FEATURE ARTICLES. WHAT DOES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY SAY ABOUT RELIGION? PT 3.

In continuation of this article, I would like to address another Church\State issue that is often used as political rhetoric to smear opponents. 

The PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- An expression of loyalty to the Republic and the Flag used to start many public and private meetings in the U.S.  It is most often referred to in the tradition of being recited by school children to start each day.

The Pledge was written in 1892 by FRANCIS BELLAMY, a Baptist Minister.  The following is the original text published by Bellamy;

" I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the republic for which it stands,

one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

As you can see, contrary to those who don't bother to check basic U.S. History, there is no reference to religion or faith within the wording.  It is an oath that binds the individual to the responsibility of being a citizen.  This includes recognizing the Flag as the symbol that represents the physical embodiment of the meaning contained within the Pledge.

Yes, I know the current version includes the words "...under God...". However, this version was adopted in 1954 and was the last of four changes that were made in the text since its' inception.

This change insults all Americans, for it implies that one is not truly loyal to the United States, until they repeat an oath that is purely religious in nature.  This flies in the face of the intent contained within the wording of the Constitution.  It is simply a way to circumvent religious freedom that is guaranteed to all citizens.

Date- 12/17/2013.

Fiction- Stories, Myths and Legends. A TALE OF WORSHIP. ( First published on examiner.com, and partially rewritten.)

A long time ago, there lived a King who loved his country.  

The people were, for the most part, very happy. 

However, there was one big problem.  Although the country was united, religion was still a problem.  The King came to realize that to truly unite the citizenry, a single religion must be adopted.  So the King turned to his wisest Adviser and asked what he should do.  The Adviser replied, "Bring in all the most educated, that they will present the best case."

So the King sent for the wisest scholars who would present the best reasons to define God in a way that would unite everyone.  In the end, only three were left, those whose words that the King found the most valid.  The King said " Let us decide now," and turned to the three and said, "Give me a reason to select you, and no other."

In the first case a wizened old man bowed deeply, and said, "It is obvious, the Sun is God.  This orb is the reason we have the most fertility, for when it shines the most, it is when we can plant and harvest the most food.  When the sun shines least, our crops do not grow."

"Ah," the King nodded , "sounds very good, who will dare to disagree."  In that instance the second scholar approached the throne.  "Your highness," he began,  "the Sun is indeed powerful, but it is the Clouds that are truly divine.  Not only can they block sunlight, but they provide us with life giving water to drink.  Our crops need water or they will die."

The King sat and considered this new testimony.  " Very compelling," he said to the second scholar, "perhaps you are correct."

At that moment, the third and final scholar spoke.  "Your highness, they are both wrong.  The earth beneath our feet is truly where we find God.  The soil nurtures the seed that grow our crops and provides us with plants that heal the sick.  Trees from which we build the shelters that protect us from the weather, are provided by the ground in which we walk upon."

The King frowned.  What should he do?  In frustration, he dismissed all but his trusted adviser.  To him he turned and said, "Give me council, what am I to do?"

The adviser thought for a moment and then replied; '' In each case, your majesty, we find a belief that we are are controlled by outside sources.  These sources must be worshiped, or we will be punished.  However, in no case is this true.  We plant crops according to the time of year that in the past has given us the best results.  We do not worry about droughts because we have created reservoirs in case of need.  Our soil is worthless unless we fertilize properly and rotate our crops."

The King was in despair.  "What are the people to believe, how should I rule?"  The adviser looked the King straight in the eye, and with a dignity that is born of confidence replied; "Perhaps they should believe in themselves.  For our ability to use and understand the natural resources around us, to the benefit of all, is where we truly find the hand of the Divine."

BLAST FROM THE PAST: THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND EVALUATE THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. PART 4.

In the End, the IMPLICATIONS OF NOT ALLOWING A SENATE HEARING FOR A PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE GOES EVEN DEEPER THAN MANY THINK, BUT ITHINK THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS AWARE OF THIS, AND IS WILLING TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES. 

