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. (First Amendment of the Constitution for the United States.)

At a recent dinner celebrating Ramadan, the President made it abundantly clear to us that our nation’s religious freedoms grants any group the right to build on private land. Clarifying the next day, he didn’t mean to imply that he thought it is “right” or “wise” to build a community center containing a mosque close to Ground Zero in NYC. (If “walking back comments” becomes an Olympic event, Mr. Obama may be eligible for the American team!)

Most Americans are well aware of the religious freedom provisions in the First Amendment. Though, admittedly, some get confused about freedom of religious vs. freedom from religion. This is a religious nation, a pluralistic society in which we all try to live in religious harmony. It’s disappointing that there are people and groups that single out certain religious faiths (Christians and Jews come to mind) as less deserving of “tolerance.” And of course, there’s the famous July 2010 story of the students banished from praying on the Supreme Court steps. We truly are living in strange times. But I digress.

The NY Mosque case highlights the current administration’s mixed messaging over the past 20 months about the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. The rights are not granted BY the government, they are protected FROM government infringement because they are natural rights, inalienable rights accorded to all of God’s creatures.

Consider Nancy Pelosi’s recent challenge that individuals opposing the NY Mosque should be investigated to learn how they are funded. What is wrong with individuals lawfully offering opinions and personal feelings regarding this proposed building? To have the government investigate you is an intimidating process, yet Speaker Pelosi feels comfortable to offer such a threat on camera! Strange times in an America that has always lauded the First Amendment, indeed. By the way, Pelosi may also make that Olympic “walking back” team as her spokesperson later said we should also investigate the funding of the Mosque.

Step in the way-back machine to 2009 and let me remind you of an Oval Office conversation with Republicans during which the President “called out” Rush Limbaugh, a private citizen. “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” The problems continued in a CBS interview, Obama called both Limbaugh and Beck “troublesome” and the interviewer Harry Smith replied, “It’s beyond that.” (Good news here is that Smith didn’t jump into Obama’s lap during the interview) Yay, free press!! (It’s only “free” if you agree with this bunch as evidenced by the engineered attack against Fox News.) What is truly “troublesome” is the practice of the President and the likes of Nancy Pelosi concerning themselves publicly with the words of private citizens.

Julie Ranson is the mother of three who lives and teaches at a community college in Virginia.

US Supreme Court

There has been a lot of talk about Barack Hussein Obama’s associate justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor and her potential performance on the supreme court. Many of us have all sorts of reasons to object to her helping make the far reaching decisions in this position. We now have some unexpected allies in working to shoot down this nomination. It is a delicious bit or irony that this Queen of Quotas, as some have called her, is now criticized by the politically correct anti-religionists who are now fussing about her as addition to the Roman Catholic majority on the court.

Never mind that the Catholics on the court do not vote as a block. Some are pro-life, some are pro-death. The public religious affiliation of the men (and women) in black is not a good indicator of how they will rule on any case. Today I heard some pusher of identity politics ranting about the need for a Muslim or an atheist on the court. By their rulings, I think we have at least one of the latter… if not more. I personally would like to see the addition of a Baptist and a Pentecostal to liven the mix but these are not constitutional qualifications.

If we are going to start adding additional qualifications beyond a good grasp of the law and its application, we have to start looking into areas that are officially none of the governments business. Will we next need to add a homosexual seat or an unwed mother seat. How about someone to represent the feelings of child molesters. If an empathetic court is the goal, this may very well be the only way to achieve it.

We may even need to add an associate justice who is vertically challenged in order to give the court an understanding of the needs of this underrepresented minority. Taking into account who is before the bar of justice and the impact of the rulings on the people involved rather than looking to the law for a decision makes us all subject to the transitory whims and irrational prejudices of those sitting in judgment.

My reading of the constitution tells me this just should not be. Our representatives in Washington need to receive a backbone transplant and proudly embrace membership in the “Party of NO!” when presented with pure foolishness… or find another line of work. They say “pick your fights”, which I hear as back up and roll over if you don’t have the stomach for the conflict. Well, win or loose, if you stand for what is right, you still accomplish something. Unfortunately many don’t understand the power that may be behind them if they just step out and try to do the right thing.