Saturday, October 23, 2010
First Amendment -- The Establishment Clause
How may any child explore religious ideas in order to decide which he wishes as an adult to engage in "the free practice thereof," unless he is allowed to be exposed (or to seek exposure) to them, and how can he be exposed to them, if such exposure is thwarted by anti-religious police of the government, operating from all sides: in the public square, in public schools, and in any forums in which government intrudes to tax, fund, or regulate? Once atheists and c0llectivists push the State to usurp to claim supreme authority in all affairs, how can the free practice of religion not be strangled? Once the State is potentially omnipresent, its proponents will naturally tend to claim that any expression of any countervailing force, such as religion, is an unwelcome establishment. Unless more reasoned and limiting definition is given to the word "establishment," atheists and collectivists will not rest until they have entirely expunged God. Of course, they will thereby have succeeded in establishing their own religion, i.e., the religion that "state elitists are higher messengers of the greater good of all." If that is not a myth, and an obscene one, then the world is surely mad.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
From A.T. – @SGS, good get!
Re “What has been left out in the comments here concerning Jefferson was that when he was a governor of Virginia, he signed into a law the state-wide day of prayer. Then when he was president, the Baptists asked him to do the same, having a national day of prayer. That was why he replied as he did, that there are separation of church and state (meaning national government in this case). It has nothing to do with what states can do, and everything the federal government cannot do.”
From: http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/day-thanksgiving-and-prayer. When Jefferson was governor of Virginia: “Jefferson signed this proclamation for a day of “Thanksgiving and Prayer” to be held on December 9, 1779.” See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Prayer.
People who aren’t satisfied with the language of the First Amendment are too prone to try to expunge religion by cherry picking from Jefferson.
Note: I also see where Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress was long used as a primer in private schools, even after the Constitution was adopted. It would be interesting to check whether it, or materials similar to it, was used after the Constitution from the inception of public schools.
I had not heard of seeghes. From http://home.swipnet.se/islam/articles/Temp.Marriage.htm: “The only difference between permanent marriage and temporary marriage, so far as its social status is concerned, is its duration. If the contract specifies a definite and limited period, that is a temporary marriage. But the wife is as much a wife as if the contract had specified "a permanent and unlimited period." The children of the temporary marriage are recognised on precisely the same footing as those of a permanent marriage, and enjoy all the legal and canonical and customary rights of children whose paternity is recognised.”
I wonder whether this would pass for common law marriage purposes, as a couple holding themselves out as being married? Would a seeghee performed in America result in unintended permanent marriage? If not, will Progs clamor that non-Muslims, to have equal rights, must also be accorded rights to enter into temporary marriages? To keep up the wall of separation between church and state, must not all be entitled to alter contractual terms of temporary marriage from standard terms under Shariah? Is this a foot in the door to legalize prostitution throughout the land? Is acceptance of this concept part of the tradition for a melting pot, a salad bowl, or Drano for Western civilization?
Progs who think Big Gov should provide enlightened terms for regulating temporary marriages are awesome in naivete. Consider how our hopelessly divided society has handled gay marriage, DADT, the Waco holocaust, and the home invasions in connection with Warren Jeffs. Are we now capable of promulgating enlightened regulations for temporary marriages? We lack will to enforce the laws we have. More regulations would increase our runs to the courthouse. We don't need more national government in marriage. We need less of government that: forces borders to remain open; avails myriad forms of welfare and voting rights to illegals and layabouts; and constantly seeks to diversify society to destroy any chance of preserving assimilated American culture.
Post a Comment