I should have gone out and gotten a New York Times, but I didn’t, so I have to address this issue without all the pertinent facts. I was passing the TV the other day and a Congressman, whom I did not recognize, was talking about an amendment to the Constitution. Apparently, he is introducing a bill to that end, the said amendment being to ensure the free practice of religion. I have seen no mention of this in the local paper - for whatever reason, so I can’t give the bill number or the introducer’s name.

But haven’t we come to a pretty pass with this introduction? It should be ridiculous, since this freedom is already guaranteed in the First Amendment. But even though it seems ridiculous at first glance, it really isn’t. We all know what the various courts have done to our freedom to practice religion.

I am not a proponent, by any stretch of the imagination, of teaching religion in public institutions. I believe that is best left to churches and parents. I do believe, however, that children benefit from some acknowledgement of a power higher than themselves. I believe it makes them feel more secure and not quite as helpless in what can be a very cruel world.

I believe that it is also advantageous to adults to acknowledge a higher power, but for a totally different reason. Adults tend to get slightly overheated egos without the humbling effect of an almighty. They also tend to stray from good behavior, more so than children because they have more experience in bad behavior.

I am always saddened these days when I attend or watch a patriotic event. We no longer sing "God Bless America" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" or any other of the great old anthems that attributed a certain amount of power or credit for our success to any other than ourselves. We do still get by with "America the Beautiful" even though it asks God to shed his grace on us. I fully expect the lyrics to be changed and new song sheets handed out one bleak Fourth of July.

Most children cannot sing these songs, nor can they recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Only a few of our Olympic athletes, standing so proudly on the podium, seem to know the words to the National Anthem. It is this type of tradition-empty, valueless approach to young life that seems to have bothered this Congressman. He wanted to let children express themselves about their religion - very briefly and not in a proselytizing manner - if they asked to do so in school. It could be a prayer, a song, or whatever, but everyone who wanted it would be given equal time.

I thought it seemed fairly pathetic that people are considering amending the Constitution just to get a word in edgewise about a higher being, when we are daily subjected to language so vulgar that it stands my hair on end - and this is considered freedom of speech. Will it pollute young ears more to hear someone mention his or her belief in God (whichever God they may choose) than to hear song lyrics that advocate all types of violence and sexual mayhem?

How can one very offensive type of speech be protected and a perfectly innocuous type of speech be completely muzzled under the banner of one Amendment? If there were a real threat of Congress making a law establishing a religion, I might be able to understand this madness, but the only law that has been made is the ever-present and very insidious law made by the Supreme Court and by federal regulation. These two bodies have usurped Congress’s authority for decades now. Law by judges and bureaucrats.

When all these people are screaming about things being unconstitutional, why don’t they look into how the main body of our law has been constructed since the fifties? Lawmaking is the province of Congress, which has made no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Now I realize that "Free Exercise" in the hands of some can get totally out of hand, as witness some of the terrorist tactics used by some (not all) Pro-Lifers. Nothing is done about some real abuses there, some serious trampling on the rights of others.

Is it because the bureaucrats still haven’t figured out how to claim that the streets are their territory, as they have done with the schools? We don’t need another amendment to the Constitution. What we need is for average citizens to begin demanding that the original be followed. We need many and very loud voices demanding as much freedom of speech for religion as for filth. We need many and loud voices demanding that federal regulations - every one of them - be gone over by Congress and agreed upon or done away with completely. We need many and loud voices demanding that the federal court system get out of the business of passing "case law" by the bushel basket and get back to the business of adjudicating.

If we had five good citizens who were as loud and obnoxious as Larry Flynt (of Hustler fame for those in the dark), we might be able to reestablish some common sense in our system. There is another adage that says that people get the government they deserve. That may be true, but I, for one, am a little tired of the government that too many other people have "deserved" for me. We can take our lives back from the government, but not if everyone is willing to let someone else do all the work. In a very few more years, government power will be so pervasive that there will be no way to take our lives back. I will probably be gone by that time, but my children and grandchildren deserve a better life. So do yours. DBJ

For more Delta Business info, Subscribe Now!

View Archives

../issues/current/articles/index.htm

Site last updated January 10, 1999.