|
|
U.S. government is not secular |
|
May 21, 2012
In your editorial of the May 14 Reminder, regarding the issue of homosexual marriage, you stated that "a secular government should not restrict marriage between two adults." There is nothing in the Constitution that establishes a "secular" government. In fact, the majority of the founders, and the American people, believed in God and still do. The First Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The idea of "a wall of separation between church and state" was not in the Constitution. I believe it first appeared in a letter written by [Thomas] Jefferson. The Left has been very successful in it's attempts to instill Jefferson's phrase into the minds of many Americans as though it were the bedrock of the first amendment. (Thank you American education.)
Secondly, states have every right to make laws regarding issues of morality, as it has on pornography, prostitution, etc. These laws are based on moral values that have been established by every major religion for thousands of years. Marriage between one man and one woman is one such issue. Every time the issue has been taken out of the hands of liberal, activist judges, and put to a vote by the people, homosexual marriage has failed. Polls show that it would fail by a large margin in Massachusetts too. Equal protection for all individuals, yes. Redefine marriage, no!
Don Crossman
East Longmeadow
|
Comments From Our Readers:
Steve
5/23/2012
9:47:22 AM
|
Marraige is just a contract stating that you will essentially share assets with someone. It has bery little to do with god or religeon of any sort in todays world. Why restrict it? Does it pain you to see that two people can be happy together, even though they are of the same gender? And does the fact that they are willing to make the legal contract to share everything they own disturb you? I'm not sure that it will do you any financial, physical, or emotional harm. |
pguidrey
5/29/2012
3:18:18 PM
|
Have I misinterpreted the 1st Amendment? Is it confirmation of a religious state? The quotation "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" certainly doesn't indicate any such purpose. In fact, the founders clearly realized that the "British Model" of an established church, sanctioned by the state, was not to be repeated in North America. Although it wasn't looking to restrict people's faith and spirituality, the government was not to be in the "religion business". I'm not quite sure how it can be read any other way. The next line about not "prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." simply reinforces this idea [no one faith] by encouraging and protecting all creeds; the more the merrier. The thought here being that competing multiple religious factions (such as Congregationalist, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, Jewish, Catholic and Quakers, to name a few) would never allow one to dominate. If our government isn't secular, can we at least try to agree that it is "neutral", perhaps? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
