Integration only permissible when ordered by law...

While going over the President's State of the Union Address this morning, I came across a side story that at first glance I thought would be utterly ridiculous, and after reading it, just had to say something about it. A woman in Akron, Ohio was convicted and sentenced to jail time for breaking school district boundaries and sending her kids to the more affluent, and higher quality school nearby.

Okay, so I'm not fully informed of all of the details, but here's a few things that I know. First, in a vast majority of public schools; unless you're lucky enough to be born to middle or middle upper-class parents that live in a successful suburban school district, you're probably not going to get the greatest K-12 education out there. This woman lives in Akron, Ohio - For those of you unfamiliar with medium sized cities in the Midwest like Akron, here's a few little tidbits for you: the amount of residents living under the poverty line in Akron is over 25%, since 2000 the city has lost nearly a quarter million residents, average incomes have remained stagnant over the last decade, and much like cities its size and in its condition in the Midwest, crime has gone up. Okay, so now we have a little background on the conditions this woman and her children are dealing with. In dealing with the poor conditions in her own neighborhood, and after her house was broken into, she began (with her children) living part time with her father who lived in the next school district over. In doing so, she began to send her children to the better school district in which her father lived. The school district officials were alerted of what was going on (how they found out, or why they were suspicious of her in the first place is not mentioned in the news article) They hired a private investigator to follow her, and record videos of her leaving her house in her neighborhood and bringing her children to the school. The school kicked her children out and demanded $30,000 in tuition, when she refused, they pressed criminal charges, and the woman was convicted, will be serving jail time and three years probation, as well as serving community service.

This makes me sick. First of all, I thought that as Americans we are encouraged to take initiative to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, and make something of ourselves. This woman was doing just that. She was finding ways to ensure that her children would not suffer the fate of many of the youth of Akron, and actually have a chance at life with a better education. "Well why couldn't she just move into the district?" you might ask? I don't know this for sure, but I imagine the ability to afford moving from one district to another may have played a small factor. Turns out poor people can't afford to do many of the things that more affluent people can - go figure.

So what does this mean? What significance does this have? Well clearly it says to anyone who is less affluent with any initiative or ingenuity to watch out. If you dare to make any progress in getting out of your poverty, and getting a piece of the middle/upper class pie we will make sure to make an example of you, and kick you back down to where you belong. The school board that carried out this ridiculous lynching should be barred from public office and forced to spend at least a year in a neighborhood like this woman's. Lets see how well they fare in a rougher neighborhood, and how creative they might be to get out.


Sean

Civility, Sensationalism, or Ignorance?

I've had about enough of this. A FB friend posted a CNN article this morning criticizing a religious leader for nixing a civility campaign due to lack of interest. Now, I see no problem with putting a stop to a program that has gotten little to no traction. Seems like it makes sense to me. Of course the secular community see it as a way to criticize religious leaders yet once more. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot to criticize religious leaders about; hypocrisy, racism, hate-mongering, and the list goes on. Does this action really deserve any scrutiny? Simply, no. In fact, the people in this situation that deserve a swift verbal kick in the ass are the members of the secular community trying to make a big deal out of this.

So two weeks ago in Arizona, some crazy kid shoots up a political rally, killed six people and wounded a dozen more. This is a tragedy, and my thoughts are with the people that it has immediately affected. The 24 hour political brainwashing machine has gone into full effect to try to make this into a political issue, and I fear that it may be leading toward a further limiting of freedom. We'll get to that later though... What they've been talking about is the tone of the political discourse in America, and how it led to this tragedy.

Well, lets take a look at this. I've heard people say that the political tone now is worse than it's ever been. Machiavelli wrote in The Prince and The Discourses about the tendency that we have as people to idealize the past, to look back at the 'good ol days' where things were better than they are now, and how to then politically capitalize on that natural tendency. Realizing this tendency, we should consider political rhetoric of the past, and see if it's really better, worse, or the same as what it used to be.

