Saturday, September 26, 2009

• Item by Malcolm T. Hedges

Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;“ End of story…

Wow what a simple straight to the point statement.

1) “No law respecting an establishment of religion” - really complex stuff huh!

2) “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;“ - oops complex sentence means comprehension issues.

Simpleze:

a) Congress can’t make or break any religion. (No mention of recognize, endorse is an implied no no)
b) Congress can’t stop people from being or acting religious if they want to do it.

So complicated… Duh!

Maybe it’s the big words in the Constitution that confuse arrogant uneducated elites?

For them lettuce try to help:

1. establishment means “making”.
2. prohibiting means “stopping”.
3. thereof means “of it”

Generally it would seem the Constitution did NOT stop Congress(The State) from acknowledging a religion or it’s varied symbolic representations.

So let’s get into the elitist esoteric distortions and premises:

“Separation Of Church And State”

This kinda means religion and government shouldn’t mix in any form, manner or shape.

a. Undeclared pseudo religions and cults don’t count? (“Environmentalism and Socialism” are excellent examples.)

b. Elites by their own actions have let out the secret that public skools are State indoctrination facilities. And so decry indoctrination into “religions they don’t appreciate or wish to acknowledge as existing”. (Environmentalism, Islam and Socialism seem to be the only religions currently sanctioned by the “State indoctrination facilities”.)

c. Recognition has been purposefully and selfishly deemed to be an endorsement.

A general discussion:

1) For some hundreds, hundreds and hundreds of years the “generic cross” has been accepted as a marker to reflect the loss of life.  Even “Red Cross” and emergency vehicles carry that symbol internationally recognized symbol.

2) Primary religious texts can be considered at minimum sources for historical context consideration and evaluation.  As an example, portions of a bible might be examined by students for such purposes without specifically promoting the religious faction that produced that bible.

3) The word “god” is pretty common in all religious exercises even though the perception projected by that word is wildly variable. So the word god on a currency item is a generic recognition not an endorsement.  The statement “in god we trust” is simply a generic acknowledgment that the government is not all powerful.

4) A wide variety of books can be effectively considered “the bible” for specific belief systems whether they are officially recognized as “religions or not so”.

5) Being “offended” generally means the offended individual has no life, is terribly insecure and/or is a self centered egotistical idiot.

The fabricated “Separation Of Church And State” position is obviously a self-serving political ploy to establish or blatantly promote undeclared religions at the expense of selected declared religions.

Disclaimer: I have no vested interest in any specific declared religion or specific undeclared religion. I look from afar at some declared and undeclared religions and find some aspects to be positive with others problematic.

Malcolm T. Hedges

Permalink