Oh, how it grows.
Nursing from its mothering soil,
through wooden arms.
Ripe for the wanderer,
wise enough to choose smartly.
The apple tastes sweetest, freshly picked,
that instant, before the brown forms
around the bite.
Before the slow rot that brings
the scavenger and its eggs.
One should cherish
that first flavor, that first witness
and seize the essence, the birth
of an idea, the passion of a revolution,
or the innocence of new love.
Savor that moment,
and remember the prize won
from the Dance of Ages.
Paradise is a shiny penny
whose likes become unrecognizable,
as it passes through a million pockets,
or lay waste in the crack of a sidewalk.
As it should be, at least
on this cosmic speck,
that we live on a world that turns,
where piercing light casts away darkness,
only to be enveloped by it at days end.
Aren’t the sweetest moments upon waking,
and later slipping unwittingly to sleep?
And all the rest between, a changing sky
that stands still for no man.
Nobility’s demise,
began at the picking.
Its first bite, delightful and
pleasing to the wanderer,
instead of dying on the branch
or falling quick to the mercy
of the bird or the worm; but rather
an instance of pure glory and fading.
Oh, the lucky wanderer.
Oh, the fortunate fruit.
Oh, what a wonderful,
yet fatal moment.
-M. R. Behr
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Our Constitution: God, Religion and the American Citizen
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Source: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler. The text above is from the so-called "Bliss Copy," one of several versions which Lincoln wrote, and believed to be the final version.
To understand our Constitution and the Bill of Rights that ratified it, one might also want to have (at-the-least) an elementary education of early American history. Many times attorneys, lawmakers, and even Supreme Court Justices pick and choose what they want from this document in order to support their 'legal' arguments. In not studying the framers of this divinely inspired work, and in losing sight of the history leading up to its drafting, much speculation has been left to broad interpretation. Ironically, haters of our most sacred civil document have had the freedom to study law, and perhaps rise to become Supreme Court Justices who have the unique opportunity to undermine the Constitution by their own misled interpretations and influence. In the opinion of this writer, the clear intent of our founding fathers as expressed in our Constitution has long been under attack by those who favor freedom-killing ideologies and elitist run governments that would eventually eliminate the influence or will of the individual citizen.
The more modern tactic of 'deconstruction' has been used against nearly all our hallowed institutions, national heroes and documented history, in order to systematically erode or minimize their 'greatness' by judging our founding father's deeds, opinions, and spiritual beliefs from standards which have evolved into our modern day rather than understanding them within their proper place in time. Many will degrade the legitimacy of this cornerstone document by pointing to certain injustices like slavery and inequality, and that this alone should somehow nullify all wisdom, all judgments, and all actions of the nearly exclusive, white, male, English, Christian influence that laid the foundation for all that would come after. I have always seen the Constitution as a living/evolving document, and its accompanying Bill of Rights as its personal contract or promise with its people. This document is our political or 'civil' Bible, and like our Judeo-Christian Bible that unmistakably influenced it, it need be our reference to freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
The American Civil War was a pivotal point in the destiny of our nation as well as our precious freedom giving Constitution. Though 'conceived' in the Liberty of the Revolutionary War, it is arguable that we were 'born' from a most difficult birth of a Civil War. So moved by the battle at Gettysburg, where brother slaughtered brother, Abraham Lincoln eluded to the intentions of our founding fathers and the documents that would pioneer our future through his Gettysburg Address of November 1863. By its end in 1865, the Civil War would claim over half-million American servicemen and citizens. Many thousands more surviving servicemen and civilians would live the rest of their lives with burns, scars, broken & missing limbs, and traumatic memories of that war. The states would be united again, despite the smoldering angst of a defeated and scorched South, and the war's most noted casualty; an assassinated President Lincoln. Lincoln surmised at Gettysburg, “that this nation – under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that a government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” What great sacrifice, and testament to the will of our forefathers and the Constitution they penned in order that a growing nation 'of, by, and for' its people would not disappear from the planet. Not just under the laws of these visionary men, but also under the sometimes misunderstood laws bestowed by God.
