The Democrats Read The Constitution?

I am blown away that the Dems decided to follow the wording in the Constitution, "just in case." What do I mean? President Obama was sworn in again just in case the first swearing in was null and void because the exact words in the Constitution were not used. Me personally, I think the first time was more than suffice.

But my questions is, how would they have known the words were not correct unless they had actually read the Constitution of the United States? Does this mean since they followed it to the letter that they have become Constitutionalists? Welcome aboard Dems, it is about time! (Thump! - that's the sound of me hitting the floor)

Now, can we get them to read the rest of the Constitution? For example, that our nation is not a Democracy but a Republic. How about the fact that we were never to become a socialist republic which is what their bailout plan offers but we are to remain a nation governed by laws.

The one thing we cannot avoid now is the fact that without God's input into our nation, we would never survive as a nation. The more intolerant the Democrats become then the more dangerous living a Cristian faith becomes.

So Dems, here is a lesson about the Constitution. There is a section of addendum's called amendments. These amendments open with what are known as the basic civil rights of the citizenry of the United States called the Bill of Rights.

Here is Amendment I:

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.

Now do you see what all is included here?

1. No law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
2. No law abridging the freedom of speech
3. No law abridging the freedom of the press
4. No law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble
5. No law abridging the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I want to highlight the 1st part because it was important to the founders of our country. What it tells us it that Congress is not to create a nationally sanctioned religion, or, as the word "respecting" suggests, Congress is not to honor one Christian belief over another. I cannot for the life of me see anywhere where "separation of church and state" is implied here. In fact, I see quite the contrary. Congress is not to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Remember, at that time, when our founders spoke of religions, they were speaking of the differing views of Christianity. They did not want Presbyterians or Catholics or Baptist or other forms of Christianity to rule over the others. This is precisely why people fled from England.

To keep one form of Christianity from dominating the others, the founders placed this simple statement in the Bill of Rights. They knew religion was important to the formation of our laws and our moral standing. This is why the said Congress should never stop the free exercise of it.

So Dems, I ask you to seriously think about your intolerance towards Christianity. We were here first, and our Father's acknowledged it in our Constitution. So keep up the good work by continuing to actually take the Constitution seriously and using it as it stands not as you wish to interpret it.