A writer inspects the Constitution vs religion...

From a writer:

Those "letters" to the editor by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton that became The Federalist Papers are marvelous reading about original intent. I am not reader enough to have read them all, but I have read widely on this subject, years ago out of curiosity and recently because I constructed a portion of a class around the "intelligent design" controversy.

James Madison, who wrote the First Amendment, was nothing if not clear about the amendment's intent. The Founders knew perfectly well that citizens would fight their good fight over religion before anything else, and the fight would involve power, not truth. They knew perfectly well that the history of the modern (2500 years) species is far more soaked in the blood of religious power than the sovereignty of any nation-state. People will die to spread their religion far more enthusiastically than they will risk for their country. The Founders knew that. They lived with it, and they were the intelligentsia of the day, which means they read its history. Madison was its champion.

Here is the myth so forcefully promulgated by people whose commitment is to their religion rather than to the integrity of their country: "You have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." The Mt. Soledad cross controversy rests on that myth, as does the Delaware controversy, the famous "monkey trial," and most of the rest. The myth is a purposeful disinformation ploy, for we do not have the freedom to practice as we wish (not to practice is to practice as we wish) if we are required to adhere to or observe beliefs, rules, or icons of any other religion.

Period!

In Delaware the controversy between reference to "god" or "Jesus" is a false one, for both compromise each of our freedom to practice as we wish. Any observance, any reference to belief, any positioning of any icon, by any agency of government, at any level, for any reason, violates the original intent of the First Amendment.

The only controversy here is the one manufactured by religionists whose best interest rests on initiating ambiguity and keeping the ambiguity alive. There is no ambiguity. We ought not negotiate as though there were.

Leif

Wrap...