God just keeps getting in way doesn't He? It's irritating to many, who would gladly view our nation's lawful document as obsolete. God is so ingrained in the foundation of our country that He is often confused with the term 'religion', or better; how we 'choose to worship' God. That was the tipping point for the framers of the Constitution. I don't think there was ever a doubt in any of the founding fathers' minds that there was a God, or that God had a hand in the architecture of their nation building. On the contrary, God in the broadest sense is in our courts of law, our pledges, oaths, guiding documents, currency and building structures of our nation's capitol as well as in every city and state of the Union. There is a big difference between not respecting or showing favor to any 'religion' and not respecting or paying homage to God in its relationship to the will and actions of our founding fathers. There is no doubt that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and values. It was also established that with this government by the people, we would not infringe upon religion. This is an equally important note that we'll explore later. So, the notion stands that our government should not favor religion nor interfere with religious practice as long as it doesn't conflict with the common rights of each individual American citizen. In simple terms, church and state should steer clear of injecting their particular morality or ideological doctrine on the non-conformer, though the acknowledgment of God's presence is undeniably clear within the Constitution.
Quite often we have wrongly interpreted our 'separation of church and state' to mean 'separation of God and state'. God has been the aggregate, so-to-speak, in the foundation of our nation's concrete. To take Him out of the equation or dig Him out of the mix, serves only to dismantle the elements our forefathers put forth that assured the protection 'of the people' no matter how they interpret or worship God, or if indeed, they choose to acknowledge His existence at all. In America, one can praise God or the 'wonder of the universe' through their own intellect, science, Christ, Muhammad, Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Billy Graham, David Koresh, or countless others. Only Judeo-Christian (Western) nations, however, reciprocate the acceptance and tolerance of alternative forms of worship in the world today. Yet, in these modern times, Christians and Jews are still violently persecuted, imprisoned and murdered by the dominant religions or oppressive ideologies of other nations. Free will is granted by God. Whether He directs, commands, guides, or influences can be of no consequence to those who choose not to believe in God. In America, God grants them that right. If they find that 'religion' offends or restricts them in some way in their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness then that can easily be addressed. One's manner in 'worship of God' (aka,religion), will not trump our government's fairness to its citizenry as assured in our Constitution. One's method of worship (or lack of) does not exclude any member of any religion or ideology from the benefits or consequences of government law. In the event of criminal or discriminatory acts, the shroud of the U.S. government and its subsequent laws that we all live under as Americans, must take precedent above all or we could not co-exist among each other in any kind of harmony.
God is a higher order than ourselves. Whether perceived as the Sun, a bearded man in the sky, an ominous force of light, or unconceivable trove of knowledge, it is still better to seek divine guidance than to trust the faulty bias of men. Our government needs to be wise like Solomon in order to keep some semblance of order. How do we please everyone? We have to implore fairness, consistency, and a whole lot of wisdom. As we evolve as a nation, problems will arise. Conflicts will occur. We must define what we aspire Americans to be. Just as we know that light separates itself from darkness, so too must we separate ourselves from what we are and what we aren't. We must be willing to accept others under this cloak of basic, common likeness in order that each citizen may pursue happiness. However, we must recognize that our founding fathers placed a somewhat ominous God at the very base their fledgling empire. The founder's collective wisdom recognized the supremacy of God without reverence to any one particular religion, which assured equal protection to all houses of worship. By default, it is also compliant for those who hold to no theology. Think of it as a lunch special. You get a hamburger for $2.35 everyday, but today, between 1 pm and 3 pm you get a hamburger, French fries and a soft drink for $2.35. You say you don't want the fries and the soft drink? Okay then, don't consume them. You say that you are offended by them being served to you? Tough luck, you've been denied nothing. Offer it to the lonely guy having coffee in the booth beside you. Don't feel like being generous? That's quite alright, because you have the right to be frumpy in a nation founded on a broad acknowledgment of God.
Here's a good example to examine. Gay marriage and heterosexual marriage aren't matters of the government. Marriage is traditionally a religious rite. Even the most primitive and pagan religions ritually celebrated the union of a man and a woman as they would the seasons. Like the blessing of Spring, marriage gave forth the promise of family through new birth. Homosexuality is traditionally frowned upon by all major religions. Therefore, gay marriage through religious ceremony would be seen at best as being 'fruitless' and at worst, blasphemous. Unlike the U.S. government, religions and their many places of worship can be very prejudicial, bias, and even oppressive. One can be subjugated to dress codes, cast out completely, or shunned for not towing the line. Religion is a choice of each and every individual citizen in this 'free' country. Any American citizen can turn their back to religion and go their own way. Our government will and should protect the citizen from harmful or injurious religious recourse. (This may present problems for some Islamic religions/sects who don't separate church from state and practice in the U.S.) Our government cannot 'respect' one church over another, and has no business or say in religious rite be it pro-gay or anti-gay. It cannot stand with or against matters of religion.
