Thursday, June 23, 2011

The First Amendment...What it really means

Wouldn't it be a pity,
if 'Under God' 
was considered a prayer
and removed from our schools?
Red Skelton-1969

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.

That's the First Amendment..period. As you can see the is no statement of ' Separation of Church and State'  (which was a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802).  Essentially, the First Amendment states that the Government will not have an established organized religion such as Catholicism, Judaism , or any other form of established religion. It clearly states it will not have an established religion, nowhere does it state it can not, to some degree, acknowledge faith. 

The purpose of the First Amendment is to avoid religious persecution as the forefathers did in Britain under the rule of the Church of England which is governed by the ruling monarch and which worshipers were taxed to participate in church services. This is why churches have tax exempt status here in America.

The First Amendment is also in place to prevent creating laws based on religious doctrine. Now, granted people claim we based laws on the Ten Commandments, even though there are really only three Commandments which have been implemented as law and here they are:

1) Thou shall not bear false witness
(This is called perjury in a Court of Law)

2) Thou shall not steal
(Armed burglary, mugging, shop-lifting etc)   

3) Thou shall not kill
(Self explanatory) 

Don't you think as a nation we would have passed those laws anyway?

Anti-Religious organizations attempt to keep religion behind closed doors like it was some kind of 'dirty family secret' and take pride in taking away your right to pray or read a bible anywhere you chose to do so. 

One of the most prevalent cases I can recall was the case of Kaye Staley, a woman who three years ago attempted to sue the City of Houston over a Non-Denominational Prayer which was cited before the City Council conducted it's business. Apparently, Miss Staley is offended by faith. She lost her case when the presiding judge basically told her, 'People have faith...get over it.' and dismissed her lawsuit with prejudice, meaning she can never sue over this issue again. 

Another case that comes to mind is an agnostic couple who sued the Alvin School District over an upcoming graduation Invocation and stated their son will not walk across the graduation stage if the Invocation is recited. So, they were willing to deny their son a right of passage because of their beliefs? Good parenting don't you think? Of course they sued and initially won an injunction but it was overturned.  

The denial of faith by Atheists/Agnostics is, in my opinion, their attempt to use their false sense of intellectualism to avoid having to answer to a higher power.

The beliefs Anti-Religious Organizations think they have:
1) The right as private individuals to stop people who have faith their right to practice their faith, even though the Government doesn't even have that power.
2) Their belief that 'religion' is being forced down their throats. 

Sorry but if you know there is going to be an Invocation or acknowledgement to a Higher Power at an event, you can either deal with it or not go to that event, but you do not have the right to stop those who wish to participate. 

To sum up my views on Anti-Religious Organizers.
Don't tell me where to pray and I won't tell you where you don't have to.

No comments:

Post a Comment