Seperation of church and stupidity
Well today, as you may have heard, the supreme court has put an end to the practice of displaying the Ten Commandments inside courtrooms. Sort of. Kind of. Maybe. Sometimes. The supreme court is, and has been in such a apathetic state for so long now they can hardly make decisions anymore without second guessing the meaning of the word "law."
I'm not sure where I come down on this issue on the displaying of The Ten Commandments. I guess the fact that I capitalize them may clue you in as to my feelings towards them. Clearly they are the purest, most enduring and highly regarded of the great moral codes—not to mention the bedrock of most western democracies.
On the other hand, who cares?
I mean we've plastered God's top ten on courts across the land for ages but it certainly hasn't made judges make any better decisions—unborn babies and the infirm continue to be slaughtered and O.J. and Jacko walk free. The whole affair brings to my mind the larger notion of "seperation of church and state" and in particular how it relates to the 1st amendment.
The "seperation of church and state" is probably the most completely misunderstood concept in our system of government. The radical left has hijacked the statement and made us all believe that anyone who goes to church regularly, reads "The Purpose-Driven Life" and, I don't know—listens to Steven Curtis Chapman, is a threat to our democracy. The first amendment was designed to protect us from a theocratic state—or so the enlightened left tells us.
B.S.
Barbara Streisand, I say.
For starters, let's do what most liberals don't and actually read the 1st amendment of the United States Constitution.
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
It's really quite as simple as this amendment outlines, and it makes even greater sense if we understand the historical context the consitution was written in. The reason why our founders wanted a seperation of church and state was not to keep Bible thumpers out of congress. No, the reason was to keep the governments greasy mitts off of the church. The Anglican church (which is what those who started this nation were escaping) was a big ugly government run monster that not only perverted Christianity to the point of irrelevancy, but also used it's power as a state-run entity to swindle and extort the citizenry. Think the Taliban with more power, influence and maybe a shower.Our founders had no problem with anyone, anywhere at anytime expressing religious beliefs. With the obvious exception of religious practices that demonstrate real and provable harm against someone else (not "emotional" damage or anything like that).
Yet it's almost as though the proponents of the twisted "seperation of church and state" forget to read the part after "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Of course if they did their tenuous argument would crumble:
"Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Uh-oh. No wonder they ignore it. The implications are staggering aren't they? Not only is it not unconstitutional to practice your religion wherever you dang well please, it's actually encouraged! And don't give me that "Yeah, but putting a cross up in a public school implies that the state is then promoting one religion over another." Well maybe it does or doesn't imply that, but stopping the displaying of crosses and menorahs and Hanakuah Bushes was not what our founders were concerned about. What they were concerned about was the government forcing people to be members of twisted state-run churches that snagged money from the public coffers. And I'm sorry, you won't convince me that scenario compares to some Muslim 4th grader crying about having to see a cardboard pine-tree taped to the wall. What is the alternative anyway? Because I work in a public institution I must forfeit my religous convictions and constitutional rights and become a humansitic, non-religious automaton?
So there's your crash course in first amendment law. It's really not a "seperation of church and state" so much as it's a "seperation of state from church" and it always has been. But don't take my word for it, read the actual constitution sometime. This time without a washed-out hippy college professor "interpreting" for you and grading you according to your agreement with her own opinions.
