Get Even More Visitors To Your Blog, Upgrade To A Business Listing >>

Why The 2nd And Not The 1st?

I've been seeing a lot of posts on Facebook and Twitter by conservative fundamentalists proclaiming the supreme authority and untouchability of the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In each case, they claim that this amendment protects their right as individuals to own and possess, and in many cases carry anywhere they wish, firearms.

I'm not debating the validity of their claim here. I am, however, pointing out their abject hypocrisy when those very same people post demands for ill conceived calls banning Islam and any practice associated with it.

The First Amendment reads:

"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."

One can't help but wonder from what depth of ignorance comes the idea that Number two is untouchable, not open to interpretation in any way, and taken in its most literal sense but number one is taken to mean that only that which applies to them, only Christianity is intended for protection.

These fascist minded reactionaries can't conceive in their pea brains the notion that banning any religion or their practices is the beginning of the end for the exercise of their own.

I'm not suggesting that some schools of Islamic thought don't call for banning the practice of religion's other than theirs. Indeed, some do! I'm simply suggesting that We are suppose to be better than that.

Or are we?

This post first appeared on Surviving Christianity, please read the originial post: here

Share the post

Why The 2nd And Not The 1st?


Subscribe to Surviving Christianity

Get updates delivered right to your inbox!

Thank you for your subscription