-  THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, (EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, JUDICIAL), HAS BEEN USURPED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, IN THE FUTURE IT MAY BE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH REFUSING TO NOMINATE ANYONE AT ALL, UNLESS CERTAIN CONCESSIONS ARE MET.

-  GIVEN THE COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, YOU ARE LEFT WITH A SYSTEM THAT ENCOURAGES THE DEMOCRATIC PARTYTO BEHAVE IN THE SAME MANNER, IF THE POSITIONS ARE REVERSED.DO YOU REALLY EXPECT ONE PARTY TO BE FAIR AND OPEN IN THE SELECTION PROCESS, IF THE OTHER IS JUST GOING TO DISCARD IT ANYWAY?  

-  IN ANY CASE, THE FUTURE OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM WILL BE PUSHED TOWARDS TOTAL CHAOS, WITH RANSOMING THE LEGAL SYSTEM A GIFT LEFT TO FUTURE GENERATIONS. NO LONGER WILL THERE BE A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES, WITH NEITHER THE WHITE HOUSE OR THE SENATE CONTROLLING THE FATE OF OUR SYSTEMS OF LAW.

-  EVEN IF THE REFUSAL TO HOLD A HEARING IS SOMEHOW ALLOWED TO STAND, BUT A DEMOCRAT WINS THE PRESIDENCY, WE ARE STILL LEFT WITH THE SAME PROBLEM.  THEY WILL HAVE DONE IT ONCE, WITHOUT SANCTION, WHAT IS TO STOP THE REPUBLICANS FROM DOING IT AGAIN?

AND AGAIN...AND AGAIN...AND AGAIN.

SO THE BIG QUESTION IS: WHY?

Date-  4/27/2016.

BEWARE OF THOSE WHO ATTACK POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, USING IT AS A WEAPON FOR MANIPULATION.

As the Insults, Derogatory Comments, and Pettiness begin to Increase in Fervor, and We are Assaulted by Rhetoric and Bombastic Speeches that are Good For Media Sound Bites, but little else, one thing is sure: ELECTION DAY IS FAST APPROACHING, AND THE DESPERATION OF MANY FACTIONS BECOMES MORE APPARENT.

However, We begin to see find that THERE IS A NEW TACTIC, THAT SUPERFICIALLY, SEEMS TO BE REASONABLE.  YET, IN SOME CASES IS JUST AN EXCUSE TO SLING VICIOUS AND CRUEL CRITICISMS THAT ARE NOT GROUNDED IN REALITY, AND JUSTIFYING SUCH STATEMENTS BY SAYING THAT ANY CRITICISMS ABOUT SUCH SPEECH...

          

 ... IS JUST ANOTHER CASE OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

     GONE WILD.

Why such an ACCUSATION WOULD AUTOMATICALLY LET THE SPEAKER OFF THE HOOK IS MYSTIFYING, ESPECIALLY IF THE CRITICISM IS TRUE, AND DOES NOT PORTRAY SUCH SPEECH IN A FALSE LIGHT.

To Be Fair, there are CASES OF INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS WHO DO EXHIBIT AN EXAGGERATED SENSITIVITY TO SOME INNOCUOUS COMMENTS AND STATEMENTS, BUT EACH CASE MUST BE EVALUATED ON ITS OWN MERITS.  JUST LABELING SOMETHING AS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS TO AN IRRATIONAL EXTREME, IS NOT, AND SHOULD NOT BE A FREE PASS LETTING THE SPEAKER OFF THE HOOK.

Examples can Include;

Any Commentary that Automatically Groups Entire Classes of Individuals in a NEGATIVE LIGHT, BY ASSERTING THAT EACH MEMBER EXHIBITS THE SAME TYPE OF UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIOR.

JUDGMENTS OR CONCLUSIONS THAT ASSUMES FACTS THAT ARE NOT IN 

EVIDENCE.

INFLAMMATORY WORDS OR PHRASES BEING USED TO APPEAL TO THE BASER ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN PSYCHE.

There are others, but this is a good starting point.