It started recently with Antonin Scalia and his stooges. Scalia decided that the "Second Amendment" to the Constitution, that says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," had nothing to do with militias. Yeah, it says it's about militias, but Scalia et al decided that whoever wrote that didn't really mean it, or didn't know what they were talking about. He didn't say they were all intoxicated with something, but he might have thought so. For Scalia, neither the "Amendment" nor the relevant Federalist Paper had anything to do with what they very clearly stated.
And now, there's this: “Christianity Will Be the Law”: High-Profile Advocate for Ending the Separation of Church and State Is Well Acquainted With Speaker Mike Johnson (msn.com).
Where the "First Amendment" "clearly states that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,'" some suggest that the "Amendment" might clearly state that, but it doesn't remotely mean it. The way Mike Johnson and David Barton "read" this "Amendment," what it really means, although it says the opposite, is that the Union will(/did) without question make a law (not quoted, but supposedly, according to people like Johnson and Barton, overwhelmingly tacit) imposing religion on Americans. And that religion is Christianity, and the choice Americans are, according to Johnson and Barton, allowed to make is which branch of Christianity. (If you've never listened to Emo Philips' religion joke, I very highly recommend it, so you know which choices Johnson and Barton have decided you have. Apparently, according to Philips, they're a lot more restricted than you think they are.) Barton says "We would best understand the actual context of the 'First Amendment' by saying 'Congress shall make no law establishing one Christian denomination as the national denomination.'" How does Barton know this? Is he over 250 years old, and was he one of the "Founding Fathers?"
So, here's the question: the US Constitution and its amendments are straightforward. They're not subtle. How have Johnson and Barton, and Scalia, read them so dramatically differently than they were written? Or, did they bother to read them at all? Johnson, for example, is said to believe that despite extensive science and geology, he believes the earth is 6000 years old. Frankly, I don't mind if Johnson believes that. He can believe that there's such a thing as "god," or Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy, or that the Holocaust didn't really happen, or anything he wants. The question is what beliefs like these have to do with anyone else.
Barton says that the "'Founding Fathers' were orthodox, evangelical Christians." I don't know what leads him to think so, but I gather he's not including the atheists among them. Yeah, oops.
If Johnson and Barton endeavor to get their wishes, what do they propose to impose about women's rights, including the right to vote? And get educated? As far as I know, Amy Barrett agrees with Johnson and Barton. But she got extensively educated, agreed to be a judge, and is now a Supreme Court Justice. Why isn't she serially barefoot and pregnant, with a couple dozen children, giving all that intellectual stuff up, and tearing up her voter registration? It would complicate this discussion if we had to consider that some people who adopt a position are hypocrites or dishonest, and say things they don't believe. Or if they were just unbearably self-centered, and wanted the United States to be a Christian country, because they themselves personally happen to believe in Christianity.
I have said this many times, and I'll say it again: religious people do not understand religion. They do not understand that religions are called beliefs and faiths, because there's no evidence for any of them, and you just have to believe in them and have faith in them, if you want to. You can think there's no such thing as "god." Or you can think there's such a thing as "god," but that Jesus is not the Messiah. Or you can think there is such a thing as "god," and Jesus is the Messiah, but it didn't work out the way you thought you were promised, so now, you're waiting for the "Second Coming." And you've decided you don't agree with the Rastafarians, and Haile Selassie is not the "Second Coming." Or you can think Jesus is the Messiah, +/- "Second Coming," but Mohammed is not the Prophet of Allah. Or you can think Mohammed is the Prophet of Allah. Or you can believe in all the Hindu "gods." It's fine. "Knock yourself out." But understand that this is pleasing and satisfying to you, but it has nothing to do with anyone else. (Frankly, I think people who believe in the religions are skating on very thin ice, and they sort of know it, and their apprehension, or misery, loves as much company as they can try to corral.)
No comments:
Post a Comment