Wednesday, December 01, 2004

Wednesday, December 1

Blue-state liberals hate religion and have been imposing their anti-religion bias on America, especially via unelected activist judges, through a "separationist" interpretation of the First Amendment, according to which state-affiliated religious practices (including school prayer) that might lead to a monopoly over belief will not be tolerated; we red-state conservatives love God and divine worship and recognize that the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually favor an "accommodationist" interpretation, according to which the only thing that is forbidden is the creation of a state religion

Charles at Sheep in Wolfs Clothing argues the red-state conservative accommodationist view of the First Amendment (or, as he spells it, in good red-state fashion, "ammendment"):

"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."
~Bill of Rights, First Ammendment.

It simply strikes me dumbfounded how judges who are appointed to interprit the constitution (IE: not letters to Baptist's), and interprit laws can find anywhere where it says "Seperation of Church and State" will be maintained. [...]

This is right in line with the language of the first ammendment of the Bill of Rights (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof). Now Jefferson DID just say Church and State were seperate. Could it be that the whole "wall" he meant was in saying that Congress will not set a national religion? This language doesn't seem to agree with making public prayer illegal, it doesn't seem to agree with public display of nativity scenes being illegal.

People don't get's not a freedom FROM's freedom OF religion.

It means it is ok if Wiccans have a gathering o­n public property (IE: State owned parks, schools, whatnot). It means it is ok if Menorahs, and Nativity scenes are displayed. It means it is ok for Muslims to pray at school over intercoms as well as any other relgion. I would actually ENCOURAGE other religions to do so, do you know how neat Arabic Muslim prayer sounds?. Congress opens with prayer...what is so wrong with schools doing so? Answer: It's not wrong.

I have to admit, though, to a certain degree of skepticism about this suggestion. Instead of a five-minute morning Christian prayer at the beginning of the school day, public schools all over this country would open the day with an hour-long prayerfest, Baptist prayers in English, Roman Catholic prayers in Latin, Jewish prayers in Hebrew, Muslim prayers in Arabic and Turkish, Zoroastrian prayers in Farsi, Confucian prayers in Chinese, Shinto prayers in Japanese, Hindu prayers in Gujarati, Buddhist prayers in Tibetan, Mormon prayers in ancient Egyptian, and so on? Is that what Charles is suggesting? Drowning out the sounds of good red-state Christian prayers with all these prayers in other languages from around the world? Isn't that just liberal multiculturalism, Charles? How is the good Baptist child ever to know what's right if his Baptist prayer is only one of many he hears every morning at school? Doesn't this in essence prohibit the free expression of Baptist religion, that Baptists are forced to listen to all manner of heathen prayers alongside their own true godlike prayers? Surely this can only lead to more liberal heathenism and falling away from religion.

Charles goes on to say that parents should be free to opt their children out of morning prayers, and send them, for example, to special English classes, where they would learn to spell properly--another blue-state liberal idea, to replace words of devotion to the One True God with godless spelling lessons. If Charles himself had been subjected to this kind of freethinking education, surely he would not be the devout bad speller that he is today! He'd be able to spell amendment, interpret, and separation like a blue-state liberal, and would have hated religion just as much as those blue-state liberals do, too!