I chose the Bill of Rights for two reasons. Firstly, it is a very important document -- especially in these times -- like the Bible. Secondly, it is much, much, much shorter than the Bible.
- - - -
Amendment 1: 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.
Many a Hollywood legal thriller and David E. Kelly television series has made the argument that this is the first amendment for a reason. Something about these clearly being the most important priorities of the early democratic pioneers. Rubbish.
How so, you ask? Because it wasn't the first amendment to the constitution. The first amendment, which wasn't ratified, was some stupid enumeration of represenatives. The second was a rule about congressional salaries. This was the third "priority." Let's just say it ended up first because they picked them out of a hat. One of those nifty, tri-pointed hats they wear at Busch Gardens.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
Do you hear that Senator Frist? No law! Pretty simple really. They didn't say, "Congress shall not create an official religion." They said, "no law respecting an establishment of religion." So keep your bible off my constitution bitch.
...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Go ahead. We won't make any laws telling you what to do AND what not to do. You're religion says that during a span of 45 minutes cheap wine turns into the blood of a man who's been dead for 2,000 years? Fine by us. Drink away. Your religion says that you can preform a sacred ceremony recongizing and celebrating the love of two people? Go ahead. As long as those two people are of different genders. Seriously. Otherwise, we'll kick your ass you stupid faggot.
...or abridging the freedom of speech...
What do we mean by speech? Clearly we mean the freedom of wealthy people, preferably Republicans (who don't even exist yet as we write this amendment) and definately white, to blather on and on and on about whatever they want on things like Fox News, talk radio and the Drudge Report. (Also, none of which yet exist either. Do you think our colonial leaders were onto something? No Republicans, talk radio, Matt Drudge or Fox News?)
...or of the press...
See above re: Fox News, talk radio and the Drudge Report.
... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...
Peacefully assemble in little cages blocks away from whatever it is that has caused them to want to assemble. Unless they are radical abortion protesters. We'll let them sprawl their bodies dangerously across private property, post pictures of medical doctors on the Internet, and cyberstalk desperate women.
...and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
However, the "government" has the right to totally disregard, ignore, burn, otherwise mutilate and/or urinate on said petitions. And then wrap your birthday present in the urine-covered petitions. Which is okay, because your present is just a heaping pile of pre-emptive war.
All kidding aside, the whole idea in this amendment is pretty amazing. Our government started out by placing limits on itself. Rarely do people in power take extraordinary efforts to limit their own power. Of course, there's probably been a number of people since those exciting revolutionary times that are pretty pissed with our founders for this, but tough shit. You just try to undo this first amendment.
Um, President Bush and congressional Republicans, that's not a challenge. Seriously. Don't actually try it. Seriously. I promise we all like this one.
3 comments:
Go to college or something dude, seriously. Or at least stick with things you know at least something about. You call your yourself a Catholic and then mock the Mass and its sacrament of marriage? I can't believe Richard Andreoli recommended this piece of crap blog. (No, I'm not Catholic. I just don't like hypocrites.)
Ah, you're "twenty-something". That explains it, at least if you're no older than 23.
To my anonymous hater:
It's called satire. I don't need a stranger, a twit who's never met me, telling me what kind of Catholic I am. I certainly don't need some "enlightened" anonymous blogger type who reads regularly reads homosexualist blogs to lecture me on the sacrament of marriage.
(MidSript: I have never once called on the Catholic Church to change the sacrament. Churches should be free to marry as they want. I never expect to be married on a Catholic altar and I think that's fine. I've reconciled that. But if, say, the Unitarians or Reforms Jews want to allow same-sex marriage, they should be allowed to and like other religious weddings, it should be recognized by the state.)
My faith is rich and complicated. Your's may be, too, I'd never be so fucking arrogant as to divine it from a few blog posts.
--bri
Post a Comment