The dilemma holds in that the 'institution of marriage', which was always a religious rite and exclusively heterosexual, was 'adopted' by our government's legal system. Gay rights are a relatively recent expression of liberty that has been allowed to flourish openly in a free Western society. Gay people are citizens in our country regardless of their sexual preferences be it derived innately, through learned behavior, or experimentation. Gay pride, the open unashamed celebration of gayness, may be frowned upon by religions and the majority of churches in a number of denominations, but the government cannot legislate religious doctrine. What they can do is protect homosexual's right to be gay. A citizen of the U.S., is a citizen no less. The government didn't foresee that gay people would unite and rise up, much less, want to enjoy the religious rite of marriage. Despite 'progressive' states, legislators, advocates, and PACs championing gay causes, it is still not the government's place to weigh in on matters of religious practice. The government has only one choice. It must purge marriage from their legal system and lawful terminology or fear it being at odds with religious favoritism and/or impeding religious practice. From this day forward, any couple gay or straight that wants protection, privilege, and legal recourse under U.S. Law and/or state law must fill out a legal document of intended civil union. Any marriage once recognized by the government (gay or straight) prior to the enactment of government sanctioned civil unions will be honored. After enactment of this new law, only 'civil unions' will be recognized in the place of the term 'marriage' within the United States and its territories. States will carry on their unique rules and regulations dealing with the courts, divorce, and property with 'civil unions' as they had with the term 'marriage'. Anyone, gay or straight who wishes to have a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, Occult or other type of religious rite of marriage may seek it out. That religion, denomination, or sect can perform their particular ritual or nuptials as they believe within their faith, while others can stand stead forth against it. This is equal treatment for all, and falls under the government's responsibility to treat all citizens the same. Religion will be left to their own devices, and their particular belief systems can remain intact. The sanctity of 'marriage' will safely be at the disposal of each couples' place of worship. They will unite under deity, doctrine, and the exclusive rites demanded by each religion and those congregations that will be accepting them. Spiritually, all will get their 'wedding' if they choose to seek it. There are places of worship that have no bias toward homosexuality. Under United States law, gays will have the same 'civil union' rights as heterosexuals. Marriage will remain a ritual and there forward hold no legal ramifications recognized by the state. Church and state will have no further reason to mingle upon the subject. Synagogues have been doing a reverse form of this for years, and I have experienced this first hand. While the state (government) has used the marriage license as a legal document, many Jews that wed sign a separate document recognized exclusively by the Synagogue as 'the legal' Jewish marriage. This was the type of common sense used wisely by King Solomon and perhaps other men of knowledge, philosophy, spirituality, and leadership. The 'marriage vow' and 'purpose of marriage' is before God, and recognized among those who witness it or hold the same religious community believes. How God judges that rite, their witnesses, and religious community of like believers is not the duty of government monitors in a free-will society. This, however, cannot imply that the interpretation of such rites cannot be judged by the beliefs and practices of other religions, sects, and denominations where the government is equally non monitoring. The government can only referee the extent of that judgment when it goes beyond protest or statement, and then must interject itself wisely or risk showing favor to one religion over another.
I must personally contend, however, that the gay movement's zeal for equal rights of marriage seems to have had less to do with legal benefits, lawful distribution of estates, and properties accrued from gay unions or partnerships and more about acceptance. It appears to have been more of a ploy to force their own will upon unrelenting religious establishments that have long enjoyed separation from government intervention, and their heartfelt belief that homosexuality is an abomination to God or nature. Government cannot and must not legislate morality. Their moral duty is to assure that every citizen is extended equal privileges under the established laws of the land, while also guarantying it will not show favor toward or interfere with religion. That is quite a balancing act, and not one that sets well with those who have deference with one of just a few things that government can neither govern nor fully control. As unsavory as it might seem, government can't force personal acceptance. Hate, though despicable, is a right of expression. The government can't force people to like each other, and as we have witnessed throughout the years, they can barely achieve orchestrating basic tolerance for one another. We have the right to loathe someone for any reason, no matter how ridiculous. Only when that hate, intolerance, or loathing goes beyond thinking, stating, or shouting in protest can the law of the land begin to intervene in order to protect the citizen.
