I received a comment to a recent
post which demands a reply. The following is the comment just as it appeared;
Toad734 said...
That's funny because it always seems it's the conservatives who are trying to implement a state religion which everyone one else has to adhere to, always trying to stifle free speech or even in McCain and Palin's case, freedom of the press. The Right are the ones who want to attack the constitution with a new marriage amendment, it's the Right who is always trying to take away our civil liberties for "our safety", its the right who is always trying to get music, lyrics, videos, tv, movies, radio, art, etc. censored. It's conservatives who fought against ideas such as the 15th amendment.And by activist judges would you be referring to ones who sneak in to the court house grounds in the middle of the night to install a big statue of the 10 commandments? That's what I call an activist judge. Just because some judges are non partisan and smart and can actually acknowledge the intentions of the founding fathers doesn't make them activists just because you, uneducated in the law, disagree.Toad makes several charges in his comments that are so outlandish that I have to wonder how he could have established their credibility in his own mind.
1). That conservatives want to stifle freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and censor the media.
Since Ronald Reagan abolished the
'fairness doctrine' we finally have a situation in this country in which freedom of speech is flourishing. I realize that the Left is unhappy with this situation and many want it
reinstated. This charge may seem a little like the 'pot calling the kettle black', but in the mind of the Leftist the fact that there are so many voices now actively opposing their views it must be an effort to silence them. The Left does it's fair share of criticism of the Right as well. But the right to criticize the speech of another falls under the category of free speech. What the Left calls an effort to stifle free speech is really nothing more that healthy political debate. Conservatives have as much right to be engaged in the political debate as does the Left. However, if the Left finds that they no longer have the stomach for it, we would be agreeable to accepting the Left's capitulation.
2). That Conservatives fought hard against ideas like the 15th Amendment.
This charge betrays a great deal of ignorance. On
Feb. 26 1869, the 15th Amendment passed the Senate with not a single Republican voting against it, and not a single Democrat voting in favor of it. The next day the House vote was 144 to 44 in favor of passage. All 144 in favor were Republicans and all 44 against it were Democrats. It was the Democrats who opposed the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, as well as much of the civil rights legislation which was passed during the civil rights movement of the 1960. For Toad's edification, may I recommend
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel. It is an excellent book on the history of the civil war and offers a perspective thereof which is not often heard.
3). That Conservatives are trying to establish a 'state religion' and that an activist judge is one which violates the religion clause of the First Amendment.
The First Amendment clearly states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." No Conservative has proposed such a law, nor has any Conservative stated that he would be in favor of such a law. However, Conservatives do insist that efforts to respect the first portion of the religion clause not lead to gross violations of the second. There in lies the problem. The Left has interpreted the first portion of the religion clause in such a way that in naturally leads to violations of the second.
This 'uneducated' blogger has read no less than two books on the subject of the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, as well as the essays of the Federalists and the Anti-federalists. The
original intent of religion clause of the First Amendment was to prevent the federal government from interfering with state laws regarding religion and their establishments. The concern of the framers was not that the states would use public authority and money to favor one religion over another, many did exactly that and it was an acceptable practice. The worry of the framers who insisted upon this provision was that the federal government would establish a national church interfering with churches favored in the various states.
The concept of a constitutional 'separation of church and state', established solely by activist judges, has done much to greatly curtail religious freedom in America. Communities are being restricted from using their local tax dollars to erect any type of religious monument or even a Nativity display at Christmas time. Teachers and students alike are forbidden from expressing their faith on public school property. Families or church groups visiting public monuments at our Nation's Capital are fined for engaging in prayer. Just this week, in my own state of Virgina,
five state troopers have resigned following a directive that banned them from using the words Jesus or Christ in public prayers. In recent years there have even been those (mostly on the Left) who argue that the religion clause of the First Amendment makes it unconstitutional for members of a religious institution to engage in political activism.