Here's something from the first truly contested election in America's history from Thomas Jefferson's people: "John Adams is a blind, bald, toothless old man who wants to start a war with France... while he's not busy importing mistresses from Europe, he's trying to marry one of his sons to a daughter of King George." The Adams campaign responded that the election of Jefferson would result in mass rape, murder, incest, and so on. Our third vice president shot and killed our first treasury secretary in a duel. Stephen Douglas called Abe Lincoln a "hatchet faced nutmeg dealer." Of course that election was the ugliest election in our nation's history, before Lincoln was inaugurated Southern states began to secede from the Union, and the Civil War had begun. Could you imagine a presidential election leading to an all out war between two parts of America today?

So Sarah Palin put cross-hairs on Giffords' district, Obama said we should bring a gun to a knife fight, and other ugly rhetoric has been thrown about on both sides. Critics are correct in their assertion that it is ugly. They are correct that civility is nice. They may be correct in their claim that our country could be better if the rhetoric is a bit nicer. But they are wrong to say that it is worse now than it has ever been. They are wrong to desire some sort of legislation to assure civility. And they are wrong to want to piss all over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to make the political system a little more rosy.

Here's the deal people, democratic politics is an ugly game. It always has been, and it always will be. For what it's worth, it's more tame now than at any point in history. Is it annoying when a moderately informed citizen tries to peel through the nonsense to get to some real truth and real solutions? Yeah it is! But in no way does this mean that we should take actions to limit our own freedom because the people in power can't talk nicely to each other. What makes America great is not the niceness of our politics, it is not the civility in our newspapers or political campaigns or rallies. What makes America great is our freedom to speak out against the things we disagree with. What makes America great is that only once in over two hundred years of our spiteful and ugly version of political discourse has it come to blows between two factions. Lets hope that it doesn't happen again. My fear is that once we voluntarily limit our own freedom of speech in terms of political discourse, the lid on that pressure cooker will not hold long, and when it boils to the point of bursting things will be ugly.

Thanks,
Sean



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI&feature=player_embedded
http://history1800s.about.com/od/leaders/a/electionof1828.htm
http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/served/burr.html
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/11/leading-evangelical-halts-effort-to-increase-political-civility/

Free Speech or Respectful Speech?

On a number of occasions, my random discussions throughout the day have come across the subject of free speech. Coupled with any discussion of free speech is the question as to where to draw the line of limiting that speech. You cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater, this is not protected speech. You cannot insight a riot, once again not protected speech. On two more recent occasions, the prospect of a conflict between our first amendment right to free speech, and the fourteenth amendment which has been used to protect against the various forms that hate crimes take. The question then lies, when free speech is on the brink of, or blatantly hate speech, should it be restricted? This question has come about with two specific scenarios, though it can be played out, I'm sure, in many different ways as well.

The first, with the exercise of free speech to promote a racial superiority, or to discriminate against an ethnic group. I will be among the first of those out there to speak out against racial bigotry. I don't believe that in the 21st century that there is any room for such arcane and destructive ideologies. However, should a group or individual that holds such hateful ideas be able to speak their mind, and be allowed a platform to do so? The second scenario presented, perhaps a more contemporary battle being fought (this is not to say that racism has died out, or has been pushed to the distant margins of society, but something should be said to the progress that has been made in terms of racial equality) The more contemporary battle has to do with the acceptance of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender community. Once again, I will be one of the first out there to stand up for my brothers and sisters of the LGBT community, but should speech against them be allowed?

A friend of mine, a fellow champion of equality in the world disagrees with my point of view on this issue, and I will admit part of what has driven me to consider this issue in such depth has a great deal to do with some of the very valid points that he has made. It is true that across the nation right now, perhaps the most discriminated against group of individuals are those who bravely come out and attempt to forge a path forward of acceptance for themselves and future generations to come. It is also true that with soaring rates of violence, intimidation, and suicide that this is a real and trying issue of our day. I believe it also true that with time, a lot of hard work, and battles fought and won, future generations of Americans will look back and find this generation that struggled with these issues so much and consider us backwards, narrow-minded, and foolish for our lack of openness and acceptance.

