Do you know the actual wording of the First Amendment? Have you read it over recently, or ever studied it and thought about what the Founding Fathers meant when they discussed it and wrote it?

If you haven't done so, then it is printed below. Take at least five minutes to read and think about it, how in summertime, a room full of sweaty men without benefit of air-conditioning or electric fans, sat and talked and debated each word and what it meant and how to frame it so that we, in the future, would have a clear and unmistakeable guide as to their intent. It should be very clear to all of us what was meant, so be guided accordingly:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech; or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There it is, pure and simple. About 90% of the people in the country today believe that somewhere in the Constitution are words that call for a "separation of church and state." No, those words are not there, nowhere to be found!  No, neither the Constitution nor any other document from the days of the Constitutional Convention make use of that phrase. 

None of us, including the Boy Scouts, cannot be prohibited from practicing our faith in public places because prohibiting the free exercise thereof clearly gives us that right, to affirm our faith in God without limitation, and we do not have to stand down for anyone anywhere at any time.  They cannot make legal the censoring of our beliefs.

The framers of the Constitution were ordinary men,  yet great thinkers, willing to reason and discuss.  They were men of good sensibility, rational and logical, and not members of an aristocracy or group of radical thinkers. Their intent is clear, their wording precise and direct. The phrasing that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion was in reference to such historic precedents such as the Church of England and the Catholic Church, made official churches in England and in many European countries. The governments often required (forced) people to attend services and recognize such churches as the sole religious institution in that country.  Failure to comply with religious law, or to join another church, brought severe consequences for the citizens, such as fines, loss of property and even death (often by burning at the stake for the charge of heresy).

Read the First Amendment over and over until you fill your heart and mind with it and then the meaning of it will become clear to you. Congress has made no law respecing a religion, neither has any State in the Union. The continuation says: or abridging the freedom of speech and it means just that and it does not mean that someone can tell you to eliminate the word GOD from your conversation on public or city, state or government owned property. It simply does not say that.

GOD IS SIMPLY A WORD, EXEMPT FROM CENSORSHIP:

GOD is merely a word, a part of your ordinary talk and falls well within our rights to freedom of speech. To erase it from our speech in certain places is nothimg more than form of censorship, an act of placing restrictions or limitations upon freedom of speech, which no Court in the land is empowered to do. Take each Right separately: Write it out, print it out, commit it to memory, because YOU can challenge anyone who attempts to restrict your Right in the mistaken belief that they have the law behind them to do so.  If YOU do not fight for it, if YOU do not stand firm, then you will automatically forfeit that right.  The Constitution, the Second Amendment, says states that we do not expressively designatve one religion over another nor prevent the free esxpression thereof.

Again, stand firm, speak up and speak out or you will lose that right and that will be followed quickly by your loss of other rights. If our forefathers had meant anything different, while they were still alive and citizens were referencing God and Bibical quotes in public places, as certainly they were, they'd have spoken out against it in a unified chorus. They'd have erased the word God from every public place: they'd have castigated those who used any religious reference in any public building; they'd have called for a new Constitutional Convention in order to clarify the issue.

They did not do so and it is obvious they found no flaw in God, in prayer, in references to the Bible, to the public presentation of the Ten Commandments, in taking an Oath upon the Bible, or allowing preachers to speak in schools, courthouses and public meeting places.

Doesn't that sound logical and reasonable to you? Well, they were logical and reasonable men in that room in Philadelphia, ordinary men, like you and me, and they meant to give you the greatest latitude possible in following your religious beliefs..

Congress can neither established a national sectarian religion. nor forbid you the free exercise thereof. There are no such restrictions on someone using a hall or meeting place and expressing their ideas.  Prayer or references to God in no way establishes an official religion nor violates the law. We have enjoyed and affirmed this Amendment continuously ever since: the free exercise thereof phrase was made a part of the Second Amendmenand as we all have understood it so clearly and distinctly, until recently. Imagine, in a sweltering room, these men giving US a gift, intending on our handing it down to future generations, that guarantees us the right to meet and express our faith where-ever that might be, where-ever we choose to do so. It is OUR gift from them; we must take it and use it; we must not acquiesce to the demands of some that we meekly surrender it up!

There are only 45 words in the First Amendment, 45 simple, easily understood words. It does not require scanning thousands of pages or court cases, of legal decisions to understand them. It does not require six or eight years of college and a degree in law to read and understand them. It does not require a legal mind, an a background in law, to understand them.

It's odd to me that the media, our largely liberal media (as if reporters all are vacinated with a vaccine that makes them socialists) can so clearly and unmistakably understand freedom of the press, yet argue so vociferously about the first 16 words in the same document.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
The lessons to be learned from the experiences of the Catholic Church cannot be ignored by the Boy Scouts of America. The men and women who work so hard in this organization to make certain it is safe, morally and physically, for young boys, would be derelict in their obligations to all parents if they were to fail to observe, study and benefit from the mess that has involved the church for more than twenty years now. To fail to learn a thing from these scores of cases, indeed hundreds, thousands, would be utter stupidity. If one were to know the truth, it is more than likely that this problem has been part of clerical conduct by certain ones for centuries.

For City Councils, for school districts, indeed even for Gay and Lesbian organizations, to expect this of any group of Scouts or connected with Scouting is inane, and it goes beyond common sense and common decency for them to make this issue of it. The costly settlements of law suits by the Catholic Church has brought church programs to a halt in many areas, and it is the membership, the worshippers, who are paying the price for the misdeeds of these misguided members of the Clergy.

Can any Gay or Lesbian group guarantee the conduct of a Gay Scout Leader? Can any Gay or Lesbian group come up with a formula to determine who will and who will not find younger boys attractive to them, attractive enough to attempt sexual encounters with them, or at what age this can happen? Can any Liberal educator who finds fault with the Boy Scouts of America over such protective and reasonably cautious policies give any guarantees that bringing in Gay leadership will not result in violations that will bring on future lawsuits, in view of the revelations brought out in courtrooms across the nation in recent years?

Scouting's leaders must challenge all such thinking, meet it with common sense arguments, and point out the vulnerability of young boys and use the Catholic Church as an example, a defense, and also as an offensive weapon. Why should we be silent? What is there to fear, being called homophobic (a word that does not exist)?

Click here to send this web site to a friend. In fact, forward it to every Boy Scout family you know! Forward it to members of oour City Council, to your school principal, to teachers as well.

Read the First Amendment over and over until you fill your heart and mind with it, until  then the meaning of it becomes dramatically clear to you. Since the First Continental Congress, our Congress in Washington has made no law respecing a religion, neither has any State in the Union, nor have laws been passed  abridging the freedom of speech. 

It means just that and does not mean that someone can tell you to eliminate the word GOD from your conversation, from your public speeches, or while on public or city, state or government owned property. The First Amendment simply doesn't say that. The Courts are mistaken, and the Courts are rewriting the Constitution with decisions that are contrary to the simple but clear language used by our Forefathers.

Write it out, print it out, commitit to memory, because YOU can challenge anyone who alttempts to restrict your rights in the mistaken belief that they have either the right or the law behind them to do so.

Stand firm, speak up and speak out or you will lose that right. Remember, many of these great statesmen lived for years after these documents were written, and during their lifetime the Bible was used and quoted in all manner oif public buildings, by men in public office, in city halls, the offices of state government, and in the nation's buildings in Washington, upon walls, on monuments, on public structures, and while taking the Oath of Office.If our forefathers had meant anything different, while they were still alive they'd have spoken up in a unified chorus, they'd have erased the word God from every public place, they'd have castigated those who used any religious reference in any public place. They did not do so, so obviously they found no flaw in God, in prayer, in references to the Bible, to the Ten Commandments, in taking an Oath upon the Bible, or having preachers speaking in schools, courthouses and public meeting places.

Doesn't that sound logical and reasonable to you?  Let me repeat, these were logical and reasonable men, ordinary men, like you and me, with a good understanding of the English language, but they had the courage of their convictions and had they found God to be analogeous to the establishment of a sectarian religion, they would have stepped forward and raised the question then, back in the early 1800s, not waited almost two hundred years to do so!