While this blog is in place to address principles and current events from an ordinary Americans perspective; I would like to take a quick moment to introduce an organization created to address a local issue caused by the City Councils poor decision to appoint Parvez Ahmed to the Human Rights Council in Jacksonville. The organization is called “Pray On Jax” and it’s web site can be found at:
http://www.prayonjax.org/
After this poorly considered vote to appoint Ahmed, the American Civil Liberties Union quickly contacted the Council insisting it cease from it’s practice of having it’s Chaplain lead the council in prayer. The ACLU was quick to offer that prayer is wrong, but if it’s going to happen, then the prayers of the many faiths should be offered. This indicates to Morning in America that the concern isn’t the legality of prayer, but the opinion that all the prayers of all the faiths should be offered at the same time. This is one more example of political correctness gone awry.
Prayonjax.org offers the following Press Release:
There comes a time when ordinary Americans must make extraordinary steps to preserve their freedoms; and subsequently, their nation. Pray On Jax! was established for that purpose.
To address the constant barrage of those who intend to characterise those who pray as “ignorant”, “simple” or “anti-American” praying Americans must take their stand and declare “ENOUGH”.
We assert the proposition that the First Amendment to the Constitution is established to preserve religious freedoms of Americans.- not to protect the sensitivities of those who aren’t.
Jerry Skirvin, and Jim Davis created this organization with the understanding that Americas’ freedoms aren’t derived by the U.S. Constitution, but by the Creator Himself. The Constitution is the merely the assertion of those rights; and the assertions are clear.
Pray On Jax is created specifically to stand against religious bigotry by those who mean to impede the inalienable rights this great nation was founded to preserve.
The organization is alerting citizens, and gathering petitions of support for prayer at City Council meetings. Pray on Jax has also contacted a national legal defense organization; which has already been in contact with Jacksonvilles’ leadership.
Pray on Jax! and it’s members proudly stand as defenders of the Constitutions’ First Amendment. We are galvanized, and we will defend these guaranteed rights.
Please join us at http://www.prayonjax.org/
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Many who have bastardized the meanings of the Constitution have postulated that the Establishment Clause establishes a paradigm of zero tolerance of any refference to God. We know this isn’t the intention of the clause because the Declaration of Independence acknowledge not only that there is a Deity; but that our rights as humans are based on the pattern of His Creation. The correct conclusion is these rights are not granted by governments: but they are “God-given” rights and anyone who violates them offends God Himself.
The failure of the judicial bigots is to acknowledge that fact. Failure to do so illustrates that very bigotry. They fail to balance the Establishment with the Free Exersise Clause.
“The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Together with the Free Exercise Clause (“… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”), these two clauses make up what are commonly said as the “religion clauses” of the First Amendment.
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another. The first approach is called the “separation” or “no aid” interpretation, while the second approach is called the “non-preferential” or “accommodation” interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government’s entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.
-wiki
“James Madison’s original wording of the religious portion of our current first amendment read, “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.” (Congressional Register, I, 423-37 and Gazette of the US., 10 and 13 June 1789)
His writing was informed by the history and experiences of his time, but the debates today about religious liberty are little changed from the ones he knew in the late 18th century.”
http://k12subjectguides.suite101.com/article.cfm/understanding_the_history_of_the_first_amendment
When one wants to determine the intention of a writing, they must determine three things:
1. Who wrote the document
This allows for inflection of personality, time frames, and the writers reputation.
2. To whom the document was written.
What is the relationship between to two parties.
3. Why the document was written.
One should understand what were the circumstances that caused to document to be penned originally.
When one addresses these three question surrounding a document, the correct interpretation will be attainable. Using these questions, the intention of the First Amendment is evident:
The First Amendment was added to the Constitution because there was concern that
1) A state religion should never be enacted (as in England and Germany).
2) Personal religion is a right, and shall not be denied to any person under the protection of the United States.
The intent was never to deny the Creator, but to repect the desire, indeed the need; to acknowlege that Creator from the individuals own understanding.
This includes Public Servants.
Since I first started covering the Ahmed appointment, and further as I’ve supported the idea of standing for the First Amendment rights of City Council members; I’ve recieved some cryptic messages as responses.
Those replies aren’t posted because they aren’t in english, and that makes them “spam”. Having said that, let me explain something.
I don’t have a problem with anyone choosing their religion. As long as that religion doesn’t posture itself as an enemy of other religions: then I say enjoy the freedom of America.
In the catacombs under the city of Rome, Jews and Christians co-habitated (hence the the epistle tothe Romans, and the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament). The first church was tolerant of different ideas. They may have disagreed doctrinally, but they were tolerant of each other. This is a good model to emulate.
Moving forward to America:
America is founded on religious freedom. The First Amendment itself is based on the freedom to express ones religious beliefs- the rest of the “press” ride piggy-back on those rights.
I do have a problem with a religion that says all others are physical, temporal enemies- and should be warned, then killed for rejecting that religion. This is contrary to the American ideals, to the purpose of creating religious freedom in the new world, and the idea that each person has the God-given right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
If someone changes from one religion to another and that gives them happiness: fine. If they believe in their message so strongly that they want to share it: that’s fine as well. But when someone rejects that religion, and that decision makes him a target: then we have a problem.
I have personal issues with Islam as I understand it, but until the religion violates someone elses rights: I support the right to practice it.
You should be just as tolerant.