Editor, Times-Union: The following is the conclusion of my explanation to the second section of my proposed constitutional amendment concerning freedom of religion. I will now briefly outline the proposed amendment, which is divided into four parts that can serve as a template for other freedoms in the Bill of Rights. Part one which was explained in my Jan. 7 and March 23 letters to the editor clearly indicates who is barred from prohibiting or infringing upon the ethical expression and exercise of religion or irreligion. This being any part or whole of the executive, legislative, judicial or bureaucratic branches of government at the local, state and national levels. Others who are barred are majorities of participating voters in elections and referendums along with foreign powers and international organizations. Part two which was printed in the June 3 edition of the Times-Union states the basic human rights itself. Part three which will appear in a soon to follow letter, goes a step further and places some specific prohibitions on the entities mentioned in the first part. This is a necessary step that addresses several key areas of socialist-style intervention that has routinely occurred throughout history. Part four is the perpetuity clause which makes the entire amendment permanently in force and only subject to any type of change by the sole means of constitutional amendment for the express purpose of strengthening or clarifying its content, which means the amendment cannot repealed as a whole or in part, nor diminished. This ensures that future ever-vigilant generations will enjoy the benefits of such liberty without having it trampled upon by any one or a combination of the four branches of government at the local, state, national or international levels, nor the shifting winds of the electorate at the ballot box. It will also serve as a universal standard for other countries that wish to further religious liberty in their own lands. The second section of my proposed amendment the basic right itself is fairly straight forward overall. However there is one part of that section that I will briefly explain which are these words “whether alone or with each other to respectfully engage with an ethical manner toward others.” This means all individuals can enjoy the “peaceful, open, free and voluntarily aided and expression and exercise of religion or irreligion” so long as one does not infringe on the rights of others to do the same or does not use such expression and exercise of religion or irreligion as justification for perpetrating, being an accessory to, or an apologist for such blantly criminal acts as jihad or holy war, terrorism, murder, theft, assault, torture, kidnapping, slavery, vandalism, arson, trespassing, obstructing traffic, disturbing the peace, rape, child molestation, human sacrifice, mass suicide, attempting to impose your religion’ version of Taliban-like Sharia law on all, actively seeking to overthrow the government, etc. Alexander Houze Leesburg
