Religion and the Law: God in the Crosshair
A Wisconsin Federal Judge, Barbara Crabb ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional arguing, “In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual's decision whether and when to pray.”
The problem is her ruling is off target. The government is not mandating that anyone do anything. No one is being forced to pray or being told how to pray. The National Day of Prayer simply recognizes the roll prayer and religion play in our society and salutes it. How many times do we keep repeating the exact words from the Constitution? Here it is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
Clearly, no one is being directed how to practice religion or being prohibited from exercising his or her religious beliefs, therefore there is no issue. We keep looking for the concept of the “wall” between church and state, but in the hundreds of times we’ve reviewed the Constitution, what is quoted above is all we’ve found. Of course, it’s gotten more complicated than that. Now the ACLU and other anti-religion hate groups are pursuing aggressively legal restraints which provide for “freedom from religion” attempting to ban all public expression of faith what so ever. It’s to where public employees dare not even have some kind of religious trinket on their desk at work, in fact such is against the rules at some work places.
The lunacy extends across the pond where in anticipation of a Papal visit, well known atheists, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, two of the world’s best known hate mongers, citing precedent in how former Chilean dictator Augusto Pincochet was arrested in 1998 for his human rights violations, arguing that the Pope should be prosecuted for supposedly covering up sexual abuse within the Catholic church. Dawkins contends: “This is a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence.” While Hitchens argues, “This man is not above or outside the law. The institutionalized concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment."
Surely, the British government will not allow itself to get trapped into pursuing such folly, but in today’s world, one can never be too sure.
A Wisconsin Federal Judge, Barbara Crabb ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional arguing, “In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual's decision whether and when to pray.”
The problem is her ruling is off target. The government is not mandating that anyone do anything. No one is being forced to pray or being told how to pray. The National Day of Prayer simply recognizes the roll prayer and religion play in our society and salutes it. How many times do we keep repeating the exact words from the Constitution? Here it is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
Clearly, no one is being directed how to practice religion or being prohibited from exercising his or her religious beliefs, therefore there is no issue. We keep looking for the concept of the “wall” between church and state, but in the hundreds of times we’ve reviewed the Constitution, what is quoted above is all we’ve found. Of course, it’s gotten more complicated than that. Now the ACLU and other anti-religion hate groups are pursuing aggressively legal restraints which provide for “freedom from religion” attempting to ban all public expression of faith what so ever. It’s to where public employees dare not even have some kind of religious trinket on their desk at work, in fact such is against the rules at some work places.
The lunacy extends across the pond where in anticipation of a Papal visit, well known atheists, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, two of the world’s best known hate mongers, citing precedent in how former Chilean dictator Augusto Pincochet was arrested in 1998 for his human rights violations, arguing that the Pope should be prosecuted for supposedly covering up sexual abuse within the Catholic church. Dawkins contends: “This is a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence.” While Hitchens argues, “This man is not above or outside the law. The institutionalized concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment."
Surely, the British government will not allow itself to get trapped into pursuing such folly, but in today’s world, one can never be too sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment