Stock Photo of the Consitution of the United States and Feather Quill

The Establishment Clause. Does anyone know what this means? Anyone? No? Does anyone know what it is? Again, no?

Well, to quote the First Amendment in its entirety: 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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That, my friends, is the very first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the first of ten rights necessary to ratify the Constitution, the first of all our cherished beliefs.

And the first issue listed in the first amendment? That’s right, the establishment OF religion, not FROM religion. This is the heart of the case that will be argued before the Supreme Court this week, that the city of Greece, NY has the right to employ several different chaplains from several different religions to pray publicly for the city, the state and our nation when it’s council is in session.

And what religion is under attack by those who wish to stop the council from beginning the sessions with a moment of prayer? Well, if you said Catholic, other Christian denominations and the three Jewish professions, you certainly would be right. But if you were told that this “ban” included Muslim, Buddhist, Hindi, Tao, and Wiccan, would you be surprised? I was.

The problem that atheists have is that they don’t understand the meaning of their own self-identified name, which ultimately is a contradiction of terms. I provide you the definition of its modern definition as it appears in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary App:

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

   b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Does anyone else see the contradiction? That an atheist recognizes a deity (or God, god) in which to deny?
So, why then must this very small minority impose its beliefs on the rest of us who choose to practice a faith in a deity? After all, it’s not unconstitutional to have a religious belief. Remember, the establishment clause is very specific. It is the OF not  FROM religion that’s at stake here.
If one is willing to deny the the most important freedom our Framers considered, what is next? If I don’t like what someone says about anything, does that mean I should sue to prevent that idea or thought from being spoken again by anyone? And then what? The “Thought Police”  prevent the next statement, and the one after, and so on?
Should we just change the name of our beloved country from the United States of America to the United States of Soviet Socialist Republics? Or Nazi Amerika? I hope that’s not the path we are on. Or, all those soldiers who died protecting our most basic and cherished freedoms will have died in vain.
Trust me. More is at stake here than if a city council in an obscure part of New York State can start its sessions by offering a prayer. It is the beginning of the end of what we are as a Nation if the Supreme Court changes the Establishment Clause to read FROM instead of OF.
Let us PRAY reason will prevail
Enhanced by Zemanta