|
The whole controversy swirls around some basic
terms and phrases that have been a part of the history and heritage
of the governing of the United States since the beginning.
There are those who believe the words that make up those terms and
phrases are open to much interpretation. I am not one of them. I believe
that our forefathers chose their words carefully in order to convey
their thoughts in the most direct way their use of language at the
time allowed.
Words have meanings. See your favorite dictionary for them. Placed
together in phrases and sentences, the words convey a thought based
on those meanings. As I write this, I am trying to choose the words
I feel will best describe to you my thoughts. Just as my thoughts
are not ambiguous or open to interpretation in my own mind, I don't
want them to be in yours. I wish to convey that thought that is in
my mind to you through words that have meaning as described in the
dictionary, placed together in phrases and sentences so that you can
fully understand my thoughts without confusion. There is no doubt
in my mind that any other writers, including our forefathers, have
the same purpose as they write, especially in matters of great importance,
which certainly the Constitution and Bill of Rights are.
Notwithstanding that basic observation of writing in order to convey
thoughts, as I've read the writings, both public and private, of our
forefathers, citizens and leaders throughout the history of the United
States, I've found myself questioning exactly what it is they were
trying to convey, especially in the earliest period of our history.
Their style of writing and speaking two centuries ago was more eloquent,
poetic, and still had much of the proper English and Latin carried
over from Europe to the new world. While it was direct to them in
their day, it may read as somewhat antiquated to us. It does not quite
convey meaning directly to us in the way that we would convey it today,
with our present use of language. Nonetheless, they were trying to
convey a thought, and that thought has not changed, even if our everyday
language to convey a thought has.
Therein lies the basis for the argument by many that these words,
phrases and sentences written by our forefathers are open to interpretation.
I disagree. I believe there is only one correct interpretation and
meaning, that of the person who wrote it. Any other interpretation
assigned to a piece of writing is nothing more than a spin placed
on it to convey the reader's thoughts and views, rather than the writer's.
It is for that reason that, when confronted with a piece of writing
by one of our forefathers that seems somewhat less than direct to
me because of the writing style of their day, I use two sources primarily
to discern their thoughts, rather than arbitrarily assign my own to
my own liking. Those two sources are: 1. The dictionary, in which
all words have a common meaning to me as they did the original writers.
2. The other writings of the original author, in order to understand
more fully their thoughts on particular issues, that I might understand
their thoughts behind the writing I am examining.
Of our forefathers, most wrote little or nothing about the events
of the day and their thoughts regarding those events. What little
they may have written is lost, gone and inaccessible to us. We cannot
know their thoughts beyond their votes, when recorded, or if the vote
was unanimous and we can ascertain that they were present at the time
of the vote. They did their civic duty, voted their conscience and
otherwise remained virtually silent in the history of American documentation.
We, as Americans, do not readily call their names to mind as we recall
our heritage. Say "forefathers" and their names do not spring
to mind in most Americans. Say their names and most Americans have
never heard of them.
A few however, wrote incessantly on every matter it seems, and are
well documented and preserved. They are the names we are familiar
with. Names like Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Adams.
Of those writings, one of the most important for this discussion is
the LAW, as defined in the 1st Amendment, which says, in part, "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Those
ten simple words have caused more controversy over the last 50 years
than possibly any other single phrase in American history. Who wrote
it and what does it mean?
Who wrote it? James Madison, known as the father of the Constitution,
wrote it. Specifically, he headed the six man Congressional committee
assigned the task of hammering out the specific wording to be used
in the Bill of Rights that would best guard the right of religious
freedom for the citizens of the United States (among other things).
There are two schools of thought on the interpretation of this famous
phrase. The one held by Dubya, Ashcroft, Rehnquist, Pat Robertson,
Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh is that it means Congress should make
no law which establishes one religious denomination over another.
These names have all, every one, made it clear that they have a personal
agenda to infuse their personal Christian religious beliefs into our
civic government by any means accessible to them, legal or popular.
The opposing view (the one I hold to) is that it means Congress shall
make no law that would impose religion in any form upon the citizens
of the United States. As described earlier, I chose the word "impose"
intentionally to convey my thought. Per the dictionary:
1. To establish or apply as compulsory; levy: impose a tax.
2. To apply or make prevail by or as if by authority: impose a peace
settlement. See Synonyms at dictate.
