The Corrected First Amendment
Today is Saturday, 14 August 2010.
The First Amendment: “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.”
The Corrected First Amendment, as proposed by S. Palin, N. Gingrich, and sundry other sewer-crawling bigots opposed to an Islamic cultural center in Lower Manhattan:
1. People whose religion is different than mine have the right freely to practice their religion far away in a hole in the ground, where I’ll never see them.
2. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech of The Right People, or of The Right Press; or the right of The Right People peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, particularly requiring taxes in exchange for government services.
The bigots claim that the power to determine whether or not the center is built should rest with “the community”. I agree, and the relevant community is the United States of America, which chose to allow religious-affiliated buildings more than two hundred years ago.
Many bigots will argue that the First Amendment restricts only Congress, and that the states and municipalities are free to abridge religious rights in any way they desire. This is the same demonic and damnable evil argument which white supremacists used to rationalize criminal abridgment of the rights of Blacks.
A very sarcastic “thank you” is due to scholar of constitutional law Barack Obama, for last night finally doing his duty as a citizen and elected official, and woefully belatedly coming out publicly in favour of building the cultural center. Awesome job of leading from the rear!
And I’m tired of this “hallowed ground” propaganda, which is tantamount to idolatry. (Dirt is “sacred”? How about golden calves?) If Ground Zero is so sacred, why aren’t these bigots swarming the site, stopping with their interposed bodies the construction of commercial buildings? (Recall that money-changers-in-the-Temple episode?) Plus, the users of those buildings will be performing bodily functions in bathrooms all over the site. Where’s the “hallowed” in that?
___________________________________________
The Social Security Act was passed on this date in 1935. Don’t let the Republicrumms privatize it!
Today is the anniversary of V-J Day in 1945, marking the announcement of surrender by the Japanese government, concluding the Great Pacific War of 1853-1945.
The First Amendment: “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.”
The Corrected First Amendment, as proposed by S. Palin, N. Gingrich, and sundry other sewer-crawling bigots opposed to an Islamic cultural center in Lower Manhattan:
1. People whose religion is different than mine have the right freely to practice their religion far away in a hole in the ground, where I’ll never see them.
2. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech of The Right People, or of The Right Press; or the right of The Right People peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, particularly requiring taxes in exchange for government services.
The bigots claim that the power to determine whether or not the center is built should rest with “the community”. I agree, and the relevant community is the United States of America, which chose to allow religious-affiliated buildings more than two hundred years ago.
Many bigots will argue that the First Amendment restricts only Congress, and that the states and municipalities are free to abridge religious rights in any way they desire. This is the same demonic and damnable evil argument which white supremacists used to rationalize criminal abridgment of the rights of Blacks.
A very sarcastic “thank you” is due to scholar of constitutional law Barack Obama, for last night finally doing his duty as a citizen and elected official, and woefully belatedly coming out publicly in favour of building the cultural center. Awesome job of leading from the rear!
And I’m tired of this “hallowed ground” propaganda, which is tantamount to idolatry. (Dirt is “sacred”? How about golden calves?) If Ground Zero is so sacred, why aren’t these bigots swarming the site, stopping with their interposed bodies the construction of commercial buildings? (Recall that money-changers-in-the-Temple episode?) Plus, the users of those buildings will be performing bodily functions in bathrooms all over the site. Where’s the “hallowed” in that?
___________________________________________
The Social Security Act was passed on this date in 1935. Don’t let the Republicrumms privatize it!
Today is the anniversary of V-J Day in 1945, marking the announcement of surrender by the Japanese government, concluding the Great Pacific War of 1853-1945.
posted by HH at 11:16 AM
4 Comments:
"(T)he relevant community is the United States of America"... Don't you mean USA/USE? Have you abandoned that acronym for all subsequent posts? Why abandon it for this one? Do you mean the same Constitution and Bill of Rights for the United States of America written by those same slave-trading, women-hating, wealthy, white power-seeking "coup-makers" you so disdain?
As to S. Palin and N. Gingrich: She - incredibly and almost unbelievably stupid and vapid; He - cunning and manipulative. They should hardly be mentioned in the same sentence. "Sewer-crawling bigots"? You mean individuals with whom you have a political, ideological disagreement, right? And the "sundry other(s)" to whom you refer, who are they? Others with whom you disagree? Wow... such invective just becomes... well, tiresome.
"The bigots claim that the power to determine whether or not the center is built should rest with 'the community'." Not to become too testy or pedantic, but I tire of the "whether or not" writing of those who, regrettably, have not had the benefit of a competent writing instructor. HH has explicitly stated the alternative on which he wishes to place the most emphasis (the center is built) - the "or not" is completely unnecessary. Far preferable is "(b)igots claim that the power to determine whether the center is built should rest with 'the community'."
As to "sundry other sewer-crawling bigots", I believe the problems inherent in that sort of prose are painfully obvious.
Yes, scolding, lecturing, judging and criticizing - perhaps all best left to those without faults. HH's style of writing is reminiscent of taunting, name-calling and bullying by insecure schoolyard adolescents. Bummer, dude.
HH, I found this to be absolutely on point and extremely well-expressed (though I would not be so hard on Barack Obama, who may have hesitated but is now doing the right, rather than the politically expedient, thing).
Previous commentators--way harsh, dudes. And Anonymous: How can I contact you to correct my grammar and syntax so I don't embarrass myself? Ever so grateful, whether (OR NOT???) you believe me.
Post a Comment
<< Home