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.

Can you follow the logic?

Another thing that really sticks in my craw is when someone with a voice- whether its a politician, a pundit, or a proll- posts, publishes or speaks something with gaping holes in logic. Conservatives are notorious for this, of course, and the less said of Rush Limbuagh, the better.

One reason this bugs me so much is that slipping mis- or disinformation into a discussion/news story/commentary is an insidious act. It not only shows a lack of respect for your audience, but demonstrates bad intentions. The disinformers are counting on listeners to be too stupid to notice the errors of logic. They NEED us to be stupid. Consider that, even now, nearly a decade later, there are STILL people who believe that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attack, and that was why we invaded Iraq. The continuous inplication (and outright lying) brainwashed millions of Americans, and some of the weak-minded still haven't figured it out.

But just today, one pundit posted a rather bizarre commentary on CNN. com that made me shout at my screen. Jack Cafferty is an outspoken and occasionally controversial commentator (I only know him from CNN, and loved all the coverage he gave to Sarah Palin).

I thought this might be a good time for a little game of "Spot the flaw in logic." If you can, then you might be ready to debunk some of the more conservative pundits, or "nutjobs," who use their positions of celebrity to influence the weak-minded.

Let's play!

In his blog posted on CNN today, Cafferty suggests that the war on drugs is not only failing, but actual insanity. He thinks "its time" we consider legalizing drugs. Now that's a valid opinion, and not without merit. Surely we can have a discussion about that. Lastly, lets not overlook the devils advocate option- that Cafferty is being deliberately provocative in his role as commentator and CNN contributor. Heck, if people don't go to CNN or watch the channel, he's out of a job, right?

We're not going to discuss the war on drugs here, we're looking at LOGIC or common sense.

Cafferty takes us through the following train of thought. You can read the whole text of course, and h makes a good case, but I'm providing bullet points here:

1. "The United States is the largest illegal drug market in the world. And they're willing to pay big money to get it."
2. "The drug suppliers are only too happy to oblige."
3. They're everywhere: Anchorage, Alaska; Boston, Massachusetts; Atlanta, Georgia; and Billings, Montana. The Mexican drug cartels now have operations in 230 American cities.
4. "They have been able to infiltrate those 230 cities because we have not bothered to secure our borders. "

Do you see the sudden left turn at the end there? You see how its not related to the above 3 statements? Even if there were NO MEXICO, there would still be people who want to buy drugs in Anchorage, Alaska and Boston, Massachusetts, and people willing to sell it to them.

The border doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the drug war; its just means the players are different.

Did drugs enter those 230 cities ONLY since the Mexican Cartels started peddling them there? Or has there been drugs there before. Have we not had books, movies, news and (god save us) commentary on "drugs in the big city" since... well since we've had cities? Does anyone remember Scarface? The French Connection? Does anyone think that if, by some miracle, the Mexican Cartels decided to close up shop, there wouldn't be some other player to step in the very next day?

Cafferty writes: "Someone described insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time." [Editors Note- it was Albert Einstein] One such example of insanity is blaming all our troubles on others, or, specifically, blaming all our troubles on "the border."

Close all the borders you want, Mr Cafferty. The people will still buy, the dealers will still deal, and someone will still find a way to get the stuff into the country. Mr Cafferty's argument has a lot of merit, but when I run into a stumbling block like that, my brain screeches to a halt as I try to reconcile an otherwise cogent argument with the infusions of insanity some pundits include.

Dear Pundits:
Every time you make a ludicrous argument, every time you try to pervert the truth, I'll be there to poke a hole in your little fantasy. I refuse to be stupid. I refuse to allow the people around me be stupid, and I plan on calling you out each and every time you try to slip something like this past us.

And stop peddling false solutions and preying on the fears of the weak-minded.