3. To obtrude or force (oneself, for example) on another or others.
4. Printing. To arrange (type or plates) on an imposing stone. (Ten
Commandments, anyone? ~Buck)
5. To offer or circulate fraudulently; pass off: imposed a fraud on
consumers
As to the actual phrase itself, "Congress shall make no law respecting
the establishment of religion" I will use the two sources defined
earlier in an attempt to make my case that the only correct interpretation
is that of the writer himself (Madison) and those that agreed with
him and his mind on this matter and voted it into LAW, rather than
the readers who would "interpret" it to their own views
(some of whom desire to impose their personal religious beliefs onto
the citizenry by force of law by our government).
First, some common sense and the dictionary, in
which we can all find a common reference to the words themselves.
What do they mean?
Congress: Common sense. We know who this is. This is the body
of men and women we elect to represent us in the Federal Government
that propose new laws in the form of Bills. Our elected representatives.
shall make no law: Common sense again. That's pretty easy to
understand as well. No law means no law - Not any, not one, none.
There's nothing ambiguous about that. So now we have, Our elected
representatives will not make any law (about something). About what?
respecting: With respect to. In respect of. Regarding. Simple.
Regarding something. Regarding what? Now we have, Our elected representatives
will not make any law regarding (something). Not only something in
particular, but even something in respect to (that something). What
is that something?
an establishment of: This is not a reference to a place, like
a bar or a restaurant you might call an establishment. It is not a
reference to a building, not even a church building. It is the condition
or fact of being established. In this case, by law. So now we have,
Our elected representatives will not make any law regarding (something)
that will establish (that something) by law. What is that something?
religion: Notice it does not say church. It does not
say a religion. It does not say a particular religion.
It does not say one religion over others. It is a single word:
Religion. What is religion? Here it is: Belief in and reverence for
a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of
the universe. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the
teachings of a spiritual leader. It is all-inclusive.
So now we have, Our elected representatives will not make any law
regarding belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
regarded as creator and governor of the universe or a set of beliefs,
values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader,
that will establish belief in and reverence for a supernatural power
or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe or a set
of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual
leader by law.
That's the meaning as defined by the words themselves. The meaning
behind those words has not changed between the time Madison wrote
them and now. They were intentionally put together in a certain way
to convey a certain thought. There is evidence of this in that other
proposals to the specific wording were put forth during the committee's
discourse and rejected for not conveying the correct ideal on the
matter of how best to ensure the basic right of FREEDOM to ALL citizens
to think about and practice religion in any way they saw fit, according
to their own consciences and without coercion, especially from the
government, as long as it did not violate other basic human rights
(no human sacrifices, for example).
The other proposed phrases were:
(1.) "Congress shall make no law establishing one Religious Sect
or Society in preference to others, nor shall the rights of conscience
be infringed."
(2.) "Congress shall not make any law, infringing the rights
of conscience or establishing any Religious Sect or Society"
(3.) "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular
denomination of religion in preference to another, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."
Any one of those, had it been adopted by Madison, the rest of the
committee and Congress, would have made the revisionists' case that
this is simply in reference to one particular religion over others.
But they were all rejected as unfit to convey the true intent of real
religious freedom for ALL that they aspired to attain by LAW. They
would have given us mere religious tolerance, not true freedom.
Madison's other writings convey tons of information on his views regarding
religion, government and the relationships between the two. Let us
examine some of his writings for clues as to his thoughts on the matter
and subsequently, his intent in the wording of the 1st Amendment.
