CAUTION! Loose Curmudgeon!

I’m feeling particularly curmudgeonly today. Even more curmudgeonly than usual. I am more than a little galled at the relativistic perversion of the US Constitution for… well, for many things. We have lost so much of the meaning of the intent of the Constitution to the whims of relativist judges on activist missions that the meanings have started to be totally inverted from the original intent.

Case in point, the following single sentence amendment, which says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting….. “

Now no matter what follows this statement, the amendment is clearly about Congress; it is about restricting Congress; it is not about anything non-Congress. Nothing whatsoever about non-Congress.

This, of course, is no longer the case. This statement has been “reinterpreted” to mean that it applies to actions outside the Congress, including every private citizen.

Let’s expand the amendment to its logical form:

“Congress shall make no law respecting….. [item a]; [item b]; [item c]; [item d].“

Now do we see any logical difference between the items a through d? Of course not. Is there a semantic issue involved here? No.

Yet one of these items is treated far differently than the other items, in terms of its interpretation, enforcement, and impact on the populace. Which one should we guess gets that different treatment? It is not at all apparent from the amendment itself, which is the law of the land. The logical structure betrays no differences in weights, denotations, connotations or any other clue as to the need to treat one item differently from the others. So what causes the mystery item to be treated to an expansion and inversion of the content of the amendment?

If the answer is not to be found in the law of the land, Constitutional Amendment Number 1, then it must be found in the interpretation given the item due to some quirk of the interpreter that holds the item to be different from the others. In short, an interpretational error which results in an inversion in logic and meaning.

The item in question is – of course – freedom of religion which is being defined: Congress is not to pass a law establishing a National Religion, nor interfering with, free religious exercise:

The Bill Of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …

But now, due to the government control of learning, the arrival of a child at school with, let's say, a cross on the tee shirt, is deemed to be a case where obviously Congress has just passed a law establishing a religion. This is no longer considered absurd; to the relativist it is logic.

Even more egregious is the use of taxpayer money through the ACLU to defend certain “science” agendas from having to admit that the “unifying theory” of that science is not only NOT empirically proven, it is a belief system based on speculation and inference, and does not impact the operation of the main part of that science in any way. I am talking about evolution of course, and its belief system being exclusively propagandized through the government school system and enforced by Federal Courts.

Now have I at any point said anything about creationism? Young earth? The bible? The Qur’an? God? Jesus? Muhammed? Buddha? Ganesha? Intelligent Design?

No?

Then why should I be called a creationist? The only reason would be to attempt to diminish the impact of my concern about the validity of the science and its impact on society. The term, “creationist” is now an expletive amongst the evolutionarily bent. It is evolution’s equivalent of “racist”.

My curmudgeony is fully derived form the obvious fact that the faulty interpretation of the First Amendment is actually an establishment of relativism and Philosophical Materialism into the American society via the government schools. This arouses a certain fiery anger in me.

As do the constant lawsuits against religious symbols, religious organizations and the presumed illegality of religious leaders to speak against government corruption in politics, etc. It is up to the religious to defend themselves from these attacks, of course. But my tax dollar, through the ACLU, is used against them.

The inherent fairness in the original, unperverted statement restricting only Congress is lost in the cultural war of relativism against all absolutes. With the three branches of the US Government totally controlled by rabid relativists there is not much that legally can be done.

Other curmudgeons are now talking “tea parties” and secession, not to mention a brewing internal war. My own hope is that the government collapses under the weight of its own relativist confusion before this comes to pass.

Here’s a question that’s been bothering me: Which of the following is a valid statement?

a) Humans are endowed with certain inalienable rights.
b) Humans are not endowed with certain inalienable rights.

Now, b) is more parsimonious than a), because the thought train stops immediately after having chosen b); is there nothing left to say about it?

However, if a) is chosen, questions immediately arise. First, how are inalienable rights “endowed”? And second by what authority are inalienable rights endowed? Third, by what means am I allowed to make the decision between a) and b)?

The endowment of inalienable rights presumes the Creator recognized in the third paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. So if a) is chosen, then a Creator is recognized.

But Obama has publicly refuted this in favor of the restrictions of “Positive Rights”, allowing humans only those rights which he specifies that are available to them. Obama has effectively replaced the Creator with himself. The power to endow - or dis-endow - rights to humans is now in the divine hands of the relativist-in-chief.

Of course Obama now openly declares, “I Am. The One. Who Won.”

I might be curmudgeony for some time to come.