I recently was part in organizing an event titled "Blasphemy Rights Day" on my campus. Part of a broader series of events for "Free Speech Week". In organizing these events, we first came to these questions of whether there should be limitations to speech. An obvious concern, what to do - if anything - if someone, encouraged to exercise their right of free speech went down the path of hateful speech. With some disagreement, and also skepticism as to whether or not this scenario would actually play out, it was left alone. As it turned out, there were no issues with this at all, and the event went well. But the question still lies, should hateful speech be protected? And further, what constitutes hate speech? Obviously if I were to go rail against a group of people because of the color of their skin or their sexual identity, it should be consider hateful speech, but should it be restricted? Another scenario that I can imagine has to do with religious zealots of any faith threatening me with torture, fire, and scorn for the way that I choose to live my life. Some of my Christian friends will probably tell me that this is not hate speech, on the other hand, having chosen not to be a Christian myself, and being probably too familiar with Christian doctrine, I guarantee that when anyone makes attempts to "save my soul" they are engaging in hateful rhetoric toward me, those like myself, and people of other faiths. Should that speech be protected? How about political ideologies? Is it hateful for the tea-party fanatics to compare the president to Hitler? Is it hateful for people on the left to compare conservatives to fascists? The list goes on, and my fear is that eventually we will come to the point that speaking out against a poor corporate practice that goes against the well-being of a community, or a labor agreement that is detrimental to the economic environment will become considered hate speech to be restricted.

It is on this path of thought, that I cannot accept the idea that hate speech should be restricted. As vile as it often is, as terrible as some of the consequences may be, the fact of the matter is that freedom of speech should be one of the most closely guarded, and maintained freedoms that the people have earned. Freedom of speech can be used in terrible ways, but it also challenges people to think in new ways, to move forward, and to fight to make our society better. It's not always pleasant the things that we hear from opposing points of view, it's not always pleasant the things that the righteous have to say, but if we start limiting speech here, where do the restrictions stop? If I, in the fight for equality, justice, and humanity say things that offend those in positions to lose power, should I be restricted? Absolutely not, nor would I attempt to restrict the evil hate-mongers of our day from spewing their hate - as far as the law is concerned. I will, however exercise my right to free speech to speak out against these bigots with every chance I get. I will stand up to them, and show people the error of their ways with every chance I get. I will do everything in my power to make it so they have no audience for their hateful message, and will not stop until hatred, bigotry, and inequality are ancient myths of the past.

Your thoughts are encouraged. :)

Nazi-style fascism alive and well in America?

So I came across this email that someone sent me this morning, and just had to go find out about it, and of course had to formulate a response... Attached is the original email below my response. Enjoy


First I believe it is important to point out that this type of rhetoric promoting animosity and dislike, even hatred of a particular group based on their religious or ethnic backgrounds is akin to the hatred and bigotry promoted by the third reich. The Nazi party made people to believe that communists and Jews were horrible people who would do terrible things to unsuspecting citizens, and were ultimately responsible for most of the problems in the nation at the time. I fail to see how this outcry against Muslims in America today is much different.

Second, this group of radical bigots marching in New York are protesting something that does not exist. Myself, believing that knowledge is power, not knowing anything about this, had to go do some research. It is important to point out that the site of Ground Zero is owned by the New York and New Jersey Port Authority. The same quasi-state run organization that owns and operates many of the bridges in and around New York and New Jersey, and the three major airports in New York and New Jersey; LaGuardia, JFK, and Newark Liberty. Now, I call this a quasi-state run entity because it is just that, the governors of each state appoint a number of board members to oversee and run the organization, since they are not elected officials, and not all of their proceeds come from state funds, it is not entirely a state run organization.

With some basic background facts out of the way, to the real meat of this ludicrous discussion. The Port Authority has a plan, set into place, that they are moving forward on to rebuild at Ground Zero. In none of these plans that are present, or any of the previous plans that were considered was there ever an idea of a Mosque, or any other place of worship for any faith. Don't believe me? Look it up, the Port Authority has an easy to access and easy to use website that spells all of this out, and just in case any of you are web-surfing novices, I will include a web address at the end of this message.

