Dysfunctional Republican Christians Vow To Destroy the First Amendment | Politicususa

11

Simplicity is the state of being simple and usually relates to the burden which a thing puts on someone trying to explain or understand it; such as something easy to understand or explain is simple, as opposed to something complicated that is likely as difficult to explain as it is to understand. The Founding Fathers understood that the population of the country they founded was likely uneducated and ignorant leading them to make the First Amendment so easy to understand that a simpleton could grasp its meanings. Unfortunately, two-hundred and twenty-two years after the First Amendment was ratified, there is a large segment of the population that cannot fathom, much less acknowledge, the simple meaning of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that says government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof” which does not mean enforcing religion by statute, state amendment, or law.

Devising and passing laws that have as their only basis the Christian bible is not a new phenomenon, and for decades laws such as those banning sodomy were staples of every state in the Union’s legislatures despite they were laws “respecting an establishment of religion;” the Christian religion. The U.S. Supreme Court finally overturned sodomy laws on the basis of the right to privacy, but the cowards on the High Court never had the fortitude to strike down the “law respecting an establishment of religion” on First Amendment grounds. Likely because there is an unspoken unconstitutional law that bans citing the First Amendment’s prohibition against religious edicts as federal or state laws that no court is willing to violate. Unfortunately, there have been other laws like those banning abortions, contraception, and same-sex marriage that were eventually ruled unconstitutional on grounds they violate citizens’ 14th Amendment rights, but never on grounds they violated the First Amendment’s freedom from religious edicts disguised as state laws.

Late last week after a federal district court overturned Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage, and the 10th Circuit Appeals Court found, like the federal district court, that Utah’s biblical ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, Republicans announced they would spend about $2 million of taxpayer money to hire outside counsel to defend the amendment “respecting an establishment of religion.” State Senator John Valentine (R- Mormon) said “We should be paying for the best and the brightest. This is a case that is not only a historic precedent, but it’s one that really goes to the core of what states’ rights is all about.” No, this is a case that goes to the core of what Mormons passing a “law respecting an establishment of religion” is all about despite the First Amendment which is exquisitely clear; it is a violation of Constitution that is, by the way, the law of the land.

Written By: RMuse
continue to source article at politicususa.com

11 COMMENTS

  1. This is a very helpful article for people like me, who are not of the United States and have long found the First Amendment to the United States Constitution confusing on account of the ways in which the amendment has been applied and not applied. My thanks to RMuse.

    • In reply to #2 by Cairsley:

      This is a very helpful article for people like me, who are not of the United States and have long found the First Amendment to the United States Constitution confusing on account of the ways in which the amendment has been applied and not applied. My thanks to RMuse.

      Its pretty simple. The standing president fills the Supreme Court with as many conservatives as possible and the liberal president tries to remove them and correct the damage.
      Any more questions?

      • In reply to #10 by alf1200:

        Its pretty simple. The standing president fills the Supreme Court with as many conservatives as possible and the liberal president tries to remove them and correct the damage.

        It is also pretty sad.

  2. @OP- Republicans announced they would spend about $2 million of taxpayer money to hire outside counsel to defend the amendment “respecting an establishment of religion.” State Senator John Valentine (R- Mormon) said “We should be paying for the best and the brightest.

    Now there’s an oxymoronic challenge!

    How to find one of “the best and the brightest” who comes with the standard “faith-head blinkers”, being paid (an unconstitutional $2 million of taxpayer money) for spouting apologist special pleading fallacies in court!

  3. There were a few errors in this article.

    The Founding Fathers understood that the population of the country they founded was likely uneducated and ignorant leading them to make the First Amendment so easy to understand that a simpleton could grasp its meanings.

    The founding fathers wrote the constitution the way they did because they knew it was going to be the ultimate authority for US law. You want a document like that to be simple, precise, and unambiguous. That is the reason for the language, they weren’t trying to dumb it down and most legal scholars think the Bill of Rights is well written and it has been a source of inspiration for many emerging nations and movements since.

    Also, while it’s true that most of the early Americans were illiterate a lot of them couldn’t vote either. In the earliest days you had to own property to vote in most states. A core idea of people like Jefferson, Adams, and Madison was that it was essential for a vibrant US democracy to have an educated and informed public.

    for decades laws such as those banning sodomy were staples of every state in the Union’s legislatures

    The legislature are the people who make the laws not the actual laws.

    despite they were laws “respecting an establishment of religion;” the Christian religion.

    For the most part those laws said nothing about religion and when they have been overthrown it hasn’t been on religious grounds but on grounds such as the right to privacy. We may want to deny it and rewrite history but homophobia was a cultural norm until fairly recently and all sorts of non-religious types were homophobic. It’s true NOW that virtually all the justifications for homophobia are religious but up until the last few decades you didn’t even NEED any justifications for homophobia, it was just taken for granted in polite society that homosexuality was a perversion.

  4. The final sentence sums up the situation perfectly.

    I keep telling myself that I should really stop visiting this site so often; I’m beginning to think I’m getting obsessive.

    But, although I’m not an American, when I read something like this my blood boils, and I feel compelled to comment.

    These people are shameless; completely deluded! Are they suffering delusions of grandeur I wonder?

    This just keeps on happening; perhaps they think they’re doing God’s work?!

Leave a Reply