I've been thinking about this for quite some time. I'm not opining to open a religious debate, but the First Amendment is a primary example of political correctness gone awry. Here is the wording:
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. My how this has been twisted and turned over the years...
Well, Congress is not making laws prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but the Supreme Court and other federal courts have certainly danced around this issue in varying degrees, amidst great controversy. You might recall the plight of Chief Justice Roy Moore, the Alabama Supreme Court Justice who had a rather large block of granite with the Ten Commandments inscribed on it kept in the rotunda of the State Courthouse Building. See for yourself:
Somehow this was deemed as "establishing religion by the government." Oh really? I had no idea. Work with me here. Based on this, one could logically conclude had Moore kept a football on display in the Courthouse, he would have been advocating athletic achievement on the gridiron over baseball. See what happens when we make ludicrous assumptions based on circumstantial evidence?
Judge Moore was not advocating Christianity as the religion to be established in Alabama. Yet, a federal judge decided that a big rock with inscriptions of the Ten Commandments was the government advocating one religion over others, thus violating the Separation of Church and State. Did you know that the House Chaplain opens each day Congress is in session with a
prayer? Hmmm, now I am confused. I bet you are too. Let me get this straight: Congress opens with prayer, yet a judge cannot have the Ten Commandants displayed in his courtroom? I feel like a 6 year old discerning between their, they're, and there. Wait, it gets better. Really, I swear. Well, I don't swear, but some people do.
This ruling is the poster child for political correctness run amok. Why do I believe this? It's simple really: at the inauguration of the President of the United States, he can choose to be
sworn in by placing his hand on a Bible. Most recently, President Obama used the Lincoln Bible for his swearing in as Commander in Chief:
Now, how is it acceptable to be sworn in as the president with the Holy Bible as the basis for stating the following?:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Quick factoid: these very commandments are contained within the Lincoln Bible. Now, since no president is forced to do this, just like no justice is forced to place a block of granite in their courthouse, we can conclude that the directive to Judge Moore was one which was levied in the spirit of not hurting anyone's feelings/making them feel uncomfortable should they not follow Christianity. This order appears given behind the veil of Separation of Church and State. Were that really the case, no individual would be able to take the oath while acknowledging and affirming their faith as a foundation for executing the office of President of the United States. Yet, somehow they all manage to do so. Every four years. Just like clockwork.
No comments:
Post a Comment