September 15, 2005

Freedom of Expression?

By now I'm sure most of my gentle readers have heard about the Federal Judge in San Francisco that ruled the word "God" unconstitutional. In his decision, he claimed everyone has a right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." I'm not quite sure where that right came from.

Now keep in mind, and this is a very important point, that the United States Constitution DOES NOT GRANT rights. It simply lists out powers of the government and certain, specific rights that are protected. So often when someone complains about "finding" a right in the Constitution, I know they don't really understand the Constitution at all. If it's NOT there, it might be a right.

In this particular case, however, the judge obviously has not read the Constitution, or very clearly does not care about it. In case you haven't seen it in it's entirety, I present the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

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.

Fist and foremost, can anyone find in there any reference to a local school district? Anyone? Bueller? It's not there. To attempt to apply a very specific definition of a law that very obviously states what CONGRESS cannot do is just plain wrong. I don't care what "precedent" says, they are still completely and totally wrong.

The Constitution does not prevent a local school district, a city, a town, a municipality, a ward, a district, or even an entire STATE from establishing a religion. Yes, I'm serious. Thomas Jefferson agreed with me. If the people of a town want to establish Islam as the town's religion, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO. Only the federal government is prohibited from doing so (unless, of course, a state constitution says otherwise).

If that's not good enough for you, how about other words in the amendment:

... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

If I'm a schoolteacher and I want to say a prayer, how can anyone possibly stop me? How in the world can you say that *I* cannot pray or even utter the word "God?" According to that amendment, if you want to apply it to every government agency, you CANNOT stop me!

Are there any judges left who actually believe the Constitution? Why is this issue so hard to comprehend? And before you ask, yes, if a group of people in one town want to establish their own town religion of Wiccan, I say YES THEY CAN. That's what a representative republic is all about -- people of like mind joining together to do what they like, WITHOUT interference from a federal government that claims to know better.

Posted by: Ogre at 07:38 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 484 words, total size 3 kb.

1 It's from California. That is about all one has to say.

Posted by: Machelle at September 15, 2005 08:43 AM (ZAyoW)

2 I think this falls not only the first ammendment, but also the 9th. "The enumeration in the Consttitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." IE just because it isn't specifically listed in here does not mean it is NOT a right. I don't know if I agree with your assessment that local and state governments can establish a religion. Yet at the same time I haven't done enough research into the constitution to see if that is accurate enough to be able to factually debate you on the issue.

Posted by: Contagion at September 15, 2005 08:44 AM (/k+l4)

3 Machelle, admitting the problem is the first step to healing. I suggest New Hampshire ( http://www.freestateproject.org/ ). And Contagion, I can see the 9th applying somewhat, but the free exercise clause that is specifically listed should cover this one as well. I think the states and local governments have whatever rights the people of those governments want to give them. But then again, that's my philosophy, and the philosophy of a free people and a representative governmental system. The federal government should not even be able to pass laws that affect me as a citizen of North Carolina. Certainly the Constitution agrees, primarily because it very specifically states "CONGRESS shall make no law."

Posted by: Ogre at September 15, 2005 08:48 AM (/k+l4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
18kb generated in CPU 0.0126, elapsed 0.0835 seconds.
88 queries taking 0.0766 seconds, 192 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.