Posts
I must admit that I'm growing increasingly frustrated with Network News -- even Fox News. Most of what passes for debate is just a bunch of empty-headed nonsense.
"Liberals are wrong!", cries Hannity. Left-wing idiot Bob Beckel counters "Oh, yeah, it's those damn Republicans who are wrong!"
On and on it goes. No discussion of the heart of the matter. No analysis of what the Constitution actually says, why it's significant, and how it affects us today. Just a bunch of talking heads. The fact that on Fox there are at least a little more conservative talking heads than other networks does not change the fact that most of it is unprofitable time fill.
Case in point: That wonderfully ignorant dunderhead Bob Beckel pontificated tonight that "religion should stay out of the schools" and has no place there. He went on to say the Constitution provides 'separation of Church and State'. Hannity countered with something along the lines of 'how did our nation survive for all those years with prayer and bible classes in public schools then?'
None of this gets to the heart. Here's the heart. I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Constitution does NOT set up 'separation of church and State'. It sets up separation of CONGRESS from the peoples right to exercise their faith whenever and wherever they want to. The Amendment reads as follows:
"Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It's quite simple Sean. It's quite simple Bob. It's a restriction on CONGRESS -- NOT the people.
But do we get that point made at all? No. Just a shouting match. I am often amazed that these people have such high paying and publicly visible jobs. Is this the best that news can do?
There are some exceptions of course. John Stossel is always excellent. Charles Krauthammer is one of the most incisive and accurate political commentators on the planet. How about more of this type of excellent analysis, and less of the talking dunderheads?
Monday, May 10, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well said Robert, keep up the good fight..
ReplyDeleteThe phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause of the Constitution. That the phrase does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and later learned they were mistaken. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
ReplyDeleteSome try to pass off the Supreme Court's decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court's decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court's view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to "[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government." Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., "the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress" and "for the army and navy" and "[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts"), he considered the question whether these actions were "consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom" and responded: "In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion."
The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state. I commend it to you. http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/WFU-Divinity-Joint-Statement.pdf
Thanks Doug. Very insightful and well thought out. While I disagree with your base premise that religion has essentially no place in our 'secular' government, at least you are able to ARTICULATE a viewpoint and back it up. This proves my point. You can have an insightful and meaningful discussion of the issues, without it degenerating into meaningless drivel.
ReplyDeleteRobert,
ReplyDeleteWhile religion may have no place "in" our government, that is not to say that people should not be motivated by their religions to press the government to enact laws and do things to their liking. That is simply the way a republican government should work.
I appreciate your point, as well, about the need and desirability of civil discourse. One can only hope we'll see more of that.