Ellington

Read my lips. The Ten Commandments are not a toy. And the U.S. Constitution isn't an instrument to be manipulated as the political winds shift.But here we go again. On March 8, the Mississippi House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill to allow the Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust" to be placed on public buildings.

Argh. The latest attempt to use the Ten Commandments as a way to get cheap votes sickens and angers me. And this time, it's not just the Mississippi Senate or the governor that are giving me heart palpitations: it's the House of the, er, People. The Mississippi House of Representatives, led by folks I've admired on various issues, such as Rep. Jaimie Franks, of Tupelo.
Don't they get it? Guess not. WLBT reported that Rep. Tommy Reynolds, a Democrat from Water Valley, said: "If anyone can tell me there's harm for posting, or contemplating the blessed (are) the merciful, blessed are the makers, then I want to know about it. That shouldn't offend anyone."
OK, Rep. Reynolds, let's chat. First, though, you need to be more succinct in your language, and lose the passive that hides the real point of this issue. That is, there isn't harm in any of us as individuals posting the Ten Commandments or any other spiritual teaching. (I, personally, have Proverbs 14:31 posted above my desk.) The problem—as you should know as an elected representative of the people—comes in when the state tries to do it. The government. No one is trying to stop anyone from contemplating "Thou Shalt Not Kill." What is at stake is American freedom to continue worshiping how you please.

No one says it better than Thomas Jefferson in his Jan. 1, 1802, "Wall of Separation Letter": "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." Rep. Reynolds, it's quite simple. The First Amendment is framed to protect you and your right to worship as you please—from people such as yourself.

Is it so hard to understand that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the state from requiring or supporting the display of religious texts and symbols of a certain faith in order to protect our freedom to continue worshiping that faith (or any other one)? Don't these lawmakers get that if you want freedom for yourself, you have to be willing to give up the pipe dream that a "free" government is supposed to force everyone else to worship or think the way you do?

Don't they comprehend that the "freedom of religious" clause of the First Amendment is useless without the Establishment Clause to back it up and give it some oomph and enforcement? Don't these politicians of immense faith—or so they want to tell us any chance they get—have the intellectual prowess to fathom just how they are insulting the Ten Commandments, or the Bible, or their Maker, by using them, it and Him/Her as instruments of political pandering? I might even go as far as calling it blasphemy on a particularly ornery day.

Of course, many of them are smart enough to know these things. They studied law, or at least civics, and might even possess some reasoning powers. Take Rep. Jim Evans of Jackson, a minister. He told WLBT: "We're awfully egotistical to think God needs a human being's vote to satisfy His will so bad ... That's not government's business."

Still, and worse to me, way too many elected rubes know that the courts—if it's not packed too quickly by anti-Constitution types—will get their backs by overturning these unconstitutional acts. Those lawmakers probably figure that this is a good way to shore up the God-fearing base, and the courts will clean it all up later (like back in the "laws-against-flag-burning" 1980s). Then they can say that they voted for God and the Bible and faith and all that.

Of course, it's not a vote for those righteous ideas; it's a vote against freedom—the best "F-word" ever. You just can't have freedom if everyone else doesn't. It's not about getting what you want and damn all the rest. It's about respecting differences and knowing that you have to stand up for the other guy's freedoms if you want yours to stay intact. I've said it before, and I'll say it every time a bunch of dumbasses vote against our Constitution: You DON'T MEAN the freedom thang if you can't go find the guy whom you disagree with the most and say that the state can no more censor or control his opinions than it can yours.

A person who believes in American ideals—the actual ones—cannot believe that the government should choose one set of religious beliefs over another. It's not logical. In fact, it's downright ignorant and non-thinking to try to make that argument. Doesn't make sense.

Still, some folks think that voting against the U.S. Constitution now and then is like a little harmless white lie: It doesn't hurt anything, and it might even help, especially if you get re-elected and can go be in solidarity with the poor and take on the money-changers and such.

I'm not buyin' it. And you sure aren't teaching our children well with your hypocrisy over American ideals.

Men like Rep. Evans give me hope, though. He said: "I may get criticism, but it's not from statesmen. Statesmen understand the position I take. Frankly, I can't be concerned with what hypocrites think."

Amen, Brother. You can't be more supportive of religious freedom than that.

Previous Comments

ID

69754

Comment

Donít they get it? Guess not. WLBT reported that Rep. Tommy Reynolds, a Democrat from Water Valley, said: ìIf anyone can tell me thereís harm for posting, or contemplating the blessed (are) the merciful, blessed are the makers, then I want to know about it. That shouldnít offend anyone.î In addition to all the criticisms you offered, Donna: those phrases are from the Beatitudes, part of the Sermon on the Mount. They have nothing to do with the Ten Commandments. Sounds like somebody needs to brush up on his Bible, as well as his US Constitution, before voting on these issues. Best, Tim

Author

Tim Kynerd

Date

2005-03-24T04:01:26-06:00

ID

69755

Comment

It's nice to see that we have a budget surplus from which the inevitable legal fees, arising from the inevitable (successful) court challenge, can be drawn. Oh, wait, we don't have a budget surplus. Never mind. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-03-24T05:05:38-06:00

ID

69756

Comment

Good points, Tim and Tom. Yeah, it's amazing to me that folks are so concerned about lawsuits -- but then go and do stuff that's going to lead directly to lawsuits. And somehow that's OK. Doh.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-24T11:32:49-06:00

ID

69757

Comment

Just in: "10 Commandments" bill passed; sent to Barbour. Good to see the dumb-asses are getting something done this week with education funding hanging in the balance. Sigh. Not to the courts ...

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-30T17:17:45-06:00