The First Amendment: A lesson for "Liberals" on my favorite word, Freedom

I am a conservative guy that listens to rock n roll and has attended punk rock concerts. I watch some pretty far out, arty independent movies with "liberal" themes and what not. I even listen to your radio talk from guys like Al Franken or Randy Rhodes. (I know Randy's not a guy, but I thought I'd get that in there for fun) This blog started off in November of 2004 as a way to relieve stress and comment on what I see, like the dog poop in the last post or the U2 album buying experience. And as I browsed through other blogs, I noticed I truly have a lot in common with my friends on the right and little at all with the left. I have always voted for Republicans because I felt they were right and I have always tried to do my best when it comes to making decision of choice like being Pro-Life VS. Pro-Choice. I believe in God but I am not anywhere near being a religious person. I would classify myself as "secular".

I was reviewing my stories and comments from the past. I really got praised and also beat up equally on my American Flag themes, my support for Bush or my out-right disgust of the Pearcy effigy here in my neighborhood. The comments from "liberals" came from strangers or some came from my "liberal" friends and these comments have a similar call against my opinions or beliefs. A few of these comments really hit me on the issue of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In particular, the quote, unquote freedom of religion.

What I am going say here, regarding religion, freedom and government, is my interpretation of the First Amendment which states the following and I got it straight off the government site:

"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."

I believe, from what I have read or learned about in school that this whole amendment was derived from the events during and following the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 by Protestant England. (Huh?) Read about the subject here. Protestant England defeated Catholic King Philip the II of Spain and his Armada stopping the flow and spread of one religion, Catholicism and allowed the establishment of another. You see in the 16th and 17th Centuries, people didn't have freedoms of speech or religion. The world was getting tighter, more advanced and deadly. You were Catholic if you lived in Spain or Italy and Protestant if you lived in England. These countries battled and battled all for a religion. Not necessarily to gain territories but that was the bi-product of the battles and for the conquering of the New World. In fact, Henry the VIII, the King of England before the defeat of the Armada basically created British Protestantism with his own "rules" while establishing the Church of England, which basically killed the idea of Catholicism in Britain. And the later, the pilgrims in 1620 came to what is now the US specifically for religious freedom that they could not get at home, because their beliefs had simply mutated and became different from what the British rulers had established in their homeland. So basically, you got all these Protestant Brits and for that matter, German Protestants coming to America because of the rule of their homeland leaders regarding religion or religious freedom. But then, the homeland leaders, particularly Britain and King George sought out their ex-patriates and tried to rule from afar with taxes and a military presence. The New Americans could not govern themselves, nor their individual religions, nor do they have the right to speak against or demonstrate against British rule. And then from that you got the beginning and start of the American Revolution which basically changed the world forever with the later establishment of the Bill of Rights...

Ok, quickly, here is where most "liberal" interpretations of our 1st Amendment freedom are wrong:

First, the beginning part of our First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" What our Founding Father's are trying to tell you is that the government can't tell you what "religion" to believe, or if you should believe in a God at all. This has absolutely nothing to do with a "separation of church and state" you "liberals" clammer for. This has nothing to do with Mr. Newdow of Sacramento's (see my story here) protest of "under God" in the pledge or President Bush's hand on a Bible while being sworn in. This has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments being displayed on a Court House in Georgia or Alabama. This has nothing to do with a Christmas Tree or Nativity Scene at the Capital because these themes and items are not part of what our Founding Fathers were telling us. They were against our leadership having control of individual freedoms or our right to our own religious beliefs. Displaying these "things" are not meant to establish what you should think a free American and they are not to there to offend you if you don't like them. If you believe I am wrong in my interpretation, show me where... Because you can't!

Second, what is wrong with America sharing it's freedom with countries like Iraq, Iran, North Korea or where ever else a brutal regime is in control of its people? And what if we have to go to war to establish freedom? So what? Aren't we improving our freedom, and our Bill of Rights, for doing it? War is hell, people die, it sucks bad, but I can live with it because FREEDOM REIGNS!!! And so what if these "evil"leaders and dictators are oceans away? Why should we stand by and watch them destroy their people? Wouldn't that be considered selfish?

And So what part of hanging a soldier in effigy has to do with the last part of our First Amendment: "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The way I read the Amendment, it is not your right to do it. What's "peaceful" about it when you disturb and possibly endanger the lives of people around your house? What part of what those people did supports individual freedom? It has no basis no matter what their intent was. It was a bad choice of image.

Lastly, this part, "... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". What part of freedom of the press means that the press is actually telling the truth on let's say, the War in Iraq? The press is trapped in the paradigm of a witch hunt. If the hunt is to go right, then it goes after the right. If hunt moves left, which it never seems to do, then it goes after the left. Don't believe what you always hear or see in the press. I, for one, don't always believe what Rush Limbaugh says so don't take what Al Franken or Dan Rather says verbatim and use it to defend your position. In fact your position is opposite of mine right now, solely on the fact, that you HATE President Bush and you believe only "30 percent of America" voted for him and because you think I am a right wing zealot. However because I think the way I do, don't hate me for it, because I don't hate you for disagreeing with me.

I am amazed that our Founding Fathers spent the time to review the history of the world up until their time and that they had that much forethought to write a document that would still be as compelling today as it was then.