So, why were there no major networks present to cover this protest against something that does not exist? Because anyone who will take five minutes to research the facts surrounding this "controversy" will find that these peoples' arguments are baseless, ignorant, and hateful. You can come to your own conclusions as to why certain groups and certain people harbor these feelings, like anything else if you take the time to discover the facts you will clearly see what is happening.

I hope that this information is helpful to all of you, and I hope that you will not promote this hatred and bigotry that I fear may ruin our country. I will say that the great thing about America is that everyone, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists all have the right to worship the way they see fit for themselves and their faith, and I am proud that in America you even have the right to be free from religion if that fits your convictions. I also am proud that I live in a country where people from different faiths and backgrounds can speak out freely because of their convictions. I will even defend the right of these misinformed bigots to stand up against whatever false threats they conjure up next. But I will also exercise my rights to speak out against them, and point out their bigotry, their hatred, and their lies. John Stuart Mill, a British philosopher who greatly influenced many American ideals of freedom argued for freedom of speech with the idea of the free marketplace of ideas; the truth and the best ideas would rise to the top, and be accepted by society if all ideas were allowed to be brought to the table, and citizens took it upon themselves to be informed. I think that his vision can be right, but another famous leader, Adolph Hitler once said that if a lie is repeated enough times, with enough conviction it inherently becomes truth. Please stand up with me to ensure that Mill's vision of freedom and truth comes to be, and not Hitler's vision of "truth".

Peace,
Sean

http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/wtc-site-plan.html





Censored Protest at Ground Zero

June 16, 2010, New York , N.Y. , – by El Marco




Americans Stand Up Against Radical Islam in New York

Not one major network sent a satellite truck or camera crew to this event. Without bloggers this newsworthy event would have remained unknown to the public and history
On Sunday, June 6th, a multi-ethnic, multi-racial coalition of Americans opposed to Islamic violence and intolerance rallied at the site of the World Trade Center in New York City .




9/11 families were joined by immigrants from India, Russia, Egypt, Israel, Africa, Iran and Europe to show opposition to the construction of a mega-mosque at Ground Zero. Others flew in from overseas to speak or just to share their particular ethnic communities’ experiences at the hands of Muslims.

These are parents and spouses of firefighters killed on 9/11. The rally took place just a minute’s walk from Ladder 10 Firehouse, where their loved ones were stationed for duty that terrible day. Ladder 10 lost seven firefighters.

Crowd estimates ranged from 5,000 (NYPD) to 10,000. The crowd overflowed the police barrier enclosures that ran the full length of two city blocks. This photo shows the enclosure in front of the stage at the intersection of Liberty and Church Streets. The second enclosure ran the length of the next block and can be seen on the other side of the traffic lights.




Thousands of additional participants filled the treed area of Zuccotti Park .




Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are the founders of STOP ISLAMIZATION OF AMERICA, which sponsored the rally. Ms. Geller is a citizen journalist and blogger who runs the human rights web site Atlas Shrugs. Mr. Spencer is the author of several books on Islam and head of the influential web site Jihad watch. Pamela Geller:



“Ground Zero is a war memorial, Ground Zero is a burial ground. We are asking for sensitivity…It is unconscionable to build a shrine to the very ideology that inspired the jihadist attacks at Ground Zero, right there. We are asking the imam Rauf and Daisy Khan to be sensitive. For mutual respect and mutual understanding that is demanded of us every day.




There’s a hair-trigger sensitivity in the Muslim world, you can’t run the cartoons, you can’t say Mohammed, this is offensive. This is an offensive mosque. To build a shrine, an Islamic flag of conquest on the sacred ground the cherished site, of a conquered land. This is historic, this is Islamic history. It’s what they do. The St. Sofia in Turkey , the al-Quds, at the holiest Jewish site in Israel . Not here. This is where we take a stand. We must take a stand. We must say no.”



I do not believe that the landmarks commission controlled by Mayor Bloomberg, is going to stop this mosque. It’s not going to happen. Here’s Omar Muhamedi, on his human rights council, a CAIR lawyer, who sued the airlines and the Jane and John Does that saw something and said something on those airplanes, if you remember. That’s who’s on his human rights commission. It ain’t gonna happen with Bloomberg. We have to make it happen. You have to get involved.” ( Pamela Geller)


Police enclosure on left, with crowd flowing out of park on right. The new Tower 7 and World Trade Center site are in the background. The green tent, center, is located immediately behind the stage.





