If asked what the sum of 1 and 2 is, one would most likely answer 3. Not rocket science. No one would argue that. Right? Well, there are myriad other types of similarly easy to conceive statements which oftentimes become distorted in semantics. Take for instance, the rhetoric that “the words ‘Separation of Church and State’ appears nowhere in the Constitution”. Well, of course it doesn’t. Neither does the number 3 ever appear in the mathematical equation of 1 + 2. That’s a conclusion drawn from putting 1 and 2 together—from reading those two characters and understanding what the sum of their values represent.
Words also consist of characters—they’re called letters. Moreover, when reading a statement, or a series of statements within the same context, the sum becomes clearly visible through the equation of the meanings from every word therein. Wherein, one reaches the total sum of a rational, logical thought process—which can be difficult to reach if the material is ambiguous and flawed, as has been the case with The Bill of Rights. So flawed in the initially only 10 amendments to the United States Constitution, that another 17 had to be added, the last of which was added in 1992 for a total today of 27.
This is what happens when statements are open to interpretation. Take for instance the following statement: 2+2x8-3+4÷3. There are completely different answers one can conclude from that statement. It could’ve been written like this instead: 2+(2x8)–(3+4)÷3, or like this: (2+2)x8–(3+4)÷3, etc. The statement should be specific.
Of course, there are many citizens steadfast against the creation of those additional amendments, and would have preferred leaving everything up to interpretation. After all, many Americans preferred slavery over equality, and for women to remain the property of their husbands (unable to vote), etc. The Supreme Court of our past declared: "Blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." Blacks could be whipped, branded, imprisoned without trial, hanged, whatever. In my opinion, that’s just sick. Still, many disagree and have different opinions of civil and religious liberties, and insist on America not deviating from the traditional methods they envision was the intent of America’s Founding Fathers. Certainly, they preferred to keep the status quo. Since, obviously, those liberties apply in their favor, and at the expense of others. Nonetheless, I respect their opinion. However, do they respect the opinions of others?
Thomas Jefferson once said, "Every difference of opinion is not a difference in principle." However, it does seem that of the many striving for political power in our nation, most are dishonest and pandering to the self-serving interests of as many as they can. Hence, my point here is that if opinion is the sum of dishonesty, then there is no principle—only the intent to mislead. And that, I do not respect.
James Madison, the Father of the Bill of Rights, I believe understood the scoundrel nature of man. I believe that the intent of the scoundrel is to divide and conquer for one’s own edification and eminent power, and I strongly suspect that James Madison felt the same. Thus, he made the concept of separation between church and state very clear when articulating the First Amendment's protection of religious liberty, in saying that the First Amendment to the Constitution was prompted because "The people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform." So that citizens would not use religion to dismantle the government and turn the leadership thereof and the citizens therein against one other through their own divisive nature in the establishment of their myriad religions and diverging denominations, all of whom could ultimately end up on a collision course.
Moreover, the Bill of Rights is for all citizens to have equal rights, not just for any one particular religion or denomination to establish preeminence over all others. Otherwise, it would’ve been clearly stated in our Constitution that a particular religion and a particular denomination would be held superior to all others. But it wasn’t. Here is what the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Without our Bill of Rights, and the Separation of Church and State, someone like Hitler could have easily risen to power here in our own nation, as had happened in Germany, using religion to purport the rule of law and the desire of government. I point this out to illustrate that just because one presents himself as a religious man, doesn’t mean he is a good man. Anyone can call himself a man of God.
Hitler was raised a Catholic. In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler made numerous religious pronouncements. In his rise to power, Hitler promoted a "positive Christianity" purged of Judaism and instilled with Nazi philosophy. As you see, anyone can make a religious pronouncement. Research "The Day of Potsdam and the Enabling Act." Discover how Hitler manipulated democracy by gaining the support of the Catholic Centre Party in initiating negotiations for the Reichskonkordat (a treaty between the Catholic Church and the German Reich), which became pivotal to his achieving legislative and executive power; hence reaching a position to suppress the remaining political opposition, and ultimately securing supreme political power over Germany. Hitler was elected democratically. Democratically, being the operative word here.
Here, pay attention to how Hitler had used Christianity in his rhetoric to gain influence over German citizens: "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."—Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
Blah blah blah…sound like a bunch of sanctimonious BS to you? That’s because it is. Hitler used Christianity for his own political gain, hijacking the faith of so many devout servants of God (the Catholics), and ultimately exterminating millions of God’s own people (the Jews). This is sickening. (There is a huge range of emotions running through me right now, as probably yourself as well. So, take a moment to reflect on it.)
Now…these days, politicians are very cautious in the words they use to inspire political influence with religious rhetoric. Still, time and time again, certain politicians seem unable to resist the urge to use the church for their own political gain and influence. Given the history of humankind and religion, this should speak volumes to you. So, listen, and be vigilant for any signs of a scoundrel nature in the conduct of politicians. Politicians who cannot make a case without villainizing their opponents, should give you pause. Villainizing others is usually a method used to take attention off the real issues of which Americans should be most concerned.
Now…these days, politicians are very cautious in the words they use to inspire political influence with religious rhetoric. Still, time and time again, certain politicians seem unable to resist the urge to use the church for their own political gain and influence. Given the history of humankind and religion, this should speak volumes to you. So, listen, and be vigilant for any signs of a scoundrel nature in the conduct of politicians. Politicians who cannot make a case without villainizing their opponents, should give you pause. Villainizing others is usually a method used to take attention off the real issues of which Americans should be most concerned.
If the Separation of Church and State went both ways—as it should!—perhaps Americans wouldn’t be instilled with so much fear, anger, and prejudice. Today we see Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum cutting each other down to pieces. I wouldn’t be surprised if Ron Paul ends up running independent to steal some of the Democrat vote and ultimately sabotage democracy for the GOP. They’re going to need a lot more than just rhetoric over the contraception mandate in order to outwit Catholic voters with their semantics over religious liberties. This issue is a no-brainer. For some reason they just can’t see what’ll happen once you add a little clarity and perspective to the picture, like (1 +2) x (1 +2) x (1 +2)÷3.
Be a lover, not a hater, and your eyes will open wide....
