Stand up for the Separation of Church and State

The ignorance of Christine O'Donnell has sparked what now amounts to a shameful, ridiculous national debate on the Separation of Church and State.

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/10/20/ac.odonnell.constitution.gaffe.cnn

In recent months religious conservatives have begun challenging the concept of Separation of Church and State, and even arguing that the US is a “fundamentally Christian nation,” despite over 200 years of jurisprudence and social discourse to the contrary. Its true- the vast majority of people in the US have been Christians, but it is NOT true that religion does, or is supposed to, play a role in our government.

It is really disingenuous to suggest this is an ongoing debate, and not the product of recent political movements. People trying hard to reverse the separation of church and state like to trick you into
thinking this way, but they'd have a LOT of books to burn to hide the
truth. Making it an issue by choice and denying the truth in no way
makes the mountain of evidence go away. The framers wanted religion to play no part in the government. The Framers in EVERY WAY, shape and form thought that there ought to be a
secular government. What they envisioned and brought to fruition
was a secular government where regardless of an individual's faith,
the government would respect all people's rights without special regard to any
religion.

People who make such arguments are just winding us up and wasting everyone's time. They know perfectly well they're in the wrong. The phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't "appear" in the Constitution because the government wasn't made yet. It's a CONCEPT. In exactly the same way "freedom of the press" doesn't appear in the Constitution- it’s a CONCEPT created by the living document of the Constitution itself. We have these definitions TODAY because we've spent the last 200+ years defining what the First Amendment means. The argument that the "Separation of Church and state doesn't exist" in the Constitution is like saying there is no right to "privacy."

From Wikipedia: ( http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privacy )
-The Constitution does not specifically mention "a right to privacy." However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.-

The Constitution is a living document, which has been created and changed over time, and it’s constantly (and still) evolving. This also means it can be damaged, messed up, or even destroyed if the wrong people are allowed to mess with it. We must be vigilant. Stand up for the freedoms we have. Speak out against those who twist words, reality, and weak minds into thinking there isn’t (or ought not to be) a separation of church and state. Be aware that people who make this kind of argument are counting on people’s ignorance and YOUR silence, to make it easier for them to get their way. Don’t let them screw you, and all of us. Speak out. Be heard. Don’t let a lie go unchallenged.

One may make arguments against the Separation of Church and State (and privacy, for that matter), but unless you're willing to give up your rights to free speech, privacy, bear arms, practice (or not) your own religion, please stop bastardizing and disparaging our Constitution. Read it, learn how it was made, evolved over time, and get on the same page as the rest of us in the 21st Century. This is not a debatable issue amongst the literate. I'm fine with debating morons regarding new issues that have cropped up in recent politics. I’m fine with having to ask them to apply common sense, common morals, or the simple concept of justice of a six year old to current political events and issues- some people need the help. But if I have to go back 200 years to debate stuff decided long ago, accepted, and now taken for granted by EVERYONE, and in fact emulated by foreign countries as a paradigm for the development of their own laws, then you're beyond my help, and I won't waste any more time with you. Go back to middle school. People who need to pretend the US doesn’t have a Separation of Church and State are in serious need of education, morals, punishment, or ostracism.

Get out of my country if you can't support the Constitution that protects you.

Boston Herald soils its already soiled reputaion

In yet another startlingly biased and misguided editorial, columnist Cal Thomas rails about disingenuous statements he alleges are made by the president, all the while peppering his column with his own, demonstrably disingenuous arguments.

If we believe the president when he promises there will be no “death panels,” does he lose honesty points when instead the government sends doctors who “counsel” the elderly about their “end of life options”?- Cal Thomas, Boston Herald 09/15/2009

Lets gloss over the fact that "death panels" were the invention of... let's just say a certain group of people who oppose health-care reform- I'll address it later.

What if the administration plans to bar illegal immigrants from purchasing health care coverage, but, as The New York Times [NYT] reported, continues to require hospitals to provide emergency treatment to illegal immigrants at taxpayer expense? -Cal Thomas, Boston Herald 09/15/2009

Apparently, despite the very humanitarian idea that hospitals must render emergency aid to whomever needs it, Mr. Thomas would rather all emergency patients have proof of citizenship before a nurse will let them through the door. You can read the whole disingenuous op-ed piece "No truth to set us free" here.

Well, I'd read about as much as I could stomach when I had to close the paper, until I realized that not only were other people reading it, but that there was a way to comment back to Mr. Thomas- online.

So I posted the following response in the comments section:

*******
It's shocking to me that in an article about trust and disingenuous statements, Mr. Thomas makes so many disingenuous statements himself. Are "death panels" (which are solely the invention of opponents to health-care reform) the same thing as "providing counseling" to people who need it? They are not. The American Medical Association seems to think such counseling is good for people, so a specific benefit was to be included so people could get the counseling.

Is granting illegal immigrants health-care coverage the same as granting them emergency room care? It is not. Do Herald readers really want *anyone* bleeding to death on the doorstep of a hospital because they can't provide ID? So much for Americans being humanitarians.

Lastly, is Mr. Thomas *really* suggesting that the majority of Herald readers are too stupid to see these faults in his disingenuous arguments?

I'm afraid he is. But don't worry, Mr. Thomas, and Boston Herald; those of us who aren't that stupid will be ashamed not only of you, but *for* you.

*******
I know he may never read it, but I do hope someone will, and realize what a bogus opinion Mr Thomas has foisted upon his unsuspecting, and apparently naive, readership. I urge you all reading this to add comments in whatever local paper Mr. Thomas' op-ed piece appears, has he is, for reasons passing understanding, a syndicated columnist.