AZ Tea Party: 1st Amendment Only Protects Christians


The Williams Tea Party group of Coconino County, Arizona, believe it or not, does not support the proposed law that would allow Christians to discriminate against gay people. Why? Because the constitutional already allows that, you see, because the First Amendment applies only to Christians.

The First Amendment protects only the practice of the Christian faith…

Of course, when you are dealing with a group of people who get their Constitutional training from the Salon and Russia Today web sites, it is difficult for them to understand that this legislation should never have been written. You see, there is already a law that protects the right of those of the Christian faith to not serve those who are clearly abhorrent to that faith.

It’s called the First Amendment.

The First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;….

Congress is the law making branch of the country.This amendment states that the legislative branch of government MAY NOT create any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Such as “Hate Crimes” legislation targeted at Christians.

Wow. So much stupid in so little space. Typical wingnuts, ignore the 14th Amendment, which applied the Bill of Rights to the states. And I find it interesting that they think hate crimes laws (which have nothing at all to do with the law in question) are aimed at Christians. Since a hate crimes law only applies if someone has committed either a violent crime or a property crime against someone out of bigotry, aren’t they unwittingly admitting that Christians do those types of things? I’m sure they don’t think of it that way, but then it isn’t clear that they’re thinking at all.

These people will be first to throw that “Separation of Church and State” myth at you. Very few of them even knows where that phrase originates. It is a portion of a line that comes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists of 1802. It was a personal opinion, not a legal one. The Baptists were concerned that Congress was creating laws that would adversely affect the practice of their religion. The “wall of separation between Church & State” applied to the government—NOT the Christians.

They’re so cute when they’re babbling about things they know nothing about. No, the Danbury Baptists were not concerned that Congress was creating laws that would adversely affect the practice of their religion, they were upset that the state of Connecticut already was oppressing them by forcing them to pay taxes to the official state Congregationalist church and were hoping that the First Amendment would change that. Jefferson replied that, unfortunately, it would not because the Bill of Rights did not apply to state action (which changed in 1868 with the 14th Amendment) but that he hoped its passage would prompt the states to disestablish their state churches. His hope came true, as the states did so one by one over the next few decades.

They go on to quote Joseph Story, a Supreme Court justice who had nothing to do with framing the First Amendment as he was still a child at the time, saying:

“The real object of the [first] amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judiams, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.”

But the historical evidence is quite to the contrary. If Congress had intended merely to prohibit the establishment of a particular sect or denomination of Christianity, they could have done so. In fact, they voted down multiple wordings of the amendment that said that specifically and voted instead for the much broader wording it includes. Here are those alternate wordings:

Congress shall not make any law, infringing the rights of conscience or establishing any Religious Sect or Society.

Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.

Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others.

They then go on to offer a completely irrelevant quote from James Madison, which is ironic since Madison was a very staunch advocate of strict separation, even saying that having military chaplains was a violation of the First Amendment. And remember, these advocates of “smaller government” now are demanding that the government violate the religious freedom of all non-Christians.

Comments

  1. John Pieret says

    Ah, but an expanded article is still up on the on the website of the Arizona Constitutional Republic Party:

    http://www.constitutionalrepublicparty.net/2014/02/24/sb-1062-written/

    “Expanded” meaning more stupidity, such as:

    These same activist judges [who ruled in favor of marriage equality] want to enforce Sharia law in the United States which is totally against every concept of the Bill of Rights. Including their propensity to kill homosexuals.

    And my personal favorite:

    This is all a moot point. A bill such as this would never be signed until we get a Republican in the office of governor.

    Apparently, Jan freaking Brewer is a RINO!

  2. gshelley says

    The “wall of separation between Church & State” applied to the government—NOT the Christians.

    The famed “One way wall” the theocrats love so much

  3. caseloweraz says

    John Pieret: Apparently, Jan freaking Brewer is a RINO!

    Well, they’ll be calling her that, yes. She vetoed Senate Bill 1062.

  4. John Pieret says

    caseloweraz @ 5:

    Yes, I knew that but she vetoed it on the 26th and the stupid article was posted on the 24th. Apparently they didn’t need her veto to have already deemed her a RINO. How far right do you have to be to think Brewer is a liberal?

  5. Phillip IV says

    I’m sure they don’t think of it that way, but then it isn’t clear that they’re thinking at all.

    And even when they think, they tend to think not very clearly – hate crimes legislation and hate speech legislation are practically the same thing to many right wingers, while they’re actually completely different concepts.

    They also have a hard time distinguishing between someone saying “you shouldn’t do that” (e.g. make bigoted statements) and “you shouldn’t be legally allowed to do that” – possibly because these two statements always go together in their own minds.

    Add to that their known problems differentiating between criticism and attacks, and you end up with a mindset where anti-discrimination laws are basically the same as hate speech laws aimed specifically at Christians – trying to drawn any distinction in between there would already amount to sheer sophistry for many right wingers.

  6. jnorris says

    I find it amusing that everyone of these True Christian ™ sects honestly believes it will the The One established by their state government.

  7. says

    who get their Constitutional training from the Salon and Russia Today web sites,

    That there reasonin’ is as sophistimacated as two hammers!!!

  8. tubi says

    These people will be first to throw that “Separation of Church and State” myth at you. Very few of them even knows where that phrase originates.

    I would submit that most of us are reasonably familiar with Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. Do they think we just sit around and make shit up that suits our purposes? Project much?

Leave a Reply