Port Authority and NYPD officers kept watch over the rally and were well aware of the need for heightened security at this event. One of their own Port Authority officers, WTC Sergeant Alan T. De Vona was on duty at the World Trade Center on 9/11, 2001, and was one of the first to help victims of the terrorist attack. He spoke these words to the SIOA rally:



“It’s almost nine years. I’m hoping that America is watching. I’m hoping that America is remembering. Because, make no mistake. September 11 was an act of war. And thank the military that has lost almost 5,000 troops from that day, defending us. I don’t know what to say to jar America ’s memory. I want America to remember.





Port Authority Police and FDNY firefighters are seen here gathered beneath this banner.


The issues at stake will certainly affect the heart of American freedom, democracy, cultural values and tolerance. America is a tolerant country that allows for the free worship of all its citizens. But our tolerance has limits. Do we have to tolerate intolerant Islamic ideology and Muslims who preach intolerant Islam?”




Hindu human rights activists Narain Kataria, Prasad Yalamanchi and unidentified friend came from Mississippi and Chicago with banners and flyers highlighting the radical statements of imam Rauf and his jihadist roots.














Stephen Dyer and Gary Jules journalism students at York College, with Pamela Geller. Not one major network sent a satellite truck or camera crew to this event. Without bloggers this newsworthy event would have remained unknown to the public and history.




Pamela Geller is greeted by Hindu human rights activists Prasad Yalamanchi and Narain Kataria.




Bhupinder Singh Bhurji, Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer. Singh Bhurji is the president of the NAMDHARI SIKH FOUNDATION. The foundation is a member of the Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam (HRCARI). HRCARI is a coalition of Hindus, Sikhs, Christians from Sudan, Egypt and Iraq, moderate Muslims and Jews — who are victims and targets of radical Islam around the globe. He said, at another rally:



“Radical Islamists are killing people in India , trying to dominate that nation. And here too they come with violence against “infidels.” We are “infidels united,” standing together, brown, black and white, against this epoch’s fascist movement. Radical Islam wants to dominate entire world. They want everyone to surrender. Islam radical or otherwise. They want to put the Islamic flag on White House.”





Because of Islamic terrorism, America and the world have seen massive new security measures become a way of life. Anyone openly critical of Islam, or terrorist ideology, must surround themselves with security, or live in hiding. Those courageous enough to confront Islamism are criticized by the cowards and appeasers of the left who seek safety by supporting the enemy. Moderate Muslims were silent when Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered in Amsterdam , just as moderate Muslims in the United States are generally reluctant to speak out against violent Islam. Moderate Muslims also face great danger in speaking out.



Geller and Spencer will press on despite the danger. They hope to inspire Americans to stand up and say enough of political correctness and work to stem the galloping islamization of America and Europe .

Supporting the Troops

While Facebooking my life away today, I came across one of those gimmicky "support the troops, they fight for freedom" posts, and something struck me. It struck me pretty hard, so hard in fact that after making my remarks to the post itself I simply had to put it down somewhere else. Before we go any further, it is important to clarify that I have no problem with anyone who signs up to be in the United States Military. As an advocate of freedom, and freedom of choices, if that happens to be your career choice, you are as entitled to is as I should be to be able to write subversive material and make a living off of it. My issue is that as much as the troops may go through during a time of war, there's not a single one of my rights or freedoms that have been fought for or won by the US military. I guess there's a little bit of gray area there for Washington's army in the Revolutionary War, but aside from that really, never have my rights or freedoms been "protected" by the US military.