What I take from the Constitution of the United States is certainly debatable, but not profoundly steeped with personal opinion. Any fool that can read and reason, can see the obvious intent of our forefathers written all over this sacred (to me) document. From the over sized, 'We The People' to the insistence of a Bill of Rights before ratification of the Constitution, our founders expressed their intended will for citizenry, government and religion, as well as the relationship that would exist among them. When taken in its entirety, their vision is much less ambiguous than we sometimes care to make it. Secularists, a relatively new breed of Darwinian evolutionary opinion as far as interpretation of the Constitution goes, often poop on any reference to God since 'God' is not literally spelled out or mentioned within the document. This is mistakenly translated that our founding fathers wanted to leave God out of the Constitution, which is an absurd and baseless deduction. Interestingly, there was one state supreme court in 1915 that referenced, “in the year of our Lord” from the Constitution as giving credence to Jesus Christ which to Christians is synonymous to 'God in the flesh'. Therefore, 'our Lord' was an acknowledgment in passing of God in the Constitution that seemingly escaped the 'editors' censorship, which again is utterly ridiculous. Atheism certainly existed at the time of the Constitution, however they would have entertained thoughts more closely aligned with 'creationism' rather than the much later Darwinian influenced 'secularism'. Other arguments for God within the Constitution also abound, as this excerpt below states:
The mistake modern secularists make is obvious. They take a twentieth century concept like "secularism" and read it back into the Constitution. They take a concept that didn't even exist in the eighteenth century and attribute it to the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is a very common mistake. The fact that the word "God" does not appear in the Constitution means little. It is actually a rather shallow observation. The reality is "God" is in every word of the Constitution, including the punctuation. Below the surface of the words in the Constitution, there are a mountain of ideas that made its formation possible. The belief that God exists and that all nations of the world are subject to Him sits on the summit of that mountain. As the Supreme Court of Florida said in 1950: "Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the ten commandments and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalogue and the ethics of Jesus . . . No one knew this better than the Founding Fathers."
(Faith and Action, Nov 04, David W. New, Esq. Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004, 6:38:41 PM by Ed Current)
What were Americans supposed to become in the minds of our forefathers? Well, first and foremost, they believed that something divine was at work here. They believed that their union of present states had a destiny to fulfill, and they were right. They believed that all men were created equal, though it took a while for God to reveal that such an equality truly extended to 'all mankind'. If God or the notion of something greater than man had been absent from our Constitution, what would have created the conscience or awareness for true equality? The answer to that question is nothing, of course. There could have been only weak rebellion quashed by domination, death, perhaps extinction, or certainly more oppression. Remember, this is a living document of divine inspiration that human hands penned, and mortal minds concocted with great deliberation. Our founders' words and ideas would resound far beyond their time and ring freedom throughout the world. Therefore American's can be said to be inspired by a higher order than themselves, yet comfortably live in the arms of such an order even if they don't believe in it or are not inspired by it. American's reap what they sow, and though the fortunes have been great, the misfortunes have come with great cost. As a nation, we have suffered with the poor choices we have made. We've made mistakes that only God can truly forgive, and by His grace I believe He has brought beauty from our ugliness. What man corrupts, God or nature, if you will, finds a way to balance, refashion, restore or create new.