Before Madison was in the United States Congress he was in the Virginia
Legislature where he was already making a name for himself by working
hard towards the separation of government from religion. Later in
his life, in a letter to General LaFayette in November of 1826, Madison
recalls the events that led up to and after his writing of "Memorial
and Remonstrance" thus:
quote:
"The Anglican hierarchy existing in Virginia
prior to the Revolution was abolished by an early act of the Independent
Legislature. In the year 1785, a bill was introduced under the auspices
of Mr. Henry, imposing a general tax for the support of "Teachers
of the Christian Religion." It made a progress, threatening
a majority in its favor. As an expedient to defeat it, we proposed
that it should be postponed to another session, and printed in the
meantime for public consideration. Such an appeal in a case so important
and so unforeseen could not be resisted. With a view to arouse the
people, it was thought proper that a memorial should be drawn up,
the task being assigned to me, to be printed and circulated throughout
the State for a general signature. The experiment succeeded. The
memorial was so extensively signed by the various religious sects,
including a considerable portion of the old hierarchy, that the
projected innovation was crushed, and under the influence of the
popular sentiment thus called forth, the well-known Bill prepared
by Mr. Jefferson, for "Establishing Religious freedom,"
passed into a law, as it now stands in our code of statutes."
First, a little perspective. The events he describes
from 1785 precede the U.S. Constitution by 2 years. Religious freedom
was not yet a legal right, as there was no U.S. Bill of Rights yet.
Some states still had laws that allowed punishments like a hot poker
through the tongue for blasphemy, the requirement of being a Christian
in order to be recognized as a full citizen, etc. Madison, along with
Jefferson and others, knew this was something that needed to be addressed.
They also knew that they had to appeal to the very Christians (of
all denominations) they wished to keep from causing such laws through
majority rule, which was about to happen as described in his letter
to LaFayette. One therefore sees in "Memorial and Remonstrance"
an appeal made as though coming from a Christian himself. Other private
writings would later reveal that Madison was actually quite antagonistic
toward the religion of Christianity but, mindful of his audience and
his agenda, the politician did the best he could to convey a thought
and argument necessitating the complete separation of civil government
from religious thought and coercion.
I suggest you read all of "Memorial and Remonstrance" yourself
to get the full idea, but will give you a taste of his thoughts on
the matter at hand. Keep in mind that he wrote, "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and consider
what you think he meant by it, considering what you are about to read.
Also, think about how you believe he would have reacted to the proposal
of a LAW enacted by the government to include allegiance to a mono-theistic
God, as rendered in the Pledge of Allegiance, in opposition to multiple
gods or no god. Consider whether Madison would have thought it proper
for the government to endorse a particular religious view as the Pledge
does. (You might also consider how he would react to governmental
"faith-based" programs and school voucher schemes to get
public tax monies into the coffers of religious entities, but that's
another topic - albeit related.)
Selections from "Memorial and Remonstrance"
by James Madison:
quote:
"We the subscribers, citizens of the said
Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed
by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A
Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,"
and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions
of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful
members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare
the reasons by which we are determined."
Notice in particular the words, "a dangerous
abuse of power". Madison spends the rest of the document outlining
exactly WHY this is dangerous and why it is an abuse of power. He
will tell us in a powerful series of statements something that goes
to the very heart of his ideals in the separation of government law
and action from religious thought and exercise.
"1. Because we hold it for a fundamental
and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe
to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed
only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The
Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience
of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as
these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right.
It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on
the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates
of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right
towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every
man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes
to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of
time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society."
Madison clearly recognizes that, though the law would
not force anyone to believe or worship in any particular way, it STILL
violates the rights of free conscience by establishing a religious
tie with the government. He recognizes that the civil authority
has no business encroaching in any way upon the right for each citizen
to have any religious beliefs they deem appropriate; That the matter
is entirely personal.
"We maintain therefore that in matters of
Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil
Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance."
Madison says here that religion is not recognized
by acknowledgment, recognition, or jurisdiction (the legal definition
of cognizance) by the Civil Society (government). Keep in mind what
"religion" is.
quote:
"True it is, that no other rule exists,
by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately
determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that
the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority."
Madison now tells us that if majority rules in favor
of a law that establishes a connection between the government and
religion, the rights of the minority for religious freedom will be
trespassed. They will lose their "unalienable right" to
their true freedom of conscience and religion.
"The preservation of a free Government requires
not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department
of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither
of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends
the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment,
exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and
are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made
neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and
are slaves."
For some odd reason, every time I read this passage
a picture of Dubya pops into my head...
"3. Because it is proper to take alarm at
the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy
to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics
of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till
usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled
the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the
principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.
