An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings
Thinking Causes Headaches
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. Not just the 1st Amendment, but pretty much all of the Bills of Rights. Since there has been so much flack about the interpretation of the First Amendment in recent years, I thought I’d add my two cents.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
This seems pretty straight forward to me. I guess I must be seriously confused though, since organizations like the ACLU and the like say so.
Establishing a religion, rather like the Church of England which the some of the original immigrants way back when were trying to escape, is not a good thing. Being forced to be a member a particular religion or faith, kind of like the Muslims would like to do to the entire world, is one of the reasons there were so many who braved the elements to establish a new homeland. In the next part of the clause, it flat out states that the government, or any other organization, can NOT prevent folks from praying in any manner they choose. Now, I’m sure there’s a tiny mind turning somewhere that’s screaming “but you are forcing me to exposure to YOUR religion!†Well, no, I’m not. If you choose not to participate, you are quite free not to.
Prayers before football games, during graduation, etc., we do acknowledge there is a much Higher Power at work in our lives. If you don’t believe this is true, then don’t bow your head. Honestly, civilized citizens really don’t care. We’ll pray for you, but don’t insist you pray with us.
On the other hand, do NOT try to stop us from thanking the Lord for the bountiful gifts He has bestowed on us, personally, and generally.
That little thing that a whole lot of folks that keep spouting, claiming it is ‘the separation of church and state’ clause? Does not exist ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION!
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
Sadly, I see one side of the ‘aisle’ doing it’s very best to try to silence the other side. Shoot, even on both sides when it comes right down to it. Take, for example the “Amnesty Billâ€. Talk radio, bloggers, and many people in general inundated the phone lines in D.C. Why? Because there are people out there willing to actually INFORM the general population about what is going on with our so called ‘elected body’. I say so called because we don’t really get a choice anymore. If you aren’t obscenely wealthy, or backed by folks who are, you don’t stand a snowball’s chance, even if you would be the better choice.
If you say something I don’t like, should I be able to shut you up? Not just no, but HELL no! And visa versa. There is that shouting “fire in the crowded theater†scenario, but that’s not what I’m trying to understand here, so let’s just say that’s a given. If there is no fire, shut up!
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Here we come an item related to ‘free speech’. Assembling peacefully shouldn’t require permits, unless of course, you plan on blocking traffic, or causing a general nuisance, although I do understand the desire of officials to have said permits, I find it rather annoying to hear of times where a permit is denied which means the citizens are being denied the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievancesâ€.
Over all, the changing of definitions certain words to create a different meaning is seriously starting to chap my hide.
So, where am I wrong?
