Where the far left and far right overlap for fun and enlightenment

1st Amend (religion) + 2nd Amend (guns) is not good

The Constitution created a framework for gov’t. The first 10 amendments, called the Bill of Rights, were added soon after The Constitution was ratified to allay the fears of some who felt a Bill of Rights was necessary. The Civil War amendments, 13-15, broadened protections. 1/6

The First Amendment (“1A”): (a) protects us from & practice of religion; & (b) protects speech & right of association. 2A protects the right of the people to have armed militias. Recently 1A & 2A have overlapped in an Indy-area church, although its website seems scrubbed. 2/6

Noblesville preacher Micah Beckwith listed “gun safety lessons” (a/k/a weapons training) for women (try a different gun each week) in a course: “God, Guns & Babes.” Overthrow of gov’t is not a right secured by the Bill of Rights. In 1807 insurrection was made illegal. 3/6

Christofascism combines a specific & odd view of Christianity w/fascism (political philosophy that exalts nation/often race over the individual; has centralized autocratic gov’t run by dictator, w/ severe econ & social regimentation, & forcible suppression of opposition). 4/6

No credible argument says The Framers intended the Bill of Rights to allow violent overthrow of, well, them. We’ve seen these movements before: 100 yrs ago w/the KKK & in 1993 w/Koresh. I’m not comparing Beckwith w/Koresh. After all, Koresh played guitar well. 5/6

The Framers had seen the effects of The Reformation & sought to build a wall of separation between church. We need to repair that wall. I’m Mark Small: pro-choice, pro-civil rts & anti-gun GOP nominee for IN House Distr 86. I approve of this blog. Hell, I wrote it. 6/6

0 members like this

Comment

You need to be a member of Civil Discourse Now to add comments!

Join Civil Discourse Now

Comment by pogden297 on September 12, 2022 at 7:07am: At the time of the adoption of the First Amendment, most states had official religions. Religion intermixing with government was the norm and much more prevalent than it is today. If you look at the history, it is obvious that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was about prohibiting the ESTABLISHMENT of an official national religion like England had and still has. The notion that the Establishment Clause was intended to "build a wall of separation between church [and state]" was certainly not the majority opinion of the Founders at the time that Jefferson included that phrase in a letter. Later, the Courts fulfilled Jefferson's hope and interpreted "establishment" much more broadly, to prohibit government from endorsing or promoting religion or religious activity and the Court in the 1947 Everson decision applied those principles to the states. If the Founders intended that much more broad interpretation of the Establishment Clause, they wouldn't have used the much more limited word "establish." The modern expansive interpretation of the Establishment Clause is of a recent vintage and certainly not based on history.