First Amendment: 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.
What have we done with this? We have justified a lot! We have given voices to the minorities (some deservedly some not). We have also segregated or rather passively enforced self-segregation. We have allowed a platform for the squeaky wheel to get the grease. Most dangerously he have allowed activists to control destiny.
A context of history should teach us that the founding measures were more in response to overcoming tyranny an oppression. But I wonder if that is good in all accords? Tyranny by definition I believe to be immoral, wrong, impractical, and should be eliminated. But oppression? Why shouldn't we oppress? I will presume that many of your first thoughts are Civil rights related or women's suffrage; however, that is not the oppression that I am speaking about.
I believe in a God and such I accept that there is good and evil in this world. Because I recognize their is evil I feel it important to suppress evil, to oppress evil. You are correct in that "my evil" may not be "your evil", but should we both concede to a higher authority we might find some "common evils". Yet, "your authority" is not "my authority" and as such commonality might be more difficult then deciding on what to eat for breakfast.
Likewise, we have taken this too far: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
How so? Well my authority tells me that former governments based on religion were based on incorrect religion. So I understand the comment..."Do not build a government upon the foundation of incorrect religious teaching". What is ironic is that almost every "major" religion believes in some degree of ultimate salvation where their leader will reign over a 'government' built upon it's religious tenants. So if we do subscribe to that philosophy maybe we should let Mr. Jefferson's letter go quietly into the night seeing that no "religious" person truly believe there should be such a separation. I do not believe their should be.
It is sad to me to that to bear a standard is synomous with segregation, intolerance, hate, close-mindedness and the like.
So, I will not separate but I will accept our current system so far as it has been inspired by "my higher authority" and I will with all of my ability oppress those movements that seek to oppress "my good".
4 comments:
I think in a way you are what you are afraid of...an activist. By standing up for your beliefs (and writing about them) you, within our constitution, are securing your right to practice them. And that is great! The first amendment makes allowance for that. There is a good book written by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer called "Active Liberty." The constitution forces us into action. Because you want to worship how, where, or what you want, you stand up and demand that right and the constitution gives it to you...definitely not perfectly.
Gov't of the people, by the people, for the people. Maybe a healthy democracy is one where everyone is an activist.
Unfortunately, I do not agree with active interpretations of the Constitution.
I am not speaking of judicial activism. If you want the war in Iraq to end, what do YOU do? If you don't want your marriage to be redefined, what do YOU do?
The Constitution does not specify whether it should be interpreted as an active, living document, or as an original, end all document. But it does maintain an ACTIVE DEMOCRACY which requires active involvement from YOU and ME. I think people try to categorize "active liberty" as only a judicial leftist agenda. That unjustly simplifies the point and ignores the real issue. Breyer is talking about the involvement of citizens in government--something we need a little more of these days.
Okay I'm cool with that
Post a Comment