Your monthly-ish Founding Father's reminder:

This month? Well, let's let the first amendment speak for itself, shall we?
"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"

That would be verbatim, my friends. As in, I copy pasted the stupid thing from the Library of Congress web edition of the Constitution. Now, what do we notice is missing? Could that be the phrase "Separation of Church and State?" Why yes, it is.

I could wax poetic and non-poetic on the virtues and vices of the Constitutional Convention, the politcal theory of several founding fathers, the whys and wherefores of why the Constitution is written the way it is, but for now, I'll stick with the 1st amendment.

For those in need of a US Government refresher, the Constitution was originally signed and published without a Bill of Rights in 1787. The majority of states passed in in fall 1787 and winter/spring 1788, culminating in the establishment of the current US Government March 4th, 1788. This is all sans Bill of Rights. Now the question many of you may ask is why? We hold these rights to be fundamental. Well, to borrow from Constitutional proponents, it was because all the protection any American could hope for was contained in the preamble. Obviously, this didn't pass legal muster, and the Bill of Rights was passed piecemale up to 1791 (which is when we hit amendment 11).

The Founders didn't include the Bill of Rights, including amendment 1, in the original Constitution (and trust me, I've read the debates and notes of the Convention. These were men concerned with the utility of government as well as the freedom of the people, and making sure that the one ensured the other. They were worried about the actual STRUCTURE of government). Do you know why the Bill of Rights was passed? As a protection against government.

Seperation of Church and State-- the very phrase implies that the State has something to fear of the Church, that the legal protection is OF the state, not FROM the state. Let's face it people, if the founder's thought that the Church needed protection from the State at a time when the Church had more authority then now (not a lot, just more than now), why on EARTH do we feel the need to "Protect ourselves and the government" from religion?

"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a church or the free practice thereof"-- that doesn't check your religion at the door, that doesn't mean that someone who follows a religion should leave all that that means out of their decisions when the vote, be they citizen or representative. And for the record? That is why the Roman Church is threatening to excommunicate politicans that support activities that fundamentally undermine all that the Church is. Because if this whole government is about talking and debating and sussing things out, then why should we say "I personally believe but that has nothing to do with anything." There comes a balancing point, between dictating that all laws be in compliance with a single religion, and trying to destroy all religion.

I guess there's one example, and its recent, that bothers me most when it comes to this. The Freedom of Choice Act, among its many stipulations, says that any doctor MUST perform abortion on demand, that no hospital can refuse abortion on demand. What does that do to the free exercise of religion on behalf of those doctors, nurses, hospital workers? What does it do the free exercise of state sovereignty? The bishops are threatening to close obstetrics units over this. How scary is that? Because the amendment designed to protect their RIGHT to practice religion has been turned on its ear, and now they must sacrifice all that they are as a religious person to serve those who demand pure secularization. Makes me scared, more than anything. It should scare you too.

You know what grinds my gears?

I seriously cannot fathom basing Library Science/Information studies research on Marxist theory. I can't. I don't see why anyone would WANT to. I don't understand why Marx's substructure/superstructure works as a basis for research and the libraries when, quite frankly, it doesn't exist as he imagined it to in the real world. It certainly doesn't exist when taken out of his whole theory.

I mean, certainly things are culturally determined, but the superstructure was everything: state, church, family, personal relationships, academia (hint, hint, yo). If we base ourselves in that superstructure aren't we admitting that we are participating in something that is alienating man from himself, that our work is simply ephemeral and will pass away with all of the world as we know it when the revolution comes? Of course not, because we take only the idea of substructure, superstructure, and cultural hegemony. We also should think capitalism is evil, but I'll be you that none of these people have considered that Marx is probably rolling in his grave that the INSTITUTIONS of man's alienation are now trying to pick and choose his theory. I mean, give the man some respect and leave his theory intact. Geez.