|
||
|
||
|
||
| "THE POLITICAL NIHILIST" by Michael Pauchet
I hate contradictions. They clutter logic and impede reason. Still, I can't get around the fact that if stripped of their contradictory natures, humans would look like Aristotle's featherless biped. It's what drove Nietzsche to nihilism. It's why I advocate putting women with PMS in nuclear silos. Contradictions are everywhere. Even in the pages of this rag. Like last week when the alpha (edited) wrote a column about school prayer. Here we are relying on First Amendment protection of the press, calling for restrictions on the First Amendment protection of religious practice. Okay, I know, and you're right. She's just too easy. To pick on, I mean. If you're all that interested in the other, hang around the square some night and ask her yourself. Let's stick to religious practice. Now the first thing here is to delineate between two much abused terms. Hey, you don't have a right by law to free speech, religious practice, or freedom of the press. What you do have is a bunch of civil liberties. Civil rights, by definition, are those rights under the Constitution and statutes to participate in society and the political system on an equal footing with others. Examples include the Fourteenth Amendment, "...nor shall any state ...deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," and the various Civil Rights Acts passed by Congress. Basically, civil rights are protection against discrimination. Civil Liberties, on the other hand, concern activities that the Constitution leaves free from government interference, at least in theory. These include freedom of the press, free speech, freedom to practice your religious beliefs. My civil liberty allows me to to take uncivil liberties in this column with public officials without having to worry about being thrown in jail for doing so. Got it? Good, now stop claiming you've got all these so-called rights. You really don't have half what you think you do. Religion and Government. Now this is what the British call a sticky wicket. The First Amendment actually contains two clauses dealing with religion, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, each of which has a different purpose. The first seems to have been intended by the Founding Fathers to separate church and state, which is what I would like to think the alpha (edited) meant when she wrote Texas is not a Church State. To further confuse the issue there are two schools of thought concerning this clause. The first holds that it was intended to prevent the creation of an official or state-sponsored religion. The other camp maintains that this clause creates a "wall of separation" between church and state because when the two are mixed, both become corrupted. Take your choice. The second clause was designed to prevent government interference with religious liberty. Since the Supreme Court officially interprets the Constitution through its decisions, let's see what they have to say. The most famous (infamous) case concerning school prayer to date is Engel v. Vitale (1962). In it, the Court ruled that mandated non-denominational prayer in public school classrooms violates the First Amendment Clause. The Court subsequently struck down an Alabama law authorizing a one-minute period of silence for prayer or quiet meditation in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985). It might seem from these cases that the Supreme Court is anti-religious, but if you read the written opinions carefully, you'll discover that the Justices are actually interpreting the Establishment Clause as creating that "wall of separation" between church and state. Though it doesn't seem like it, the Court is trying to protect the liberties of all citizens to practice religious freedom without government constraint. Again, it's open to interpretation, but I think this is what the alpha (edited) meant when she wrote of allowing Satanists equal time. A poor choice, I'll grant you, but if stupidity were a capital offense many of our leaders would be on death row. The real issue here is whether a state or group should have the ability to force you to attest to something that's not in your heart. Which leads to the obverse side of that question. Should any state or group have the ability to force you not to do something that's in your heart? Since I can't answer that politically or legally, I'll leave it to the conscience of the individual. The best summation I've discovered to date of the Supreme Court's position on this issue was written by Justice Robert Jackson in his majority opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943). "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word by word or act their faith therein." Was that prayer a staged event designed to to attract media attention as alleged by the alpha (edited)? I've never spoken to the little girl so I'm in no position to answer. For the sake of argument let's say it was a staged event. Then I would argue she was exercising her First Amendment liberty to petition government for redress of a perceived grievance. Should she be suspended for publicly praying at that game as the headline urged? No way. It's my strictly personal opinion that this little gal should be commended for having the moral integrity to act as her conscience dictated, even in the face of likely reprisals. Like I said earlier, it's the contradictions that make you go mental. Take the Pro-Life, Pro-Choice mobs, for instance. Why are the Pro-Life people anti-gun control and pro-death penalty? In my perfect world all these positions would be reversed and then you'd have the following scenario: "She wants an abortion? Let's see, I'm pro-choice, pro-gun, and pro-death penalty. Okay Doc, I've got a gun, I can get 'em both in one shot!" I just love consistency. NOTE: The vignette at the beginning of this article was added by our editor because we felt it was appropriately fitting even though it did not appear with the original article. Our thanks, for permission to reprint this article for our readers at The NATIONMAKERS, go to Michael Pauchet, writer, and Larry D. Barr, Co-Editor at the Erath County Journal, in Stephenville, Texas, where it originally appeared. Michael has a regular column called "THE POLITICAL NIHILIST" that appears regularly in the above publication. If you appreciate Michael's perceptions and insights on social, political, economic and constitutional issues, as much as we do, let him know by Email at <info@rebelwolf.com>, or let us know at <cfpress@nationmakers.com>. We'll try to solicit more of his fine reporting for our forum if he is willing. (RHB) If you would like to contribute an article send it to: cfpress@nationmakers.com .
Make sure to click on the "WHAT'S NEW" button below!
All Written Materials Copyright, 1997,1998,1999 Robert H.
Brevig |
||
