Freedom {from|of} religion: which?

“politicians and judges constantly misapply the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in an effort to rid the public square of religious references. Did our forefathers really intend to make an invocation of God before supper roll call at Virginia Military Institute unconstitutional? Is an Air Force commander announcing a base chapel program the same thing as the government establishing a religion? Who better to interpret the Constitution than those who wrote it and passed it into law?”

A former military commander notes that the modern trend is towards freedom from religion rather than the freedom of religion that was in the mind of those who wrote the Constitution.
“The only way to purport a purely secular government today is to reinterpret the words of the founding documents in a way the Founders did not originally intend. The legal and correct way to change the Constitution is to amend, not reinterpret it. The fear of the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 is being realized in 2013: If the government has power to grant religious freedom, the government has power to take it away. Today, “separation of church and state,” is being used as a weapon to intimidate military leaders to tread lightly concerning religion or get sued or prosecuted by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Our military members fight to guarantee our freedoms. Now it is time we stand up and fight to guarantee theirs.”
The laws and interpretations being advocated take an active approach towards regulating religion and reducing tolerance, especially towards Christian religions. “Make no law” seems to only apply if the law is advocacy and not if the law is restrictive. Intolerance in religion is yet another front in the war on Western Cultures. “A weapon to intimidate” indeed.

Comments are closed.