Conservative control


Perverting the Constitution to sell religion
I spend a great deal of time going through both conservative and modern liberal political writing. It tends to be annoying, and the tactics are the same even as the targets differ.

For example, I'm working my way through Jackson's Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies: Issue by Issue Responses to the Most Common Claims of the Left from A to Z, not quite as biased as some, but incredibly annoying none the less.

Take this bit from page 97. Emphasis added.

While some on the left may be well intentioned, those who advocate more restrictive gun laws are really talking about measures that would make it more difficult for average law abiding citizens to protect themselves and their property. Since more than 90 million Americans own a gun, those on the left know gun control is a loser if put to a vote of the people through the constitutionally prescribed legislative process.

After all, the right to bear arms is in the Constitution and Americans don't like to mess with one of their founding documents.

The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights stipulates every citizen of the United States is endowed by God with the inalienable right to protect their own liberty and property. Here's what is says.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

If Congress renounces this God-given, inalienable right, what other constitutional freedoms can the state arbitrarily take away from it's citizens? The Bill of Rights was was written to limit governmental authority. If those on the left feel the Second Amendment is evil, they should try to amend the Constitution in the legally prescribed manner. Put it to a vote of the people.

So very close, and yet so very, very far.

If it weren't for the emphasized parts, there isn't a libertarian around who would not agree with those paragraphs.

Notice that the choice of language deliberately confuses the Declaration of Independence with the United States Constitution. That is a little parlor trick I've talked about before. The DOI does not supersede the Constitution, and the Constitution deliberately does not talk about "God-given rights." Except for the First Amendment and the date, the Constitution does not mention religion or any god.

Plainly put, I do not believe that government actions should be or even can be sanctioned by a religion.

It's only freedom of religion when matters of faith are a personal choice.

People have rights because they are people, not because someone said their god gave those rights. Whenever religion and government mix, it always comes down to which "god" gets to call the shots.

More to the point, which priesthood and which followers get to make the rules.

The American experiment is a rejection of that.

I don't know how many different ways I can say it.

The thing that made the United States absolutely unique is that from the very start, the intent was to recognize personal faith while restricting organized faith's role in government. It's "WE THE PEOPLE," no higher authority recognized, required, or even mentioned. For the first time in history, a government derived it's powers from the will of the people and not a Supreme Being. That was a radical and unheard of step. It took decades to extend that to real religious freedom, and we are not there yet.

So even though I agree with much of what the author has to say about gun control (victim disarmament) and the left, his continued reliance on non-existant Divine sanction in the United States Constitution is enough to put him on my Watch List.

It's also a classic example of how good intentions can be perverted.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Sun - November 5, 2006 at 04:58 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved