Thursday, June 23, 2005

Separation of Court & Constitution-2

I’ve quoted this report at length so that we can see the worst which Barry Lynn’s outfit has to fling at the Air Force Academy. For the sake of argument, let us stipulate to the truth of all the complaints. By way of comment:

1.For starters, what does the Establishment Clause actually say? “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”

It goes on to say, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Now, as you read through the litany of complaints, begin by asking yourself one simple question: How many of these “violations” of the Establishment Clause represent an Act of Congress to establish a national church? Short answer: not a single one.

2.In addition, where does the Establishment Clause forbid a member of the armed forces for religious sponsorship, preference, endorsement, intolerance, disrespect, insensitivity, favoritism, prayer, proselytizing, or witnessing?

Nowhere.

3.Where does the US Constitution grant to the courts the power of judicial review?

Nowhere.

4.Notice the circular reasoning. It’s organizations like the AU and ACLU which bring these sorts of lawsuits in the first place, and then appeal to the judicial fiats which they engineered as proof of their contention.

5.Why do we have military chaplains in the first place? Because it’s a tradition which goes back to the founding fathers.

Preaching the Gospel is what chaplains are supposed to do. That’s their job. That’s what they’ve always done. When did it “become” unconstitutional? If it wasn’t unconstitutional at the time the Constitution was ratified, how can it be unconstitutional now?

6.Notice the objection to an Air Force General offering an “official endorsement” of the national week of prayer.

Well, what makes it a national week of prayer? That’s the law, isn’t it? What’s wrong with an officer endorsing the law?

7.Words like “coercion,” “pressure,” and “harassment” are emotive value judgments added by the AU.

8.I don’t condone the use of religious epithets. But, of course, choice epithets are a regular feature of military life, and I dare say that irreligious epithets (profanity) are a good deal more common than religious epithets.

9.I also don’t condone obnoxious behavior or hard-sell tactics in evangelism. That, however, is not a Constitutional issue.

10.Are the cadets such hothouse plants that they wither under the heat of religious peer pressure? If so, how will they ever survive on the battlefield?

11.Why is it that Christians enlist at such a disproportionate rate? Instead of trashing the Christians, shouldn’t the liberal be commending Christians for their patriotism and bravery?

And doesn’t the religious gap speak ill of unbelievers who do not enlist at anything like the same rate in defense of their country? They enjoy the American lifestyle and the Bill of Rights, but they are not prepared to fight for it and die for it.

Cringing pacifists like Barry Lynn have the arrogance to dictate to our courageous warriors how they are allowed to die so that Barry Lynn may live.

12.Could there not be a logical correlation between those believe in the afterlife and those who believe in risking their lives for their fellow man?

The real problem is not that godly Christians have broken down a mythical wall of separation between church and state, but that godless liberals have erected a mythical wall of separation between the courts and the Constitution.

1 comment: