What Is Goin’ On?

I see everyone is getting ready for the Democratic Presidential debate Monday night in the great State of South Carolina. SC seems to be just as “Red” as GA is and I cannot help but note that the morons in their legislature passed a ridiculous law last year (or maybe the year before, I forget) that said only experts that were licensed to practice in the State of South Carolina could testify in the courts of SC. What does this mean? Simply, that the most knowledgeable doctor in the world on heart disease or cancer could not testify in the courts of SC unless he applied to the SC medical board for a SC license. The law was so ridiculous (not to mention unconstitutional) that the Supreme Court of SC immediately issued an order essentially suspending the law. So much for SC, but that is not my purpose.

I just happened to be watching CNN and saw some of the video questions that were submitted for the debate. The discussion was about questions of faith and to what extent a candidate would rely on his faith in making decisions. J. C. Watts made a comment something to the effect that a candidate (and thus an elected official) should certainly rely on his faith for guidance in making decisions for the people. I have no idea what that means other than someone prays, gets an answer and acts upon it. That kind of talk is just plain nuts.

I am scared to death of people of faith making political decisions. I don’t even want someone praying and getting an answer as to what I should do. Why would I want to trust them to get the “right” answer on something as important as the federal budget or health care. I can hear it now: “I vetoed universal health care because God told me he would take care of everyone.” Come on J. C., give me a break.

Sorry, J. C., you just need to mind your church business and leave politics alone. People who think faith/religion has a place in American politics has no understanding of where America came from or what it is about.

I cannot say it better than one of our most philosophical Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. We would all do well to read it, memorize it and live it. Jefferson wrote:

[Sec. 1] Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

[Sec. 2] Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

[Sec. 3] And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.