I realize what I'm saying is going to be incredibly unpopular, and if I get any feedback at all, it will probably be negative. But this needs to be cleared up. My freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, as are my rights to freedom of and from religion, and my freedom of assembly; my right to bear arms is guaranteed by the second amendment; I will never have to house members of the military in a time of peace or war thanks to the third amendment; I am protected from warrantless searches and seizures of property on account of the fourth, and the list goes on. These rights were not established by the US military. These rights were painstakingly hammered out by delegations from thirteen separate states. They were upheld by effective and powerful courts. In fact, America, land of the free and home of the brave was such even before 1945. 1945 is significant because that is the year that Harry Truman signed legislation that put into place a full time standing army, something that was "un-American" for the first hundred and fifty years of this country's existence. Prior to 1945, was America not free? I mean, there was no standing military, so does that mean that there really wasn't any freedom? Cause I'm told that I have to thank troops for my freedom...

Clearly, in 1945 there were groups of people that were less free, and since then there have always been abuses by our government of the liberties of marginalized groups. Socialists and Communists, some of the hardest working and most dedicated Americans were marginalized and pushed practically out of society, even though if it weren't for them we would not have labor laws, work safety standards, and child labor laws. Not the Military. Environmentalists fought our government in the 1960's and 1970's to get better environmental standards so that people my age could enjoy some of nature's beauty, and not have to deal with unclean air and unsafe water. Our government has done much to marginalize them. Female activists fought long and hard to guarantee the right for women to vote - not the military - the American Civil Liberties Union has fought the government on a huge number of issues that guarantee your freedoms and mine - not the military - the list goes on and on. We can all agree that freedom is good, liberties, rights, the pursuit of happiness, these are all wonderful things, but I want to make very clear that our government has been opposed to almost every one of the advances in freedom in the long history of this wonderful country. Now this is not a rant to call out against any government, or even a call to arms to "shrink" government. But it is important to recognize that if we are going to give credit to groups of people that sacrificed for our freedom, I think it only fair to actually credit those responsible rather than simply manufacturing some phony justification for our sometimes questionable military involvement around the world.

Simply, I am thankful for the working class, underpaid, overworked social and political activists that have come before me to make this land a free land for you and me. - not the troops -

thank you and have a nice day

Health In America

Today I turned on Morning Edition on NPR, and they highlighted a story in which the 'tea party' folks plan on putting together a number of demonstrations in view of their local representatives against the recent advances in the health care debate. Now just to be clear before we begin, I should point out that I am in favor of a single payer health care program that would utterly destroy the health insurance industry that exists today. I believe it to be absolutely immoral for someone to profit from someone else's injury, sickness, or misfortune.

Their concern focuses not on the plight of the millions of uninsured Americans, but that their precious dollars may go toward the benefit of someone they see as inferior or undeserving. To a point I can sympathize with their view, if you are not willing to go out and try to make a living, you don't deserve to be rewarded for your laziness. They fail to realize, or admit that the people who would benefit are the working class who on a daily basis wear themselves to the bone and still struggle to get by. The people who have to live paycheck to paycheck and life is still uncertain. There is already a health care program, fully funded by their and my tax dollars that takes care of those who are not working or are considered to be in poverty. Their beef is with people already covered by a government program. To me, this makes no sense to try to punish those who work hard, and reward those who profit from another's injury.

They make arguments that the quality of our doctors will somehow be diminished if tax dollars pay for health care, rather than huge insurance companies and HMO's. Large insurance companies and HMO's that systematically deny patients coverage due to preexisting conditions or try to get out of covering patients because a recent development in their health is expensive to treat. The fundamental problem is that the insurance companies are for profit organizations that are more concerned with their bottom line and showing a higher profit than the year before than they are providing quality care for their customers. A system that is designed to treat illness and injury without concern of profitability would without a doubt be better for those in need of help.

In my opinion, the compromise currently being debated does not go far enough to fix our system here in America. They still leave room for these criminals to rob hardworking Americans by profiting from illness and injury. I am not opposed to a fair market system, or even elements of a free market system, but we're not talking about selling widgets to fulfill a need, we are talking about the health and lives of people... Real people that work hard, that have families, that should not be punished or robbed because they suffer from illness or were injured in an accident. Putting the lives and well-being of hardworking Americans second in line to a corporate profit margin is a morally bankrupt practice far worse than any abortion, rape, or act of violence. It says in no uncertain terms that a product of modern capitalism takes priority over God's most precious creation.

