Editor, Times-Union: The following is the second part of my explanation for section 3 of my proposed constitutional amendment for furthering strengthening religious liberty, the free market of religious choice and maintaining the independence of the institutions of church and state from each other both here and abroad. I will pick up where I left off from the first part of my explanation in my Oct. 29 letter to the editor, which was getting ready to list the various types of infringement by government that would be prohibited by this amendment. Section 3 starts out with the following: “Nor shall such aforementioned entities as a matter of public or practice during peacetime or war subject the people domestic or foreign whether as a whole, by category, or as individuals to such horrendous and oppressive acts as the following because of their beliefs or disbelief, or as a means of eliminating competition from rival faiths, denominations and congregations, or as a method of regimenting the general public into becoming either whole-hearted, or grudgingly compliant, or unwitting practitioners of or participants to one’s faith, or as a way of achieving a revolutionary or more narrow aim in regards to religious activity in general or society as a whole, or merely as an end unto itself amongst other motives for such tyranny.” The words “aforementioned entities” refers to the all four branches of government at the local, state, national or international levels along with voters, foreign powers and alliances, which they would be barred from subjecting the people whether all of them at once, or having them sorted by “category” such as a particular faith or denomination or other criteria, or by an individual case by case basis. Next, “horrendous and oppressive acts as the following” refers to the nine general types of infringement that were mentioned in my Oct. 29 letter to the editor. These types of infringement will be explained further in soon to follow letters to the editor. The first part of section 3 of the amendment then moves into listing five primary motives among many possible ones for such types of action by government, which are the following: because of a person’s or group’s belief or disbelief in a particular theological point or practice, a particular religion itself or religion in general; the use of government power for the purpose of minimizing or removing competition from other faiths; the use of government power as a tool for mass recruiting new converts or ensuring the outward appearance of obedience to one’s faith. There is also the fourth reason which is the use of the different types of infringement for a revolutionary reordering of society or religious activity in general. Finally, such infringement can be an end unto itself. An explanation of the nine types of infringement named in section 3 of the proposed amendment will follow shortly in the letters to the editor column. Alexander Houze Warsaw
