the creation of official State churches. The states retain that right.

The effect of my proposed amendment would merely make this right explicit.

B-chan

[Ancesthntr]

B-Chan - I'm sure that if such an amendment was proposed to a hypothetical Roman Constitution about 2,000 years ago that the Jew commonly known today as Jesus would have been one of the first to violate it, as freeee has volunteered to do with your ludicrous proposal. I will also break any law forcing me to be any particular religion - this is supposed to be a FREE nation, where anyone can worship (or not) as he or she sees fit. If you want to know why we were specifically designed NOT to be a theocracy, look to Iran under the Ayatollahs or Afghanistan under the Taliban. For that matter, look to Spain during the Inquisition. There are at least dozens of similar examples of such paragons of free thought and liberty in history.

I invite anyone from any level of government to come to my house and impose the state religion on me. Then they'll understand (for a fraction of a second) why we have the 2nd Amendment.

[freeeee]

Really? Says who?

It's what they did last time.

Well, as a Catholic myself, I'd hardly support the establishment of a mandatory Protestant church

That's funny because in your previous post you mentioned Massachusetts as a good example of a state church. And that's precisely what they did. And they executed 4 of your fellow Catholics. Great example.

there's no reason to assume that these new state churches would necessarily enact such draconian laws

No reason, except all of the hard learned lessons of thousands of years of human history. Even our own, before the 1st Amendment.

Find me a theocracy that isn't corrupt or oppressive. Any time in history. Just one.

Let me get this straight: You don't mind when the government confiscates half your yearly income to pay for Piss Christ and midnight ghetto basketball

Sure I mind. Where'dya get that crazy idea?

but you'd shoot somebody for trying make you go to church?

Damned strait. And then I'd put 'em on a pike in the front yard as an example for any other dumbass that gets that idea.

What a man.

Free man.

[freeeee]

What about England?

Ever heard about the penal laws England passed in Ireland, as a way to oppress Catholics (Such as yourself). Read "History of the Irish Race" if you're interested. Their laws were shocking.

England is a very poor example.

[TightSqueeze]

To say that all Islamists are whacked-out religious fanatics is not to say that all whacked-out religious fanatics are Islamists.

Agreed, some whacked-out religious fanatics are Christian.

[dpa5923]

Perhaps you would like to be forced to provide money to a Mosque to teach people that women are property of her husband to be treated as such and that a month long fast would become law and public schools in your state to teach this religion of peace as the truth and all others religions as lies and followers of the same as infidels, but I don't.

Tell you what, you try and get your amendment passed. See how many people in this country want the state to dictate religion to them.

[r9etb]

LOL! Golly, but you're a troublemaker.

FWIW, I think you're going in the right direction. Your proposed amendment doesn't force a state to establish a religion. However, it does nothing to address the definition of "establish," which is the real issue at hand in this ridiculous 9th Circuit decision.

I think it might be better put along these lines:

II. The right of the several States to permit religious displays or statements shall not be abridged.

[dpa5923]

Read the 14th amendment.

[untenured]

As you point out, Europe is full of state churches, and from my non-expert view Christianity is in retreat much more there than here. (Far more Americans than Europeans attend church, more Americans than Europeans believe in God, etc.) Don't you think religious vitality is greater when it's not a protected monopoly intertwined with the state and its intrigues?

[Richard Kimball]

Brilliant post. If I may illustrate, "It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is."

Although Clinton did tell the truth when he said, "Well, every so often she'd come through and I'd stick my head out."

[B-Chan]

I will also break any law forcing me to be any particular religion...

Me too. It's a good thing that no one would be forced to practice any particular religion should my proposed amendment pass, isn't it?

...this is supposed to be a FREE nation, where anyone can worship (or not) as he or she sees fit.

How would my proposed amendment change that?

If you want to know why we were specifically designed NOT to be a theocracy, look to Iran under the Ayatollahs or Afghanistan under the Taliban. For that matter, look to Spain during the Inquisition.

No one is proposing anything like Iran. All my amendment would do is allow states to establish a given religion as the officially-acknowledged state religion. No one could be forced to practice it, since such coercion would violate the first section of the amendment itself, as well as other Constitutiional protections.

As for the Spanish Inquisition: it was well-intentioned in creation (as a tool to root out genuine heretics and traitors) but flawed in practice (as a tool of the house of Aragon and Castile to root out their enemies). In any case, my proposal has nothing to do with creating any Inquisition. (A well-run Inquisition of the USCCB, administered by competent authority, wouldn't be a bad thing today in my opinion.) It has everything to do with providing an ethical basis for society and law.

There are at least dozens of similar examples of such paragons of free thought and liberty in history.

And there are dozens examples of "free republics" where the practice of the Christian religion was legally guaranteed -- like the USSR, Mexico under Diaz, Poland (pre-1989), and the granddaddy of all democracies, revolutionary France. (Look up the Vendée for a real eye-opener). The République Libre killed thousands, commited regicide, and even trashed the Cathedral of Notre Dame (they set up an idol of the goddess Liberty where the Cross and altar once stood). Their philosophical heirs are still doing so today.

I invite anyone from any level of government to come to my house and impose the state religion on me. Then they'll understand (for a fraction of a second) why we have the 2nd Amendment.

Thanks for the testosterone check, soldier.

B-chan