Posted under Christianity & Political Philosophy
A couple of posters have already referred to Dr. Fleming’s article on the “Ground Zero Mosque,” but this is the important take home point that I think needs emphasizing.
I don’t know which set of arguments is more degrading, the opponents’ cry of insensitivity or the defenders’ claim of religious freedom.
Let us begin with the more obvious exercise in stupidity, the notion that the First Amendment to the Constitution of 1787 grants a blanket freedom of religion to be enforced by the Federal government. Anyone who got through second grade by now is aware that it is not the First Amendment that is in play but the 14th, which was passed illegally for the purpose of giving civil rights (primarily involving contracts and wills) to former slaves. Only the tortured metaphysics and imbecility of federal judges–no exceptions alive today that I know of-could twist this into anything relevant to the current case. The purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent power-crazed national politicians from imposing their religious views on the rest of us in the states…
We know the context in which the First Amendment was written. Many states had established churches and nearly all had religious tests for voting or holding office. Some of the tests require some vague statement of belief in a god, while others are more specific and Christian. The tiny minority of Jews was, for the most part left alone, but no one in his right mind would have thought they had a right to practice their religion. Muslims and Hindus were not imaginable.
John Randolph on 25 Aug 2010 at 11:45 am #
Fleming is correct about the First Amendment, as far as he goes. But to really grasp what the the Religion Clause is about, we have to understand that, at the time of its ratification, most of the States had some form of religious establishment.
Indeed, the point of the Religion Clause is to ensure that each State remained free to impose its own religious establishment without federal interference. Hence, “Congress shall make no law … respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise [of such establishments.]”
No where in the Religion Clause is “free exercise of religion,” protected, but rather the “free exercise thereof,” i.e., the establishment of religion. In sum, the Religion Clause is not about personal religious freedom at all, but rather which government, State or federal, has the right to regulate individuals with regard to religion.
Believer on 25 Aug 2010 at 5:21 pm #
While it’s true that the Supreme Court was put into place to save us from our selves, no one in our Nations early history could concieve of a time when immigrants who were not European would flood our Country and bring along with them their religions. Fast forward to present day and we have public schools brainwashing the kids to where an estimated 85% of Christian kids give up their faith to Atheism. Then bring up a subject like the ground zero mosque and you have a people who can not or will not reason why the Mosque should not be built, Had the founding fathers forseen what was coming they would have made provisions in the Constitution to make sure this remained a Christian Nation. John Jay the Nations first Chief Justice of the Supreme court Declared America ” A Christian Nation” and again in 1898 I think was the date the Supreme court made the same declaration. Now I think it’s to late as the Christian base is quickly eroding and modern Americans think we can depend on a document that in itself has no power.
Steve Ryker on 26 Aug 2010 at 5:21 am #
I, for one, very much appreciate and, to a certain extent, agree with the respective analyses of Dr. Fleming and “Believer.” Their stated suppositions and the premises based upon them ARE, it seems to me, Historically accurate, sound and, in the case of the premises, well-based. What, then, is the problem??
BOTH ARE IRRELEVANT & MEANINGLESS TO & FOR THE SOCIAL REALITY OF THE PRESENT DAY.
1) Dr. Fleming’s analysis of the “true” meaning of the 14th Amend. is IRRELEVANT and, for ANY ‘Realworld’ purpose, COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS. The simple fact of the matter is that the current “meaning” of the 14th, which IN & under the current Totalitarian regime DOMINANT at least since the time of Fascist Dictator Roosevelt, perhaps more properly since the time of Arch-dictator Lincoln (I know – but that Dirtbag certainly USED “the spirit” of the later Amendment in & with his reasoning & actual policies), renders “that Old Saw” used by Dr. Fleming in HIS “interpretation” COMPLETLETY MEANINGLESS & WHOLLY IRRELEVANT. I genuinely “love” his (proper) “interpretation” of the 14th, but from the standpoint of those who ACTUALLY HOLD Real political & legal power, it’s an empty gun, dry-firing on empty chambers.
2) Essentially, the same objection holds for the arguement presented by “Believer.” His contrast between those in & of our “early history” and the things going on today, and any & all Sup. Ct. “Justices’” declarations made at least HALF-A-CENTURY ago or MORE, are simply IRRELEVANT and, for all and ANY purpose TODAY, simply MEANINGLESS. Interesting, “chest-swelling” with pride & indignation, INDEED. But politically & legally relevant & meaningful NOW, NOT.
The literally NOW useless & meaningless “historical document” commonly STILL known as the “Constitution” is nothing more than a “political football,” to be used, “kicked around” or SIMPLY IGNORED by those IN CONTROL OF, AND USING, the Elitist Global apparatus again still known as “the Government of the United States,” AS THEY WISH & SEE-FIT.
It is USED (like a prostitute) for all-manner of ‘pleasures’, such as “justification” AND “justifications,” as “providing” the “correct & proper Understanding” of, not only “The Constitution” itself in whole, but esp. “policy decisions,” political stances & positions for & by politicians both in & out-of “Office,” legal & political rationales & defenses, including those made on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” & all others like it, the “meaning of & for ANY & ALL LAW or LAWS, and on-and-on. If something can mean anything & everything for anybody, to anybody, the thing ITSELF IS MEANINGLESS. NOTHING can be truly used to maintain, understand, justify, explain, etc, etc. “A and ~A.” When “something” reaches that point, that “something” IS EMPTY – MEANINGLESS.
If we who ARE “Paleo-Cons” are to have ANY meaning TODAY (and we’d better RE-NAME ourselves, IN & for ‘the political arena’), then with Courage, Wisdom & MEANINGFUL Clear-Sightedness, we need to “Point the Way.”
And there IS one.
SR
pb on 26 Aug 2010 at 5:57 am #
“And there IS one.”
Which would be?