I am writing to respectfully disagree with the commentary article printed by the Daily News last Saturday entitled �Religious right VS. public schools�. The commentary was by Mr. Harry Schwartzbart, president of the San Fernando Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
First of all let me address two of Mr. Schwartzbart�s statements �Because of the Constitution�s church/state separation provisions,...� and �The separation of church and state mandated by the first 16 words of the First Amendment guarantees religious freedom and freedom of conscience to all Americans.� These, Mr. Schwartzbart statements, are just not true. Since Mr. Schwartzbart talks about the first 16 words of the First Amendment let me quote that: �Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.� Where is �the separation of church and state mandated�? In fact those words and notion are not mandated anywhere in our Constitution nor in the Declaration of Independence.
So, where did that statement come from? In David Barton�s book �The Myth of Separation.� he says, �At the time of the Constitution, although the states encouraged Christianity, no state allowed an exclusive state-sponsored denomination. However, many citizens did recall from earlier years when one denomination ruled over and oppressed all others. Even though those abuses were not current history in 1802, the fear of recurrence still lingered in some minds. It was in this context that the Danbury Baptist Association wrote to President Jefferson. Although the statesmen and patriots who framed the Constitution had made it clear that no one Christian denomination would become the official denomination, the Danbury Baptists expressed their concern over a rumor that a particular denomination was soon to be recognized as the national denomination. On January 1, 1802, President Jefferson spoke to a gathering of the Danbury Baptists at Danbury, Connecticut. In his remarks to that group, Jefferson addressed their fears, using the now infamous phrase to assure them that the federal government would not establish them, nor any other denomination of Christianity, as the national denomination: ...I contemplate with solemn 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.�
Unfortunately the proverb (truism) that says �if you tell a lie long enough people will come to believe it are true,� is true in this case. The way I see it in the context of the constitution it was the freedom of speech of the pastor first and then the press that was being protected here. The writers of the constitution argued at length regarding its content. We can not think that they just haphazardly placed the freedom of religion ahead of the freedom to speak your beliefs. In those days it was commonly from the pulpit that most social and political activism originated.
Is it so wrong to teach children not to steal? Is it so wrong to teach them not to lie? Is it so wrong to teach them not to kill? Is it so wrong to teach them not to be materialistic or jealous of what others have? Is it so wrong to teach children to respect marriage and not to think of sex lightly? Is it so wrong to want to protect our children from STD�S, sexually transmitted diseases? Most of America agrees with me that it is not so wrong and these are the same standards that are stated in the Ten Commandments. Pastors and Christians, whether they are political leaders, teachers, business owners or employees, do have a right to affect the culture just like any other American so says the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
To see the published article go to 04/19/1997 As the article appeared in the Los Angeles, California Daily News on Saturday, April 19, 1997
“Global warming and solutions thereto must be addressed by the two other branches of government,” Keenan wrote.
Does the UN's Paris climate agreement provide EPA the power to unilaterally impose a cap and trade scheme on all 50 United States? Lawyers for climate pressure groups claim it does.
Larry Bell recalls what Bush Administration officials said would happen if the Clean Air Act were extended to incorporate regulation of carbon dioxide -- and none of it was good. In the words of CEQ chair James Connaughton, the “case-by-case application of old regulations to an entirely new set of circumstances and parties foreshadows unrelenting confusion, conflicts over compliance, and decades-long litigation windfall for attorneys, consultants, and activists, as communities and the courts strive to sort it all out.”
Presumably, the Supreme Court agreed to reconsider EPA's Timing Rule, which regulates stationary sources of greenhouse gases, because EPA then promulated its Tailoring Rule, under which by its own (quite possibly unlawful) authority EPA limited the Timing Rule's purview to large stationary sources and thus made greenhouse gases a different class of criteria pollutant than the ones initially regulated under the Clean Air Act. But what if the Court upholds the Timing Rule and strikes the Tailoring Rule? Would the nation stand for an EPA with an extra 230,000 soldiers in its army?
Paul Driessen, with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, submits comments to the Federal Government in response to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on Regulating Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act (CAA), issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2008. Based on its careful analysis of this ANPR and its likely impacts on American businesses, jobs, minorities, low and fixed income families, and others, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow concludes that EPA should not make an endangerment finding or promulgate these proposed rules. Such an action would have [...]