Friday, August 26, 2011

Establishment Clause

by Tom Wise

Well, another day, another chance to hear a progressive liberal scream obscenities.

First Amendment: Right to Freedom of Religion. What part of "Congress shall make no law" don't you get? You can't petition the House or Senate to legislate for or against religion. What part of "against" don't you get? What part of "get" don't you get?

"Respecting an establishment." You know, when I wuz a kid, I used to love going down to Malin's Dime Store and look around. Just poking through the wooden trays (can't you smell 'em?). They had great items at lovely prices. We'd make a special trip sometimes. A favorite of ours, you might say. Yep, I really respected that establishment. But if I had run for and become mayor of that fair town, I would not have made or requested any ordinance respecting that establishment. I would have given them a waiver from such things. In respect to what I've just said, I think it makes sense. "Make no law respecting (in respect to) an establishment (a founded body) of religion." Basically, lay off!

But perhaps I'm being too hasty. What is the rest of the clause? "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” You know what’s interesting? That this doesn’t in the least conflict with the first part. “Congress shall make no law respecting (in respect to) an establishment of religion (a place of worship, a type of religion) or the free exercise thereof.” That is, after you lay off, lay off some more! The feds can’t fence in any religion, or limit how big or popular that religion becomes (David Koresh notwithstanding). The only exception would be if a religion breaks other laws. For instance, ordering infidels to convert at the point of a sword.

OK, time for the progressive end-around. Hut, hut! “Let’s take this to the Supreme Court!” (Great, I’ll meet you there. I’ll be the one with the cudgel). The Supreme Court can do nothing. It is a body that rules on valid constitutional laws. It can’t just legislate from the bench.... crap!

Now you know why it’s called a “right”... it’s the opposite of “left.”

The oddest part of all this is that atheists should have any rights under the clause. If Congress shall make no law respecting religion, in the way that Leftists mean it (that is, religion was invented so atheists could spit upon it), why should Congress make a law disrespecting religion?

For that matter, why should any federal judge ever hear a case involving religion? Answer: it shouldn’t. It’s supposed to be up to the states. If Alabama wants the state religion to be Baptist, or if California wants the state religion to be worshiping Ashton Kutcher, so what? Move! That’s why it’s called the United States. But if the law of the land is anti-religious or hostile to religion, where can you go? Back to good old England? Up yours!

An atheist in the Supreme Court is actually the biggest middle finger that can be flipped. First, the Bible is removed. Second, the atheist makes a big “free speech” (oh, not that old chestnut!) stink about the Ten Commandments and Moses being in plain sight. After those are covered for his virginity’s sake, the atheist is expected to “tell the truth.” But “what is morality anyway?”

Supreme Court Justice: “So, Mr. Free-to-be-a-Prick, what is it about such-and-such religious article that infringes on your God-given rights?”

Atheist: “I’m going to sue you for saying God.”

How carefree! How gay!

Supreme Court Justice: “By my imperial order, I decree that so-and-so school district cannot endorse prayer/ creationism/ religious expression (except Muslim)/ crossing fingers.”

So-and-So School District Rep: (with great audacity of hope) “You have no such authority!”

Supreme Court Justice: “Off with your head!”

Atheist: “Hee-hee-hee.”

And so, we come to the end of another storybook. The heroic atheist triumphs and returns to his village, where he will plant groovy herbs and watch with paranoid alertness the movement of all citizens (except those there illegally). The big bad religionist is forced to acknowledge his error and he vows (not to God, of course) to be more tolerant and to apologize more often... Good night.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.