24 September 2005

Let My People Go

The Editor at Republican Voices has had my submission since Wednesday, but still it isn't published. So, I've decided that the information was too important to stagnant in his email. Time to publish it myself.

Pimping the Constitution: An ACLU project to remove religion from American life. Or Let My People Go!
The ACLU's catch all in every argument is the 14th Amendment and the belief that section 1 of the Amendment applies the restrictions in the Bill of Rights to the states; in particular the Establishment Clause. Personally I don't see anything in the language which makes that so.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 14th Amendment Section 1 of the US Constitution
Now keep in mind the reason for the drafting and ratification of this Amendment. The 14th was one of the first "Civil Rights" Amendments passed in 1867 and ratified in 1868. Post Civil War Civil Rights legislation was meant to apply all the rights and privileges to all US citizens. At issue from my point of view is the 1st Amendment and the "Establishment Clause." The Amendment states, "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." Now, how can Congress's restriction on creating a law establishing a national religion be applied to the states? And even if it did, how does this apply to the use of public lands for a Christmas display? Did Congress make the decision for the use? Did the State Legislature? No, the town or city did. I'm not a big fan of implied references. Either the law says what it means and means what it says, or it says nothing at all. And the ACLU's prostitution of this Amendment for their warped agenda belittles the reasoning behind the adoption of the Amendment. With a broad interpretation of any two words in the English language, someone looking for a particular meaning will find it eventually. And the ACLU counts on this broad interpretation of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment in particular. The 14th has been used for everything from Roe v. Wade to a recent decision barring school children from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. It is the most over used and abused of all 27 Amendments to the Constitution. And the reason is the broad implications, to borrow the leftist terminology. The need for the Amendment was to establish that former slaves would be granted equal rights under the law of the land post Civil War. Not to bar the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance before classes begin for the day. There is an ancient cliche that states, "The needs of the many out weight the needs of the few, or the one." But try applying that to liberal thinkers. There may be 1 Atheist within 1,000 miles of a cross on public display. If this singular Atheist has to be exposed to this cross one time in his life, he has grounds under which to file a Civil Rights lawsuit claiming his offense. And down comes the cross. Think this is far fetched; take a look at the Mt. Soledad memorial fight going on in San Diego California. Another Atheist is offended by the inclusion of the words Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance and starts his campaign to personally remove it from being recited by school children. He files suit claiming that the offense of having his daughter exposed to this inhumanity so damages her and him that they require damages from the State of California for "forcing" her to recite it every morning. The federal judge discovers that the Atheist (who's an attorney by the way) didn't have custody of his child and dismisses the case. So the Atheist goes shopping for a client to proceed with and finds one. This time, the judge issues the state a cease and desist order to halt the practice citing that the state violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment as applied to the state in the implied applications outlined in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. (Is anyone saying BS by now? I am.) The ACLU's full court press against organized religions in this nation is leading a great movement on the right. Each week more and more individuals join my other major project citing the ACLU's war on Christianity. But to be fair, it's not just Christians that the ACLU have in their sights. Jews are also a major target for them. Interesting especially since the President of the national board of the American Civil Liberties Union is a Jew. My personal feelings on religion are such that I don't care if you worship or not. Or to whom you pray or not. My interest is in the application of laws to restrict the free exercise provisions of the 1st Amendment by the federal courts when their involvement is not warranted. As Moses said to Pharaoh, "Let my people go."
***On a side note: Today is Pimp Your Blog Day at Stop The ACLU. Join Jays Weekend Trackback Party. Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules. Gribbit is a contributing writer at Stop The ACLU and the co-founder and administrator of Stop The ACLU BlogBurst.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home