Wednesday, March 9, 2011

It’s “Freedom OF Religion”, not “Freedom FROM Religion”



The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear challenge to “In God We Trust” appearing on money.

I just have two words in response.

Thank God.

No, I lied. I have more than two. Back to quoting my favorite part of the Bill of Rights (emphasis mine):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since this case is unrelated to Congress making any laws respecting an establishment of religion, it’s frivolous to begin with. It’s interesting how the first part of that statement has been stretched by the Courts repeatedly, to impose restrictions upon religious freedom, but the second part gets ignored.

When a court rules that a state office can not display religious artifacts, they are saying that such is an example of “Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion” even though Congress wasn’t involved and there were now laws created, nor were any religions established.

However, the by doing so, the court clearly prohibited the free exercise of religion. I guess that’s ok, since they aren’t Congress.

Am I the only one that sees the problem here?

No comments:

New And Noteworthy

Some Protesters are More Equal then Others

Instapundit » Blog Archive » WHAT THEY SAID WHEN IT WAS A SMALL NUMBER OF RIGHT-LEANING PROTESTERS: Birx says protesters not pra…

All The Best