We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it."
This is one of my personal favorites. The dissenting
opinion in the 9th Circuit Court says, "...the danger that 'under
God' in our Pledge of Allegiance will tend to bring about a theocracy
or suppress somebody's beliefs is so minuscule as to be de minimis."
That is tantamount to saying, "it's only a LITTLE violation of
the Constitution and Bill of Rights, no BIG deal, so it's ok."
But Madison tells us, "it is PROPER to take ALARM at the first
experiment on our liberties." Not only that, but it is
"the first duty of citizens" to do so. Mr. Newdow
is a true American for taking a stand in defense of our "unalienable
rights" to free conscience and freedom of religion, even IF that
stand is unpopular to the majority, in order to defend the freedom
of ALL, including the minority.
"Who does not see that the same authority
which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions,
may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians,
in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can
force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for
the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to
any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"
Now we're getting to the heart of our particular
discussion. Is Madison only worried about one particular sect or denomination,
or is he worried about any intrusion of religion into government at
all, knowing full well what it could, and probably will, eventually
lead to? Would Madison support the idea of the government endorsing
one god over many gods or no god at all, in opposition of the free
right of conscience for ALL citizens as an "unalienable right"?
Isn't it obvious that the answer to these questions is a resounding
"NO WAY"?
Here also, Madison pulls out one of his trump cards; He relies on
and appeals to the fact that Christians of all but perhaps the sect
with the most members at the time will reject the passing of this
legislation in fear that the majority sect will eventually rule by
LAW, rendering their own religious faith, rituals and right of conscience
unlawful. Smooooooth...
Continue to keep in mind that the points Madison is addressing are
NOT part of the Bill he is remonstrating directly against, but what
he sees down the road through the door it would open. A door he absolutely
does not want opened. Ever.
"4. Because the Bill violates the equality
which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensable,
in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable
to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and
independent," all men are to be considered as entering into
Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore
retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above
all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title
to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience."
Equality ought to be the basis of every law. Is that
beautiful or what? Further, he recognizes that this must include,
"EQUAL title to the free exercise of Religion according to the
dictates of Conscience."
Equal=
1. Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another.
2. Mathematics. Being the same or identical to in value.
3.
a. Having the same privileges, status, or rights: equal before the
law.
b. Being the same for all members of a group: gave every player an
equal chance to win.
4.
a. Having the requisite qualities, such as strength or ability, for
a task or situation: "Elizabeth found herself quite equal to
the scene" (Jane Austen).
b. Adequate in extent, amount, or degree.
5. Impartial; just; equitable.
6. Tranquil; equable.
7. Showing or having no variance in proportion, structure, or appearance.
Nothing ambiguous about that, is there? How can the government take
ANY position on religion, other than NONE, and still remain EQUAL?
I consider it impossible and, from Madison's writings, I believe he
felt the same way. If the government recognizes "God" it
then fails to equally recognize "GodS" (plural) and "no
god(s)", both of which are also the rights of free conscience
and freedom of religion. It thus oversteps it's authority onto the
"unalienable rights" of it's citizens. Does he really mean
to include the godless in this scheme of equal protection under the
LAW and the "unalienable right" to free conscience and religion?
Let's find out:
"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom
to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe
to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those
whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced
us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not
against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it
be rendered."
Yes, he means equality for ALL citizens to the RIGHT
of free conscience in matters of religion, free FROM government opinions
in the matter. Further, he pulls out another trump card, declaring
it to be an offence against God. Now, which Christian will vote for
something that is "against God"?
"5.
Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent
Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine
of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by
the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout
the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation."
Judge
Moore and his courtroom 10 Commandments, anyone?
"It
is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious
confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author;
and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its
friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own
merits."
Benjamin
Franklin actually stated this idea more succinctly (IMHO) in his words,
"When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself;
and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to
support, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of
the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
"7.
Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments,
instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have
had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the
legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been
its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the
Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition,
bigotry and persecution."
Sounds
"dangerous" to me too, Mr. Madison. No wonder you don't
want it to be a part of your government.
"8.
Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support
of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support
of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion,
and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary
for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil
Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil
Government?"
