The First, and Second Amendments, are arguably the two most important amendments to the Constitution, and yet they are the most abused, maligned and controversial of all the amendments. The problem, is that courts have been trying to interpret the Constitution to make it conform to bad laws, when they should have been analyzing said laws to ensure they conformed to the Constitution. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are no more open to interpretation than the Ten Commandments. See the PREAMBLE to the Bill of Rights. Were you even aware that one existed?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Let's break this amendment down into its separate phrases, look at each one in some detail, and perhaps we can come to a better understanding of the whole.

"Congress shall make no law..." Five little words at the beginning of the very first amendment, forbidding the government from infringing, restricting, or diminishing our rights in any way.

The first two things the government is forbidden to touch, have to do with religion. Let's see what they are.

The first phrase reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Remember these amendments mean exactly what they say, no more, no less. Now let's break that down into its component parts.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," Could it be any simpler? It says that the government cannot ESTABLISH a religion. This means that the government cannot name any one religion as the official American state religion, PERIOD! Its as simple as that. By allowing a religious group to use a government facility for church functions or services is not an establishment of religion as long as all religious groups have the same opportunity to use the facilities. (The Supreme Court has ruled that the "recognition" of a religion does not constitute "establishment.")

While the government cannot name any religion the "official" religion, we must recognize that this great country was founded on Christian principles. It wasn't founded on Islamic principles, or those of the Hindus, or even athiests. Had it been, there would have been no religious tolerance at all, and possibly no religion (read that Christianity) period, which seems to be the goal of the ACLU.

Speaking of atheists, as I just pointed out, the first clause of the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:.." That means the free exercise "OF RELIGION." As atheism is a total lack of religious belief, and a rejection of all things supernatural, it cannot be exercised as a religion. You can't exercise "NOTHING." For that reason, it would seem that atheism isn't protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

NOTE: In another case of "Courts Gone Wild," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals declared Atheism a "belief system" and is therefore protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and that my friends is simply another pile of liberal crap! The First Amendment protects "Religion" not "belief systems," However, as long as the court says "belief systems" are protected by the First Amendment, I believe I'll have another beer.

For those who do practice a religion, it is because of Christian tolerance that you can practice the religion of your choice. While our Founding Fathers were not "religious" men, they believed in the Judeo-Christian God and the teachings of Jesus. For that, you should be thankful.

"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." We're still talking about religion here, so there can be no limitations put on the free exercise of religion, any religion, anywhere, at anytime, by anyone in the government. PERIOD! This includes all government property and all public schools. By placing no limitations on which religions may use these facilities, all possibility of the government seeming to favor any one religion would be eliminated.

By banning prayer in schools, prohibiting the use of government facilities by religious groups and banning the Ten Commandments from public view in government buildings, the government apparently has done exactly what the Constitution says it cannot, and that is place restrictions on the free exercise of religion, and that would seem to be unconstitutional.

"Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech..." The definition of speech is: "The act of expressing or communicating thoughts and feelings by SPOKEN words." Spoken words PERIOD! No more, no less. It says nothing of destructive acts such as burning the flag, or any other form of non-verbal expression. None of these "other things" qualify as speech and laws recognizing them as such must be considered unconstitutional.

There are no restrictions on the use of speech, and it says the government shall make no laws restricting free speech, PERIOD! Admittedly, some spoken words are offensive to certain individuals, or certain groups. I too find a number of words offensive, but they must be allowed, or soon we will find that simply criticizing the actions of elected officials will be considered "HATE CRIMES" and no longer allowed. Being able to criticize your government, without fear of reprisal, is what this part of the First Amendment is all about. Besides, people who use offensive words are either ignorant, or they are looking for trouble. In either case you should demonstrate your moral superiority by simply ignoring them.

"...or of the press..." This of course refers to the PRINTED word, not only newspapers and magazines, but books, posters, pamphlets, the internet, etc. The government is specifically forbidden to abridge the freedom of the press. Therefore, the censorship and book bannings of the last twenty years or so, usually involving childrens books, are in direct violation of our First Amendment rights, and for that reason, unconstitutional. Seemingly, violence, foul language, and sex, including the Robert Maplethorpe photos are O.K. for our children, but not Little Black Sambo. Go figure. Remember, censorship is the keystone of all tyranny.

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." This means that you and I, and a dozen of our friends, can get together for our monthly, Sons of Liberty, militia meeting and barbeque. We can even bring our guns, and talk politics, as long as we do it in a peaceful manner.

"...and to petition the government for a redress of grievances..." To find out what this means, just follow this scenario. You withdraw some cash from the bank to take with you on vacation, because you abhor the use of credit cards except in an emergency. As you are returning home, you are pulled over by the police who don't like your looks. The police ask if they can search your vehicle, and as you have nothing to hide you give your consent. As they carry out the search of you and your vehicle, they find the cash and accuse you of possible drug involvement. They take you to jail, and confiscate your cash and vehicle. Later, after you have been able to establish your innocence, you have the right to pettition the government for the return of your cash and vehicle. Good luck!

Submitted by Publius on 03/14/06. | Send Comments to ThePatriotExchange.com