Letters to the Editor, part 2
So, I have continued to stir people up with my Letters to the Editor. Of course, Mr. Absher felt the need to respond with more ignorance of history and religion and our nation. So, I have just finished setting him--and everyone else--straight once again. Thankfully, I am not the only one who wants to do so. Other people have argued against him in the comments, although I'm not sure if he reads those. *shrug*
""Disingenuous: 1. Not straightforward or candid;...2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; 3. Unaware or uninformed." (www.dictionary.com)
Mr. Absher continues to call me names in an attempt to misdirect the original conversation. Such tactics are used continuously by and against our government-hopefuls (recall the "macaca" slur of 2006, as well as the "madrassah" speech erroneously applied to Sen. Obama) and by and against our current officials. Mr. Absher is participating in the same sort of tactic. I do not condone such behavior, and have twice now argued against it. Mr. Absher's letter claims that it's all about a "number of quotations" and getting back to what our forefathers would have wanted for our nation. While I disagree with the the "number of quotations" comment, I do agree that we need to be sure of our history as we move forward.
"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." (http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm)
There is a reason that none of our states have a connection to a religious establishment today. We may have had such connections as late as 1960--but we also had "Jim Crow" laws for a long time, too. Does that make it right? No. While we need to be aware of our history, we also need to move to continually better ourselves and our nation. We cannot do so if we are continually tying ourselves up debating which is the "right" religion or how to apply the narrow confines of one sect of one religion's beliefs to a greater, wider whole. Even our forefathers knew this. While I agree that James Madison did indeed start out not supporting a Bill of Rights for our Constitution, I also recognize that he changed his mind. He wrote our first 10 Amendments--the first of which is our freedom of/from religion.
We are free to choose to follow or not follow any religion. We are also free from laws framed by one religion and imposed on a collective people of many different religions/viewpoints. This is one of the many things that separates our country and makes it so much greater than many other countries in the world. To take it out of our proud heritage is to render us just like any other theocracy in the world.
"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (http://www.constitution.org/afterte_.htm)
(I am withholding any argument on whether this particular amendment was actually ratified, as we do currently use it for law.) The States do have the right to make and create their own laws. However, in order to remain a part of the Federal government, these State Constitutions need to be in line with the Federal Constitution. Otherwise, what is the point of having a Federal Constitution? Because of this, some states have secession movements in the works--notable examples include Vermont and South Carolina. Why would they bother with secession movements if they could create their own laws within their own borders and have no repercussions on a Federal level? The States cannot make laws that limit the freedoms granted by the Federal Constitution. Applying this to separation of church and state is not a misapplication--it is an enforcement of the freedoms granted by the First Amendment, written by James Madison (among others of our founding fathers).
We need to continue to uphold this great tradition in our wonderful country. We need to protect our freedom of and from religion. We need to stop using religious hate-speech and hate-think in our personal and communal lives. We need to educate one another and uphold our Constitution. And we need to remember our history as we move forward and make our country and ourselves better."
Not that I think it will do any good in his mind--but perhaps it will help some other readers out there. It is at least providing great entertainment for my grandparents and dad. :)
Peace.
""Disingenuous: 1. Not straightforward or candid;...2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; 3. Unaware or uninformed." (www.dictionary.com)
Mr. Absher continues to call me names in an attempt to misdirect the original conversation. Such tactics are used continuously by and against our government-hopefuls (recall the "macaca" slur of 2006, as well as the "madrassah" speech erroneously applied to Sen. Obama) and by and against our current officials. Mr. Absher is participating in the same sort of tactic. I do not condone such behavior, and have twice now argued against it. Mr. Absher's letter claims that it's all about a "number of quotations" and getting back to what our forefathers would have wanted for our nation. While I disagree with the the "number of quotations" comment, I do agree that we need to be sure of our history as we move forward.
"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." (http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm)
There is a reason that none of our states have a connection to a religious establishment today. We may have had such connections as late as 1960--but we also had "Jim Crow" laws for a long time, too. Does that make it right? No. While we need to be aware of our history, we also need to move to continually better ourselves and our nation. We cannot do so if we are continually tying ourselves up debating which is the "right" religion or how to apply the narrow confines of one sect of one religion's beliefs to a greater, wider whole. Even our forefathers knew this. While I agree that James Madison did indeed start out not supporting a Bill of Rights for our Constitution, I also recognize that he changed his mind. He wrote our first 10 Amendments--the first of which is our freedom of/from religion.
We are free to choose to follow or not follow any religion. We are also free from laws framed by one religion and imposed on a collective people of many different religions/viewpoints. This is one of the many things that separates our country and makes it so much greater than many other countries in the world. To take it out of our proud heritage is to render us just like any other theocracy in the world.
"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (http://www.constitution.org/afterte_.htm)
(I am withholding any argument on whether this particular amendment was actually ratified, as we do currently use it for law.) The States do have the right to make and create their own laws. However, in order to remain a part of the Federal government, these State Constitutions need to be in line with the Federal Constitution. Otherwise, what is the point of having a Federal Constitution? Because of this, some states have secession movements in the works--notable examples include Vermont and South Carolina. Why would they bother with secession movements if they could create their own laws within their own borders and have no repercussions on a Federal level? The States cannot make laws that limit the freedoms granted by the Federal Constitution. Applying this to separation of church and state is not a misapplication--it is an enforcement of the freedoms granted by the First Amendment, written by James Madison (among others of our founding fathers).
We need to continue to uphold this great tradition in our wonderful country. We need to protect our freedom of and from religion. We need to stop using religious hate-speech and hate-think in our personal and communal lives. We need to educate one another and uphold our Constitution. And we need to remember our history as we move forward and make our country and ourselves better."
Not that I think it will do any good in his mind--but perhaps it will help some other readers out there. It is at least providing great entertainment for my grandparents and dad. :)
Peace.