Posted 1 year, 5 months ago in 
Loading ...
Local atheists demand that the Grand Junction City Council not begin public meetings with an invocation prayer as such action make them feel left out and excluded. The First Amendment to the constitution guarantees freedom “of” religion, not freedom “from” religion.
The amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … .” These words were penned at a time when governments typically established the type and method of religion practiced and even required loyalty oaths to a particular denomination for government jobs.
The framers of our Constitution were religious men and overwhelmingly Christian, who sought to protect the individuals’ right to worship God according to their own conscience. The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution or any other founding document of this nation.
The First Amendment protects these atheists’ right to not participate in the prayer. Most current restriction on prayer represents a misguided attempt to not offend anyone, or at least no one considered a minority. Prohibiting the opening prayer clearly infringes on the majority’s right to freely practice their religion as what could be more fundamental to a believer than asking for guidance in the exercise of public policy.
If atheists do not believe in prayer, how can it hurt? In as much as our local atheist feel left out, this is a self exclusion. Most people of faith would agree that belief in a higher power is far more fulfilling than non-belief. Therefore, atheists are left out, excluded by their own choice.
KENNETH BROWNLEE
Grand Junction
8 Responses to “Founders gave us freedom of religion, not freedom from religion”
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 2:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Depending upon one’s perspective yes, it does also provide us “from” religion, if not directly then from the effects of one religion, denomination or sect. While it may be difficult for some to comprehend, it is not really those themselves that are the problems, it is their real or potential efffects.
We realize that many (our resident zealoes) simply “will not” or “cannot” accept that truth, but it is true nonetheless. A classic case of one who does not is none other than the Archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput.
That was evident in one of his statements (quoted in The Colorado Statesman) that “Religion and politics together like bacon and eggs.” “Me thinks” that the good Archbishop did not think through his analogy. “Me thinks” that the good Archbishop did not think through his analogy.
Had he done so, he would have recognized that although both, bacon and eggs, may be on one plate (along with other things), that they are total and separate entities. One does not create “bacon and eggs” by mating a chicken and a boar or a sow and rooster. They are to be combined and placed upon the palate, but by the free and independent choice of the individual.
What one chooses to consume, be it on a plate or elsewhere, has to be by one’s own choice or, it has absolutely no meaning. We are not children to be directed to consume what others place in front of us even if some, in their “all-knowing” wisdom and arrogance, believe they know what is “good” for everyone else.
So, yes, one does have the right to be free “from” any and all religions as well as all of their real or potential effects. Those who choose otherwise also have the freedom to choose.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 8:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And yet ANOTHER letter writer who does not understand where the concept of separation of church and state is. Mr. Brownlee, do you think this is something “the atheists” just made up? The mass ignorance is getting very thick, old, and moldy.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 8:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
sorry the first sentence should end “… does not understand where the concept of separation of church and state CAME FROM.”
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 9:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You got that right Ashhugger. Most of the letter writers act as if they had never heard of Thomas Jefferson and the many supreme court decisions later on which supported his concept of the separation of Church and State. They need a good lesson in U.S. history (I may try this in my next Free Press column if the topic is still hot in two weeks).
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 9:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You are certainly correct on that point Ashhugger. Most of the letter writers act as though they had never heard of Thomas Jefferson and the many court ddecisions which later supported his concept of the separation of Church and State. They need a good lesson in U.S. history. I may try this in my next Free Press column if the topic is still relevant in the next two weeks.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 9:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52, that would be great. I REALLY liked your column this week by the way. It was just perfect and really needed to be said.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 10:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thank you Ashhugger. I had expected all kinds of negative reaction from the usual suspects in the Valley (and it may still happen), but so far I have had only compliments. In some ways this is kind of disappointing since I would like to hear some good arguments on the other side which make use of logic and data not religious bigotry. Some one could argue for example that the twin studies are not convincing as evidence for a genetic component in homosexuality because identical twins really have a much more similar environment than fraternal twins, even being dressed identically in many cases. This is an argument into which both sides could really sink their teeth and the exploration would probably teach us all something.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 10:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52 has an excellent idea about addressing the abhorent lack of knowledge about history, even American history. It might also be important to expound as to what “history” really is.
Some of us who have been studying it for some time look at it as the “memory” of humanity. And, as the individual could not possibly survive without memory, it is also true that mankind cannot, and will not, without it. That is, unless it wishes to remain in a primitive state, always solving the same “problems”, over and over.
Neither is history but a series of dates, personalities or events. While those are important as guideposts, what is really important is “why” things occured. And determining that is pretty much a life’s work, even when restricting the scope of study to even a fairly short period of time. Some of us really enjoy the journey and consider it quite rewarding, while others may not. The latter however is not an excuse for not knowing it.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.