Published: January 27, 2009 11:14 pm      

The First Amendment can be a tricky thing

Opinion

I have been reading the letters to the editor both condemning and supporting Willie Ramsey.

My intent is not to support or not support Ramsey. It is to question the logic of those who would use the First Amendment to our Constitution to question his “right” to express his religious beliefs in a public forum, while at the same time using the same First Amendment to advocate the “separation of church and state.”

The two clauses from the First Amendment which apply to the above state, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ...“

First of all the words, “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, ’’ covers Ramsey’s Right to express his personal feelings in a newspaper “letters to the editor’s section.” Just as it does to those responding to him.

The other words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...” is where the actual conflict starts. That is the clause referred to as declaring the “separation of church and state.”

I take that clause to mean that no government entity shall advocate the establishment of any “government sponsored or national religion.” One of the basis for the creation of our country was to allow each person to worship and believe as they choose. I believe that’s why those words are there.

No where does it say, or imply, that the government is forbidden to, “advocate religion,” only “a specific religion.”

Those words have been interpreted by our courts to mean the elimination of all religious expression by any level of federal, state or local government entity. This has been championed by a small minority of those on the far left extremist liberal side.

It should be obvious to anyone who really objectively listens to their words, that their true agenda is to remove religious expression from all aspects of our society, private or public.

These people bring forward the concept that, our Constitution was created as a “living document.” As a “living document,” it was designed to be changed as time passed and the “prevailing attitudes of our people” change.

These people will argue that their concerns are aimed at “human rights and individual rights.” How can you discuss “human and individual rights ,” without discussing personal religious beliefs ?

This concept has actually has been proven true by how over the past 75 years. Laws have been passed, Amendments to the Constitution passed and numerous interpretations, of our Constitution, by the courts based on the “changing and prevailing attitudes” of our society. Some areas this has applied to are minority rights (race), women’s rights, voting rights, and at the present, homosexual rights. Most of us would agree that these “changes” have benefited our society.

Over the course of our history religion/spiritualism has developed into a major aspect of our society. To many it has become the basis for their existence. Studies and surveys have consistently shown that between 80 to 90 percent of our people share some type of religious/spirituality. These beliefs manifest themselves in many different forms, but do exist.

The percentage of “non-believers” consistently stays around 10 percent of our people.

The above shows a dramatic increase in our “prevailing attitude” toward religious beliefs, by a vast majority of our people.

Would this not indicate that it is time for changes to this “living document (Constitution)” based upon the concept of “prevailing attitudes?”

If we truly honored and respected the beliefs of all people, how could that possibly “offend” those of any believers or non-believers, or violate the words of the First Amendment?

Here’s where I get in trouble. What would be wrong with a high school principal standing before a graduation ceremony and stating, “Please join us in a moment of silent prayer. Please pray as your personal beliefs dictate. If you choose not to pray please maintain a moment of silence”?

Would that be “advocating a specific religion, or would it be truly practicing “tolerance and diversity ?”

When Barack Obama was sworn in as our new president, he swore an oath to “God” with his hand on a “Christian Bible.” Does anyone actually believe he was advocating Christianity as a “government sponsored religion?”