American's in general are blessed by God, not chosen by Him. God does His own choosing in His own time. American's at their best, are contagious examples of liberation, individuality and innovation. The reasonable latitude of freedom (free will) experienced in America has spawned generations of creativity. American's are dreamers, who make things where nothing appeared to exist, and then invite those who dream less to share in its success. American's know that such freedom leaves the door wide open to those who envy and despise personal liberty. Like everything in Heaven and on the Earth, freedom will cycle. It will be born of difficult labor, thrive in its naive youth, ache with pains in its old-age, and then certainly die. Ron Reagan envisioned America as a 'Shining City on the Hill'. Its light has drawn people from everywhere who are wanting to experience its great beacon of prosperity. All of this began with a notion of a government 'Of the People, By the People, and For the People'. It has never been perfect, but certainly inspired toward perfection. It has not always been timely, but in time it has justly arrived. So far, it has been the best plan conceived by man to live in greater numbers, while enjoying greater wealth, expressing greater freedom, and experiencing greater health than anywhere on the Earth. Freedom, free-will and liberty, however, are very delicate and can dissolve in an instant. That is the burden of our Constitution. It must deliberate wisely, amend justly, and evolve slowly in order that it not collapse under the periodic changes of Godless leadership, ideological trends, sudden injustice or just plain ignorance.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Source: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler. The text above is from the so-called "Bliss Copy," one of several versions which Lincoln wrote, and believed to be the final version.
To understand our Constitution and the Bill of Rights that ratified it, one might also want to have (at-the-least) an elementary education of early American history. Many times attorneys, lawmakers, and even Supreme Court Justices pick and choose what they want from this document in order to support their 'legal' arguments. In not studying the framers of this divinely inspired work, and in losing sight of the history leading up to its drafting, much speculation has been left to broad interpretation. Ironically, haters of our most sacred civil document have had the freedom to study law, and perhaps rise to become Supreme Court Justices who have the unique opportunity to undermine the Constitution by their own misled interpretations and influence. In the opinion of this writer, the clear intent of our founding fathers as expressed in our Constitution has long been under attack by those who favor freedom-killing ideologies and elitist run governments that would eventually eliminate the influence or will of the individual citizen.
The more modern tactic of 'deconstruction' has been used against nearly all our hallowed institutions, national heroes and documented history, in order to systematically erode or minimize their 'greatness' by judging our founding father's deeds, opinions, and spiritual beliefs from standards which have evolved into our modern day rather than understanding them within their proper place in time. Many will degrade the legitimacy of this cornerstone document by pointing to certain injustices like slavery and inequality, and that this alone should somehow nullify all wisdom, all judgments, and all actions of the nearly exclusive, white, male, English, Christian influence that laid the foundation for all that would come after. I have always seen the Constitution as a living/evolving document, and its accompanying Bill of Rights as its personal contract or promise with its people. This document is our political or 'civil' Bible, and like our Judeo-Christian Bible that unmistakably influenced it, it need be our reference to freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
The American Civil War was a pivotal point in the destiny of our nation as well as our precious freedom giving Constitution. Though 'conceived' in the Liberty of the Revolutionary War, it is arguable that we were 'born' from a most difficult birth of a Civil War. So moved by the battle at Gettysburg, where brother slaughtered brother, Abraham Lincoln eluded to the intentions of our founding fathers and the documents that would pioneer our future through his Gettysburg Address of November 1863. By its end in 1865, the Civil War would claim over half-million American servicemen and citizens. Many thousands more surviving servicemen and civilians would live the rest of their lives with burns, scars, broken & missing limbs, and traumatic memories of that war. The states would be united again, despite the smoldering angst of a defeated and scorched South, and the war's most noted casualty; an assassinated President Lincoln. Lincoln surmised at Gettysburg, “that this nation – under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that a government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” What great sacrifice, and testament to the will of our forefathers and the Constitution they penned in order that a growing nation 'of, by, and for' its people would not disappear from the planet. Not just under the laws of these visionary men, but also under the sometimes misunderstood laws bestowed by God.
God just keeps getting in way doesn't He? It's irritating to many, who would gladly view our nation's lawful document as obsolete. God is so ingrained in the foundation of our country that He is often confused with the term 'religion', or better; how we 'choose to worship' God. That was the tipping point for the framers of the Constitution. I don't think there was ever a doubt in any of the founding fathers' minds that there was a God, or that God had a hand in the architecture of their nation building. On the contrary, God in the broadest sense is in our courts of law, our pledges, oaths, guiding documents, currency and building structures of our nation's capitol as well as in every city and state of the Union. There is a big difference between not respecting or showing favor to any 'religion' and not respecting or paying homage to God in its relationship to the will and actions of our founding fathers. There is no doubt that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and values. It was also established that with this government by the people, we would not infringe upon religion. This is an equally important note that we'll explore later. So, the notion stands that our government should not favor religion nor interfere with religious practice as long as it doesn't conflict with the common rights of each individual American citizen. In simple terms, church and state should steer clear of injecting their particular morality or ideological doctrine on the non-conformer, though the acknowledgment of God's presence is undeniably clear within the Constitution.