Is
it necessary to have religion as part of government? Does it help
govern in any way? Madison clearly says no. He goes on then to describe
what it DOES do when a part of government:
"What
influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil
Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual
tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they
have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no
instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the
people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have
found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government
instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not."
What
did he say? "In NO INSTANCES have they been seen the guardians
of the liberties of the people." He speaks of tyranny, the ruin
of civil authority and subversion of the public liberty in governments
that have allowed religion to play a role. Does anyone think he wants
this?
"9.
Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous
policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed
of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country,
and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy
mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth
an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution."
Notice
the word "establishment" here? He will use it a short time
later in writing the 1st Amendment. He calls this proposed establishment
or a religious endorsement by an act of LAW a "signal of persecution",
even thought the bill itself does not state to persecute or exclude
other religions or anything like it. Madison sees the door it opens,
and hastens to shut it tight against the oppressive forces it can
unleash. Moreover, he has stated that it has been unleashing these
tyrannical persecutions for 15 centuries, yielding in no cases guardians
of the liberties of the people.
"It
degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions
in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority."
He
recognizes that though it doesn't denounce others' religious views
outright, by espousing a particular religious view the legislative
authority has degraded the equal rank of the rest of it's citizens,
something atheists have been saying about every incursion thus far.
As an atheist, I feel it. I live it. Such small violations to MY "unalienable
rights" of free conscience to believe however I want about religious
matters have degraded my equal rank as a citizen of our great country.
If you don't believe me, ask any Christian. How about George Bush
Sr.? What did he have to say about it? Let me tell you. In 1988, while
vice-president, Bush said, "No, I don't know that atheists should
be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots.
This is one nation under God." Madison saw it coming over 200
years ago and wrote the 1st Amendment to try to protect me. Is it
working?
"Distant
as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs
from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the
last in the career of intolerance. The magnanimous sufferer under
this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon
on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty
and philanthropy in their due extent, may offer a more certain repose
from his Troubles."
As
Christians shake their fists and scream at me to move to another country
if I want to be an atheist, I know that Madison was right. As they
proclaim this is a Christian country founded by and for Christians,
I see the terror in Madison's eyes 200 years ago. As the revisionists
re-write American history and "interpret" the 1st Amendment
to their own ends, in order to allow religion into my government (in
small doses - no big deal), I reflect on Madison's ability to see
200 years and beyond, into the future, and his passion at trying to
keep it from happening.
"11.
Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance
of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its
several sects. Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world,
by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord,
by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at
length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and
rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage
the disease."
He
bears witness to the fact that in Europe governments tried to solve
religious differences by deciding which one was right. The result
was, as he put it, "torrents of blood." The true remedy,
according to Madison, is for the government to have no opinion in
the matter; To support nor deny any. It is enough to hold them all
equally to the laws which are necessary for the good of the whole
citizenry. The policy that there is one God is a narrow religious
policy. It chooses one religion over others, contrary to Madison's
views of true religious freedom and rights of conscience for all citizens.
"At
least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened
innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed "that
Christian forbearance, love and charity," which of late mutually
prevailed, into animosities and jealousies, which may not soon be
appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to
the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?"
Soon
he would write the words in the 1st Amendment, "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion". He meant
what he wrote. No law means NO LAW. Religion means religion. What
"mishiefs" may not be dreaded if we get LAWS that endorse
religious views? Who is the "enemy to the public quiet"
in his statement above? What does he NOT want to happen?
These are the thoughts of the author of the 1st Amendment. These are
from one document of hundreds that he wrote which have been preserved
wherein he has stated his views in no uncertain terms. He was not
alone. His voice and pen were that of the great majority of that period
in history. The others knew full well his views and employed his skills
of word and pen to express their collective idea of how to make this
Nation one of true freedom, not just of mere tolerance that must eventually
lead to discord.
Now then, how shall we "interpret" the 1st Amendment?
How about the way it was intended by the author and those that signed
it into LAW in order to preserve true freedom, not mere tolerance?
You don't have to be a mind reader to figure out his intent with it.
He spelled it out for us all. All we have to do is READ IT. |
