I had a chance to talk to U.S. Rep. Steve Buyer yesterday about the proposed constitutional amendment to guarantee religious freedom.

Buyer is a Republican from Monticello. He represents - generally - the southern half of Kosciusko County.

He voted in favor of the amendment. I was impressed with his views. To me, his thinking on this issue is so clear and on point I felt compelled to share it with our readers.

Buyer said opposition to the amendment came on several fronts, including the American Civil Liberties Union, "who has been working pretty hard to ensure that religious expression is repressed."

But the main opposition among Republicans and conservative Democrats came from constitutional scholars who believe the constitution is a sacred document and shouldn't be tampered with, he said.

Since the First Amendment protects religions expression, a constitutional amendment unnecessary, they say.

But Buyer says the First Amendment's true meaning has been "corrupted by decades of bad decisions and Supreme Court interpretations."

Then Buyer rattles off a list of these decision.

"It started in 1962 when the Supreme Court said it didn't matter if prayer was voluntary, students could no longer pray together in school," he said.

Then, in 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed on a wall in the school because students might "read and obey" them.

In 1985 the "moment of silence" was forbidden in classrooms.

In 1992 it was ruled that a rabbi broke the law by offering a prayer at a high school graduation.

In 1995, a Nazi swastika was ruled a protected symbol on public property. That same year, it was ruled that a cross could not be included in a group of symbols on a city seal.

In 1997, a cross that stood for 70 years at a park in San Francisco was ordered to be taken down.

In Marion, the ACLU forced the Ten Commandments to be taken out of the Grant County Courthouse.

The post office has removed Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah banners.

In Washington D.C., the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission tried to say that on the job, coworkers can't talk to each other about their faith.

In Galveston, Texas, a federal judge threatened to arrest anyone who said the word "Jesus" at a high school graduation.

And Buyer himself was disinvited to speak at a graduation ceremony at Kankakee Valley High School because he planned to say a nondenominational prayer.

"... A fascist, a Nazi, a communist, a socialist, or a flag burner can either say or wear something, or have conduct that finds protection in the First Amendment. But if a congressman refers to God at a high school graduation, he is somehow a threat to society - that's just bizarre," Buyer said.

He added, "The paradox is that people of faith are being censored in the name of freedom."

I can't agree more with the Congressman from Monticello. I have often written that the only class of individual left in America that can be discriminated against is the Christian.

There is no constitutional protection for me when it comes to all manner of offensive speech or behavior. The Constitution doesn't protect me from pornography, or X-rated flicks or foul language in music. It doesn't protect me from hearing something stupid or antagonistic.

And it shouldn't. That's what freedom is about.

Why, then, are people of faith told that they can only exercise their faith in a church or in their home? That is not true freedom.

On the one hand, we are told by the government that we must be tolerant. Tolerant of the KKK. Tolerant of Act Up. Tolerant of an artist who immerses a crucifix in a jar of urine.

But on the other hand, there is no religious tolerance.

I think Buyer summed it up pretty well when he said the argument boils down to a preposition.

The First Amendment says freedom OF religion, he said. Not freedom FROM religion.

A nation free from religion generally is not a very pleasant place to live. Unfortunately, with the government and the Supreme Court simultaneously restricting religion and promoting humanism, that is precisely what it appears the United States is becoming.

*****

Is it just me, or has anybody else picked up on the hypocrisy of the Clinton administration in regard to Kenneth Starr's investigation?

Just this week, White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry was bemoaning the length and cost of Starr's investigation.

He said something about it lasting 1,400 days at $30,000 a day.

OK, Mike.

I will agree that the investigation is taking too long. So why don't we speed it up?

Maybe McCurry could convince the Clinton legal team to speed things along.

Fat chance.

The Clinton legal strategy since the outset of the investigation has been to delay it. To stonewall. To be uncooperative.

To say that they're acting like people with something to hide is beyond understatement.

At the outset of the Lewinsky affair, Clinton said he would be forthcoming with his side of the story. "Sooner than later" was the quote.

I guess he changed his mind.

Because since then, he has done his best to force delays. Claiming executive privilege. Claiming attorney/client privilege.

The only reason the Clinton team decided not to appeal the ruling against executive privilege is because they didn't want to look Nixonesque.

And now, with the Supreme Court declining a swift ruling in Starr's quest to compel grand jury testimony from a presidential aide and three Secret Service employees, the delays will continue.

Now the issue goes to the federal appeals court.

The earliest it could go to the Supreme Court is at the end of its summer recess in October.

And that, precisely, is what the Clinton administration wants.

Here's why.

With the President's approval ratings high, Clinton officials believe that the midterm elections in November will give the Democrats a majority in Congress.

Then, with all the chairmanships of all the committees becoming Democrats, they can sweep the whole mess under the rug.

I don't like it, but I have to hand it to Clinton and his guys. Their strategy is working quite well. [[In-content Ad]]