Separation vs Exclusion

Does anyone recognize this passage?

"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. "

For those ignorant few who do not, this is Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution. It's amazing how the first 16 words can be SO misconstrued to say things that are not written.

What I am referring to are the people who are complaining so vociferously about the religious right, and Fundamentalist Christians in particular, taking part in the political process. For example, on the radio this morning, I heard one of the hosts upset about the moral values of these people being imposed upon everyone. In other words, these people putting forth their ideas and beliefs into the public and hoping to influence how others and governments act. This is now called a violation of Amendment I. Let's see how it's a violation.

• Congress did not make a law establishing Fundamentalist Christianity as a national religion, thereby making all others illegal, no violation there.
• Congress didn't prohibit ANYONE from exercising their religion freely, no violation there.

Where's the violation of separation of church and state? If anything, the people who are complaining are the ones who actually want to violate the Constitution. They want to have these people silenced by government as the Fundamentalist Christians, in their view, should not take part in politics. Well, that IS a violation of the same Amendment I, abridging the freedom of speech.

In theory, if you are against one set of people imposing their values on you, are you not imposing YOUR will and values on someone else? That's the whole point of politics and debate. Arguing your points and trying to get the hearts and minds of others to agree with you. One could argue that the election of George W. Bush is also an election of those values he agrees with, which happens to coincide with the Fundamentalist Christian's values. But, if you're willing to make that argument, then you HAVE to agree that the dual election of Bill Clinton was therefore a validation of the values that he had.....whatever they happened to be on that particular day.

Why is it that if you have a religious background, your opinions should not be considered, but only if you are of a right-wing viewpoint? Have you ever noticed the hypocrisy of the left who scream separation of church and state (again incorrectly)? They have no problem with people like Reverend Jesse Jackson taking part in the political process, or liberal politicians like John Kerry and Bill Clinton campaigning in black (sorry, bad choice of word, see prior post) churches? Ever notice that the religious right doesn't make the complaint in return? It's because they actually do understand that it is not a violation. In fact, it's a right in Amendment I (right of the people peaceably to assemble).

What is the solution? It's actually simple. Everyone who wants to take part and push their ideas should do so freely (Amendment I) and let the public decide via the voting box. If these ideas are so threatening, wouldn't they be defeated at the polls? Is the left that afraid of these ideas that they can not defeat them by defending their own values as an alternative?