Quite often we have wrongly interpreted our 'separation of church and state' to mean 'separation of God and state'. God has been the aggregate, so-to-speak, in the foundation of our nation's concrete. To take Him out of the equation or dig Him out of the mix, serves only to dismantle the elements our forefathers put forth that assured the protection 'of the people' no matter how they interpret or worship God, or if indeed, they choose to acknowledge His existence at all. In America, one can praise God or the 'wonder of the universe' through their own intellect, science, Christ, Muhammad, Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Billy Graham, David Koresh, or countless others. Only Judeo-Christian (Western) nations, however, reciprocate the acceptance and tolerance of alternative forms of worship in the world today. Yet, in these modern times, Christians and Jews are still violently persecuted, imprisoned and murdered by the dominant religions or oppressive ideologies of other nations. Free will is granted by God. Whether He directs, commands, guides, or influences can be of no consequence to those who choose not to believe in God. In America, God grants them that right. If they find that 'religion' offends or restricts them in some way in their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness then that can easily be addressed. One's manner in 'worship of God' (aka,religion), will not trump our government's fairness to its citizenry as assured in our Constitution. One's method of worship (or lack of) does not exclude any member of any religion or ideology from the benefits or consequences of government law. In the event of criminal or discriminatory acts, the shroud of the U.S. government and its subsequent laws that we all live under as Americans, must take precedent above all or we could not co-exist among each other in any kind of harmony.
God is a higher order than ourselves. Whether perceived as the Sun, a bearded man in the sky, an ominous force of light, or unconceivable trove of knowledge, it is still better to seek divine guidance than to trust the faulty bias of men. Our government needs to be wise like Solomon in order to keep some semblance of order. How do we please everyone? We have to implore fairness, consistency, and a whole lot of wisdom. As we evolve as a nation, problems will arise. Conflicts will occur. We must define what we aspire Americans to be. Just as we know that light separates itself from darkness, so too must we separate ourselves from what we are and what we aren't. We must be willing to accept others under this cloak of basic, common likeness in order that each citizen may pursue happiness. However, we must recognize that our founding fathers placed a somewhat ominous God at the very base their fledgling empire. The founder's collective wisdom recognized the supremacy of God without reverence to any one particular religion, which assured equal protection to all houses of worship. By default, it is also compliant for those who hold to no theology. Think of it as a lunch special. You get a hamburger for $2.35 everyday, but today, between 1 pm and 3 pm you get a hamburger, French fries and a soft drink for $2.35. You say you don't want the fries and the soft drink? Okay then, don't consume them. You say that you are offended by them being served to you? Tough luck, you've been denied nothing. Offer it to the lonely guy having coffee in the booth beside you. Don't feel like being generous? That's quite alright, because you have the right to be frumpy in a nation founded on a broad acknowledgment of God.
Here's a good example to examine. Gay marriage and heterosexual marriage aren't matters of the government. Marriage is traditionally a religious rite. Even the most primitive and pagan religions ritually celebrated the union of a man and a woman as they would the seasons. Like the blessing of Spring, marriage gave forth the promise of family through new birth. Homosexuality is traditionally frowned upon by all major religions. Therefore, gay marriage through religious ceremony would be seen at best as being 'fruitless' and at worst, blasphemous. Unlike the U.S. government, religions and their many places of worship can be very prejudicial, bias, and even oppressive. One can be subjugated to dress codes, cast out completely, or shunned for not towing the line. Religion is a choice of each and every individual citizen in this 'free' country. Any American citizen can turn their back to religion and go their own way. Our government will and should protect the citizen from harmful or injurious religious recourse. (This may present problems for some Islamic religions/sects who don't separate church from state and practice in the U.S.) Our government cannot 'respect' one church over another, and has no business or say in religious rite be it pro-gay or anti-gay. It cannot stand with or against matters of religion.