So this month if you see or hear about any of these types of protests or demonstrations, think about exactly what it is these people are advocating. They do make strong arguments, and they in fact have some very valid points. But we are talking about the lives of real people, like you and me and our families being less important than a corporate fat cat's next private jet flight, weekend at the beach house, or golf outing.

God Bless the Secular State

I came across a posting by an old friend today regarding the state of our nation and how God feels about it, or would feel about it if a supreme being truly cared that much about the affairs of the youngest empire on the planet.  An interesting argument was made, and it's an argument that I grew up with, and an argument that since I grew up with it, had never realized that it is a very contemporary argument and is completely baseless.  This lie, and it was in the posting I read, made a statement that this country had moved away from God some time ago.  And that because this nation that was based on Christian principles had moved away from God, we're in big trouble.  

The problem with this thought is that our nation was never founded on Christian principles, our nation was founded on the principles of agnostics, atheists, deists, unitarians, and Christians of the enlightenment period who romanticized the beliefs of ancient Greece and Rome(pagans).  Where or how we get Christian principles from that is beyond me.  One man who did a great deal in helping to shape the foundations of our nation, Thomas Jefferson, made sure that God and religion did not make it into our governmental structure.  Other founding fathers like Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, and James Madison all have recorded statements of their opposition one way or another to the involvement of God in the state. 

Thomas Jefferson, it is worth noting was probably a Christian in the best sense of what a Christian should be.  He actually focused on the teachings and moral value of what Christ had to say.  Jefferson, famously now, wrote his own version of the New Testament in which he took out all of the superstitious, supernatural, and miraculous filler.  Commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible, it focuses on an aspect of Christianity that most Christians, I fear, miss out on.  As a Christian, would I follow the teachings of Christ, or just focus on the supernatural feats and figure that since I can't do those things, I need to worship this guy?  The point of the miraculous happenings in Jesus' ministry was not to awe people into believing in him, but rather to get people to listen to the things he came to teach.  - Charity, pacifism, living a simple life, loving your enemies, giving up your riches - Find me a well off, right wing, fundamentalist, conservative Christian who believes in a strong military, eliminating the 'welfare state',  supporting the state of Israel, and gun rights, and I'll show you someone who has lost the plot.

This isn't a post to beat up on the religious right, as much pleasure as it may give me from time to time.  My intention is to dispel the myth that the United States is somehow or ever was supposed to be a Christian nation.  Simple fact is that it is not, and for that I am glad.  If God cares at all about the mundane everyday politics in our era, I'm pretty sure he'd want government to function effectively without superstitious prejudices getting in the way of guaranteeing people's Liberty, or whatever we think government should do these days.  

If in fact religion or God were supposed to be a part of our state, clearly then, the framers of the Constitution would not have specifically banned religious tests for holding office.  They would not have made sure that the First Amendment guaranteed that in no way would government establish any law that restricts the religious practices or beliefs of an individual.  And most importantly, if the framers of the Constitution wanted God or religion to have anything to do with the business of governing men, they would not have very clearly and specifically guaranteed that our government would never act in a way to establish a specific religion or church.  

It is actually as good for religion in America as it is for the government that we generally try to keep them from too much involvement with one another.  In many European nations with established churches, the numbers of citizens active in religious activities are shockingly low.  America is an exceptional example of a thriving religious community. Funny then that a common complaint of the religious right is that this nation needs to 'come back to God'.  An interesting fact that the religious right doesn't want us to know is that now, more than any time in our history, we have the largest percentage of people who engage in religious activity.  Interesting then when we hear the argument that this nation that we are 'losing sight' of God, and that they need to 'reclaim' America for God.  I don't know, but it sounds like someone isn't being honest with us.

So with that, God bless the Secular State, if it weren't for such a thing, religion would undoubtedly be as dead in America as many Western European nations.  Besides that, could anyone picture President Obama in a funny Papal type hat (of course the President would be the head of the state established church).  Being a religious person myself, the last thing I want is some government, I don't care which one, but some government meddling with the everyday affairs of my religion.