Amendment I
“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:”
So was this and what has become to be known as the “Bill of Rights” was ratified as the first amendment of the constitution of the United States on March 4, 1789, thirteen years after the Declaration of Independence was executed.
This is a very basic concept, it’s a quid pro quo actually, I won’t do anything to you and you won’t do anything to me. In regard to religious beliefs it means you, meaning any city, county, state or federal government shall not, under any circumstances, place laws or ordinances against any religion, of any kind, for any reason to restrict those people from practicing their beliefs. Conversely, no religion shall influence, impose their beliefs on the state (meaning the people) because of the tenants of their beliefs.
Now history will tell us that both the state and religious organizations have sought to impose their ideas on the other. Tisk, tisk, tisk!
Most recently, Proposition 8 was passed in California, ensuring that no one can “marry” except a man and a woman, whereby denying anyone else (as in gay and lesbian couples) from enjoying the same rights as everyone else. The state is suppose to be blind to such matters as the term “marriage” is simply a defining word for the union of two people who wish to be recognized by the state as legally bound to one another and enjoy all those rights and privileges awarded to them as anyone else who is married.
However, a coalition of largely religious factions decided that this has damaged their interpretation of “marriage” and spent millions of dollars to place a measure on the ballot in California denying people of the same sex (it could be two best friends who are not homosexual, you know) getting married as it is against their belief. Please refer to the first amendment. The state has no right to impose religious beliefs on any of its people, any more that the state has the right to impose its laws prohibiting religious beliefs.
Do any of you get this? Some people say the first amendment needs to be amended. Oh, ok, let’s exclude the Catholic Church from practicing in the US because some of the priest molest children, shame on them, let’s vote them out of the country. And while we’re at it, let’s make it illegal for a Muslim group to build a multi-purpose center in lower Manhattan, four blocks away from “ground” zero, because it’s disgracing the memory of those who died in 9/11; BECAUSE, it was some radicals, who happened to be Muslims, who blew up the World Trade Center.
If it had been some radical Catholics, would we insist that the Catholic Church that IS across the street from ground zero be razed to the ground because it’s otherwise a slap in the face of the “hallowed ground” as one advocate referred to it.
I’m sorry, all of this is VERY WRONG! Whenever any zealous individual or group decides to make decisions based on religion or because of it, and attempt to impose their view by legal means of law (meaning the state), we are walking down a very dangerous path, for both those who are of that particular faith, and those who are against it.
The whole reason why the first ten amendments of the Constitution where ratified was to guard “all the people” from the many imposing their beliefs on to the few. This is the very fabric of how this country was woven. And, just because your pastor, priest, rabbi, elder or whomever says that the word of their “God” only allows marriage to be between a man and a woman it does not it make it state law, nor does the opinion of the people can dictate where someone can build a place of worship because it’s “disgracing the memory…”.
All of you who support Prop 8, and/or the objection to an Islamic sect from erecting a multi-purpose building in lower Manhattan should really think about what you’re promoting, because if we all don’t put a stop to this select way of interpreting our Bill of Rights for anyone’s own interests or agenda, instead of for the best interest of the people, we’ll all wake up one day wearing Swastikas on our sleeves and hailing a dialogical dictator who may put you in a camp.
Do any of you get this? I sure the hell hope so!
“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:”
So was this and what has become to be known as the “Bill of Rights” was ratified as the first amendment of the constitution of the United States on March 4, 1789, thirteen years after the Declaration of Independence was executed.
This is a very basic concept, it’s a quid pro quo actually, I won’t do anything to you and you won’t do anything to me. In regard to religious beliefs it means you, meaning any city, county, state or federal government shall not, under any circumstances, place laws or ordinances against any religion, of any kind, for any reason to restrict those people from practicing their beliefs. Conversely, no religion shall influence, impose their beliefs on the state (meaning the people) because of the tenants of their beliefs.
Now history will tell us that both the state and religious organizations have sought to impose their ideas on the other. Tisk, tisk, tisk!
Most recently, Proposition 8 was passed in California, ensuring that no one can “marry” except a man and a woman, whereby denying anyone else (as in gay and lesbian couples) from enjoying the same rights as everyone else. The state is suppose to be blind to such matters as the term “marriage” is simply a defining word for the union of two people who wish to be recognized by the state as legally bound to one another and enjoy all those rights and privileges awarded to them as anyone else who is married.
However, a coalition of largely religious factions decided that this has damaged their interpretation of “marriage” and spent millions of dollars to place a measure on the ballot in California denying people of the same sex (it could be two best friends who are not homosexual, you know) getting married as it is against their belief. Please refer to the first amendment. The state has no right to impose religious beliefs on any of its people, any more that the state has the right to impose its laws prohibiting religious beliefs.
Do any of you get this? Some people say the first amendment needs to be amended. Oh, ok, let’s exclude the Catholic Church from practicing in the US because some of the priest molest children, shame on them, let’s vote them out of the country. And while we’re at it, let’s make it illegal for a Muslim group to build a multi-purpose center in lower Manhattan, four blocks away from “ground” zero, because it’s disgracing the memory of those who died in 9/11; BECAUSE, it was some radicals, who happened to be Muslims, who blew up the World Trade Center.
If it had been some radical Catholics, would we insist that the Catholic Church that IS across the street from ground zero be razed to the ground because it’s otherwise a slap in the face of the “hallowed ground” as one advocate referred to it.
I’m sorry, all of this is VERY WRONG! Whenever any zealous individual or group decides to make decisions based on religion or because of it, and attempt to impose their view by legal means of law (meaning the state), we are walking down a very dangerous path, for both those who are of that particular faith, and those who are against it.
The whole reason why the first ten amendments of the Constitution where ratified was to guard “all the people” from the many imposing their beliefs on to the few. This is the very fabric of how this country was woven. And, just because your pastor, priest, rabbi, elder or whomever says that the word of their “God” only allows marriage to be between a man and a woman it does not it make it state law, nor does the opinion of the people can dictate where someone can build a place of worship because it’s “disgracing the memory…”.
All of you who support Prop 8, and/or the objection to an Islamic sect from erecting a multi-purpose building in lower Manhattan should really think about what you’re promoting, because if we all don’t put a stop to this select way of interpreting our Bill of Rights for anyone’s own interests or agenda, instead of for the best interest of the people, we’ll all wake up one day wearing Swastikas on our sleeves and hailing a dialogical dictator who may put you in a camp.
Do any of you get this? I sure the hell hope so!
