"The frustrating thing for the great majority of Americans who support and understand the special importance of religion in the national life -- the frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom, and openmindedness. Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? They refuse to tolerate its importance in our lives." ~ Ronald Reagan
The First Amendment of the US Constitution is under attack from many quarters, special interest groups, atheists and religions antithetical to the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of our nation. If we are to retain our rights, we must address these groups and their agendas head on. This includes activist judges and the rulings they send down from the bench. To allow the rulings of activists and their minions to influence and subvert our rights as citizens must be overcome.
From childhood I was taught that my rights ended at the end of my nose; that if I were to try to exceed that parameter, I was likely impinging on the rights of another. When the rights of one are denied, the rights of all are at risk. Does this not explain the standard by which we should expect the rule of law to pertain to the rights of all?
Without taking sides in any of the arguments advanced to justify these rulings, I find it appalling that small businesses are threatened with ruin if they fail to adhere to these casuistic rulings. Does not the right to refuse service that denigrates ones personal beliefs exist? To rule in order to satisfy the whims of what appears an unsupportable demand goes beyond the pale of civility and/or the law.
Where in all the state and federal statutes does it state that one group’s beliefs are allowed to trump the beliefs and rights of another? To my knowledge no such statute exists. So where does an activist judiciary find the justification to allow such abuses to occur? In the US Constitution and in many state Constitutions there exists a remedy to stop activist jurists and the rulings that force people to act against their beliefs. It is called impeachment; must we resort to such drastic measures to rein in an out of control judiciary? It is my hope that these judges with their unsupportable views can be persuaded to rescind these rulings without the need for such coercive action.
Walter Mow 2015
The First Amendment of the US Constitution is under attack from many quarters, special interest groups, atheists and religions antithetical to the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of our nation. If we are to retain our rights, we must address these groups and their agendas head on. This includes activist judges and the rulings they send down from the bench. To allow the rulings of activists and their minions to influence and subvert our rights as citizens must be overcome.
From childhood I was taught that my rights ended at the end of my nose; that if I were to try to exceed that parameter, I was likely impinging on the rights of another. When the rights of one are denied, the rights of all are at risk. Does this not explain the standard by which we should expect the rule of law to pertain to the rights of all?
Without taking sides in any of the arguments advanced to justify these rulings, I find it appalling that small businesses are threatened with ruin if they fail to adhere to these casuistic rulings. Does not the right to refuse service that denigrates ones personal beliefs exist? To rule in order to satisfy the whims of what appears an unsupportable demand goes beyond the pale of civility and/or the law.
Where in all the state and federal statutes does it state that one group’s beliefs are allowed to trump the beliefs and rights of another? To my knowledge no such statute exists. So where does an activist judiciary find the justification to allow such abuses to occur? In the US Constitution and in many state Constitutions there exists a remedy to stop activist jurists and the rulings that force people to act against their beliefs. It is called impeachment; must we resort to such drastic measures to rein in an out of control judiciary? It is my hope that these judges with their unsupportable views can be persuaded to rescind these rulings without the need for such coercive action.
Walter Mow 2015
Right on.
ReplyDeleteImpeachment is far less drastic than what will happen if we follow our present path much longer. I wish I could believe that judges will return to the Constitution, but as a Louis L'Amour character remarked in "Radigan", "The sign don't read for peace."