The Issues Part II

Separation of Church and State

This seems to be one of the most controversial subjects a politician can face, right along with abortion. Our Constitution specifically states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This means that the Federal Government stays out of it. Notice I said Federal. The State Governments can do as they please, as long as it’s within the confines of their own Constitutions. State Governments can even name a religion to be the State religion if their individual State Constitutions allow it. What this also means is that all of these special interest groups that want to bring suit to school boards for allowing prayer in school or a benediction during a graduation, can not use the Constitution as their argument. In fact when the proponents of this so-called separation file their law suits they are pushing their religious, or non-religious, beliefs on the rest of us, exactly what they are trying to use as their number one argument.

I have heard a recent argument that questions whether this protects Shria Law cases since they are tied to religious beliefs. Once again Congress can make no law in either direction; therefore it again falls to the States and their laws. Since most of the Shria Law cases involve honor killings this falls more into the criminal laws of a state and of our Nation. The observance and practice of the Muslim religion should be protected in this country as long as it does not violate natural law, meaning it does not cause physical harm to others.

As for history and the basis for our countries laws and Constitution, well, although there are questions about the faith of some of our founders, they all agreed on the strong Christian foundation for building our country, its Constitution, and its laws. This was in no way intended to discourage other religions, in fact our founders wanted to ensure there would be no suppression of any religious beliefs, unlike England at that time.

Abortion and Gay Marriage

I have yet to figure out why the Federal Government is involved in either abortion of gay marriage. I’ll take the easier one first, gay marriage.

There is nothing in the Constitution that talks about marriage, gay or otherwise. Marriage should simply be between the people involved and their church. Marriage is a religious matter, wait, isn’t there something in the Bill of Rights about Congress making no law etc… where religion is concerned? Once again if a State feels that gay marriage is something that will harm their State then they can make laws in accordance with their Constitutions that either prohibit or allow gay marriage. That’s the way it should work, in fact California passed a Constitutional Amendment that stated marriage was between a man and a woman and a Supreme Court Judge put a ban on that Amendment. The Supreme Court stated that the Amendment was a violation of the Constitution when I would argue that the Judge was violating one if not two Amendments of the United States Constitution by stopping the Amendment.

Some would read this and think that I am trying to defend gay marriage, nope, not at all. I’m trying to defend the Constitution and States rights. I will admit that I have no issue with the union of two people regardless of same or different sex as long as they are consenting adults, just do not push your views on me, just like religion. I will even argue that the reason the Government is involved in the issue of marriage at all is for money and control. The Government developed the marriage license to prevent the marriage between blacks and whites. The practice continued so the Government could control who they thought should or should not be allowed to marry and thus have children. Does this sound like control to you? Does this sound similar to another Government in the early 1900’s? I would also argue that lobbyist for the insurance profession has had a lot to do with defining marriage and making it a Government issue. Try listing someone of the same sex that is not a blood relative as a beneficiary on an insurance policy. Marriage is not a protection for spouses that become dependent or on children that come from the union, ever heard of palimony and child support for unwed mothers? So why is the Government involved in the issue of marriage?

Abortion is another one that is a tough and touchy subject for anyone, politician or not. The long standing argument for the pro-abortion side has been the mothers’ rights. On the pro-life side the argument has been that life begins at conception. I’m still unsure of exactly where I fall on when life begins but I am pro-life, I disclose this so everyone knows where my arguments come from. Instead of arguing about when life begins why aren’t we talking about what has happened to the morals of our young men and women?

Much to the chagrin of many, sex was for the procreation of life, not for entertainment. I’m not preaching against sex, I’m preaching against sex without accepting the consequences. Abortion is all too often being used to take care of unwanted pregnancies brought about by out of wedlock sex. Liberal thinkers argue that instead of our schools teaching abstinence they are teaching our children how to use condoms and teaching them that there is no problem having underage and out of wedlock sexual relationships. Liberal thinkers often argue that it is not even the parents right to know about the pregnancies or the abortions that may come about. Isn’t it about time that we teach responsibility and consequences instead of teaching children how to be irresponsible and how easy it is take care of the problem. Unfortunately even our President has stated that he would not want his daughters saddled with an unwanted pregnancy.

I will admit that I am a fence sitter when it comes to the question of abortion in cases or rape, incest or for the life of the mother. I tend to believe that these areas fall into the gray area that only Doctors and the patient should decide on. Everyday people are making decisions about taking life for medical reasons. We decided on who will or will not receive an organ transplant and we decide whether or not to discontinue life support for patients that have little to no chances of recovery. One amusing thing to me is that so many that believe in pro-life believe in the death penalty while so many on the pro-choice side are against the death penalty. So, it’s one way at the beginning of a life and the other at the end, doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Yes, I believe in the death penalty for most cases.

Once again the question comes back to whether the Government should have any say in abortion. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Government the power to rule on abortion. Abortion is an issue of natural law. If you believe the science that states that life begins at conception, well then the law says murder is illegal.