The "official" religion

Our country was founded on the idea of absolute freedom, attracting many of the first settlers to come over to America escaping religious persecution. The founding fathers brilliantly constructed the Constitution including the Bill of Rights; the first amendment which gives every American citizen the natural-born right to exercise any religion they desire. It’s one of the founding ideals that made this country so great, especially at that time. Although, in Amendment I, in the very first line of the Bill of Rights it specifically says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Well, it should be obvious that the government has in fact established a religion. Although the American people still have the right to practice any religious beliefs, it’s definitely true that the American government endorses the Christian religion and its values. Now, this is not an argument against Christianity at all; I am a Christian myself, and quite religious as well. But with that said my religion is very sacred to me, and I believe the government should have absolutely no correlation or influence upon it. The point of contention here is that the government is in violation of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land being broken by the institution which created it. Any person should be able to clearly see the endorsement of Christianity by the government. For example, “Our nation under God” in the pledge of allegiance, the presence of the Ten Commandments on government grounds, “In God we trust” printed on the back of money, and the placement of one’s hand over the Bible while taking an oath in the court of law. Christianity being endorsed by the government isn’t necessarily a horrible thing, but we do need consistency between the laws that govern this land and the actions that are actually carried out. Either the government needs to stop promoting Christianity as the “official” religion, or we need to change the Constitution accordingly.

Climbing the fence

In a recent article posted on Free Republic entitled “Despite fences, immigrants still broach U.S. border,” political analyst Tim Gaynor gives a pragmatic outlook on the nation’s illegal immigration issue, and the significance of the border fence. Gaynor does well in presenting both the contributions as well as the inadequacies the new border control policy has encountered. After reading numerous articles that only took a “success” or “failure” stance on the issue, it’s pleasing to see someone make a statement about the achievements of the border fence, while making sure not to ignore the fact that the fence alone has not solved our illegal immigration problem.
The need to secure our borders is an important issue, and how to ensure that it is done properly and effectively is as controversial of a question as it is important. Gaynor first examines how the fence has at least had the ability to “slow the flow” of illegal immigrants across the border. With the culmination of newly placed barriers, surveillance technologies, and added manpower, the immigrant’s attempts to cross the border have definitely been halted as they have faced increased resistance throughout the southwest region. "It has been a massive success. It has allowed our agents to gain control over the area and acted as a deterrent for people thinking of crossing," said Jeremy Schappell, a spokesman for the Border Patrol's Yuma sector, which includes San Luis. Although, Gaynor nor I are oblivious to the inefficiencies of the newly instated system. Stretches of the border seem to be unable to stop illegal immigrants numerous attempts at crossing the border as the fence alone won’t stop anyone; people will find a way over, under, or through it. Commenting on less effective areas along the border Gaynor states: “The barrier has no barbed wire and includes several formal breaks, one where a freight train crosses from Ciudad Juarez, in Mexico, another to give access to the river bed… without 24-hour monitoring, as well as the stadium flood lights, and the directional cameras linked to a central control room manned by National Guard troops, the El Paso fence would be little deterrent.” Gaynor realizes the need for some type of legitimate surveillance in addition to a barrier for the border control system to be an effective means of curbing illegal immigration. The nation is making steady progress towards the current immigration issue, but some substantial improvements need to be made. John Ladd, a local rancher says: "It's so easy to climb that I've seen two women that were pregnant, I've seen several women in their sixties and all kinds of kids between five and ten years old climb over it," Ladd said, as he leaned on a section of the steel mesh fence that stretches like a rusted veil westward toward the rugged Huachuca Mountains.
Gaynor’s article is a solid presentation of the border controls advocates as well the citizens with a rather weary attitude towards its effectiveness. His writing is concise and fair, making a point about this crucial issue I hope the government is seriously considering. As with anything in life, do it right, or don’t do it at all.