The dilemma holds in that the 'institution of marriage', which was always a religious rite and exclusively heterosexual, was 'adopted' by our government's legal system. Gay rights are a relatively recent expression of liberty that has been allowed to flourish openly in a free Western society. Gay people are citizens in our country regardless of their sexual preferences be it derived innately, through learned behavior, or experimentation. Gay pride, the open unashamed celebration of gayness, may be frowned upon by religions and the majority of churches in a number of denominations, but the government cannot legislate religious doctrine. What they can do is protect homosexual's right to be gay. A citizen of the U.S., is a citizen no less. The government didn't foresee that gay people would unite and rise up, much less, want to enjoy the religious rite of marriage. Despite 'progressive' states, legislators, advocates, and PACs championing gay causes, it is still not the government's place to weigh in on matters of religious practice. The government has only one choice. It must purge marriage from their legal system and lawful terminology or fear it being at odds with religious favoritism and/or impeding religious practice. From this day forward, any couple gay or straight that wants protection, privilege, and legal recourse under U.S. Law and/or state law must fill out a legal document of intended civil union. Any marriage once recognized by the government (gay or straight) prior to the enactment of government sanctioned civil unions will be honored. After enactment of this new law, only 'civil unions' will be recognized in the place of the term 'marriage' within the United States and its territories. States will carry on their unique rules and regulations dealing with the courts, divorce, and property with 'civil unions' as they had with the term 'marriage'. Anyone, gay or straight who wishes to have a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, Occult or other type of religious rite of marriage may seek it out. That religion, denomination, or sect can perform their particular ritual or nuptials as they believe within their faith, while others can stand stead forth against it. This is equal treatment for all, and falls under the government's responsibility to treat all citizens the same. Religion will be left to their own devices, and their particular belief systems can remain intact. The sanctity of 'marriage' will safely be at the disposal of each couples' place of worship. They will unite under deity, doctrine, and the exclusive rites demanded by each religion and those congregations that will be accepting them. Spiritually, all will get their 'wedding' if they choose to seek it. There are places of worship that have no bias toward homosexuality. Under United States law, gays will have the same 'civil union' rights as heterosexuals. Marriage will remain a ritual and there forward hold no legal ramifications recognized by the state. Church and state will have no further reason to mingle upon the subject. Synagogues have been doing a reverse form of this for years, and I have experienced this first hand. While the state (government) has used the marriage license as a legal document, many Jews that wed sign a separate document recognized exclusively by the Synagogue as 'the legal' Jewish marriage. This was the type of common sense used wisely by King Solomon and perhaps other men of knowledge, philosophy, spirituality, and leadership. The 'marriage vow' and 'purpose of marriage' is before God, and recognized among those who witness it or hold the same religious community believes. How God judges that rite, their witnesses, and religious community of like believers is not the duty of government monitors in a free-will society. This, however, cannot imply that the interpretation of such rites cannot be judged by the beliefs and practices of other religions, sects, and denominations where the government is equally non monitoring. The government can only referee the extent of that judgment when it goes beyond protest or statement, and then must interject itself wisely or risk showing favor to one religion over another.
I must personally contend, however, that the gay movement's zeal for equal rights of marriage seems to have had less to do with legal benefits, lawful distribution of estates, and properties accrued from gay unions or partnerships and more about acceptance. It appears to have been more of a ploy to force their own will upon unrelenting religious establishments that have long enjoyed separation from government intervention, and their heartfelt belief that homosexuality is an abomination to God or nature. Government cannot and must not legislate morality. Their moral duty is to assure that every citizen is extended equal privileges under the established laws of the land, while also guarantying it will not show favor toward or interfere with religion. That is quite a balancing act, and not one that sets well with those who have deference with one of just a few things that government can neither govern nor fully control. As unsavory as it might seem, government can't force personal acceptance. Hate, though despicable, is a right of expression. The government can't force people to like each other, and as we have witnessed throughout the years, they can barely achieve orchestrating basic tolerance for one another. We have the right to loathe someone for any reason, no matter how ridiculous. Only when that hate, intolerance, or loathing goes beyond thinking, stating, or shouting in protest can the law of the land begin to intervene in order to protect the citizen.
What I take from the Constitution of the United States is certainly debatable, but not profoundly steeped with personal opinion. Any fool that can read and reason, can see the obvious intent of our forefathers written all over this sacred (to me) document. From the over sized, 'We The People' to the insistence of a Bill of Rights before ratification of the Constitution, our founders expressed their intended will for citizenry, government and religion, as well as the relationship that would exist among them. When taken in its entirety, their vision is much less ambiguous than we sometimes care to make it. Secularists, a relatively new breed of Darwinian evolutionary opinion as far as interpretation of the Constitution goes, often poop on any reference to God since 'God' is not literally spelled out or mentioned within the document. This is mistakenly translated that our founding fathers wanted to leave God out of the Constitution, which is an absurd and baseless deduction. Interestingly, there was one state supreme court in 1915 that referenced, “in the year of our Lord” from the Constitution as giving credence to Jesus Christ which to Christians is synonymous to 'God in the flesh'. Therefore, 'our Lord' was an acknowledgment in passing of God in the Constitution that seemingly escaped the 'editors' censorship, which again is utterly ridiculous. Atheism certainly existed at the time of the Constitution, however they would have entertained thoughts more closely aligned with 'creationism' rather than the much later Darwinian influenced 'secularism'. Other arguments for God within the Constitution also abound, as this excerpt below states:
The mistake modern secularists make is obvious. They take a twentieth century concept like "secularism" and read it back into the Constitution. They take a concept that didn't even exist in the eighteenth century and attribute it to the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is a very common mistake. The fact that the word "God" does not appear in the Constitution means little. It is actually a rather shallow observation. The reality is "God" is in every word of the Constitution, including the punctuation. Below the surface of the words in the Constitution, there are a mountain of ideas that made its formation possible. The belief that God exists and that all nations of the world are subject to Him sits on the summit of that mountain. As the Supreme Court of Florida said in 1950: "Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the ten commandments and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalogue and the ethics of Jesus . . . No one knew this better than the Founding Fathers."
(Faith and Action, Nov 04, David W. New, Esq. Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004, 6:38:41 PM by Ed Current)
What were Americans supposed to become in the minds of our forefathers? Well, first and foremost, they believed that something divine was at work here. They believed that their union of present states had a destiny to fulfill, and they were right. They believed that all men were created equal, though it took a while for God to reveal that such an equality truly extended to 'all mankind'. If God or the notion of something greater than man had been absent from our Constitution, what would have created the conscience or awareness for true equality? The answer to that question is nothing, of course. There could have been only weak rebellion quashed by domination, death, perhaps extinction, or certainly more oppression. Remember, this is a living document of divine inspiration that human hands penned, and mortal minds concocted with great deliberation. Our founders' words and ideas would resound far beyond their time and ring freedom throughout the world. Therefore American's can be said to be inspired by a higher order than themselves, yet comfortably live in the arms of such an order even if they don't believe in it or are not inspired by it. American's reap what they sow, and though the fortunes have been great, the misfortunes have come with great cost. As a nation, we have suffered with the poor choices we have made. We've made mistakes that only God can truly forgive, and by His grace I believe He has brought beauty from our ugliness. What man corrupts, God or nature, if you will, finds a way to balance, refashion, restore or create new.
American's in general are blessed by God, not chosen by Him. God does His own choosing in His own time. American's at their best, are contagious examples of liberation, individuality and innovation. The reasonable latitude of freedom (free will) experienced in America has spawned generations of creativity. American's are dreamers, who make things where nothing appeared to exist, and then invite those who dream less to share in its success. American's know that such freedom leaves the door wide open to those who envy and despise personal liberty. Like everything in Heaven and on the Earth, freedom will cycle. It will be born of difficult labor, thrive in its naive youth, ache with pains in its old-age, and then certainly die. Ron Reagan envisioned America as a 'Shining City on the Hill'. Its light has drawn people from everywhere who are wanting to experience its great beacon of prosperity. All of this began with a notion of a government 'Of the People, By the People, and For the People'. It has never been perfect, but certainly inspired toward perfection. It has not always been timely, but in time it has justly arrived. So far, it has been the best plan conceived by man to live in greater numbers, while enjoying greater wealth, expressing greater freedom, and experiencing greater health than anywhere on the Earth. Freedom, free-will and liberty, however, are very delicate and can dissolve in an instant. That is the burden of our Constitution. It must deliberate wisely, amend justly, and evolve slowly in order that it not collapse under the periodic changes of Godless leadership, ideological trends, sudden injustice or just plain ignorance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
