Freedom firsts GLARING Omission

I stumbled into some interesting thinking. I choose the positive term interesting versus the negative term of twisted. Freedom First is a great site to go to if you are against prayer in school, against the religious right in politics, against creationism and last but not least if you are pro-abortion.

Frankly they advocate topics that I'm generally at odds with. If I remember at least one old joke that "as long as there are tests there will be prayer in school" rings true and could be called quixotic pursuit on their part. However I do credit them for their attempt at making a credible link to the founding fathers writings and philosophies. It has nice packaging and a smooth interface and is easy to navigate. The topics are concisely covered for my commercial-break level attention span which can be readily found in the masses of souls educated in our liberal school system.

Then there was the glaring omission. IF you are for free speech. IF you are for separation of religion and politics. IF you genuinely think that those topics are part of our founding father's core beliefs then why do you actively ignore the amendments to the Constitution?

WHERE is the button that says "NO GUN CONTROL" with the caption of "Our founding fathers knew that the key to keeping government honest was to have an armed populace who could defend themselves from tyranny. We advocate every American legally possessing a fire arm. Click here to join or learn more about how you can support the Second Amendment."

Is that so shocking a question in context?

I think if I email that question to the web guys there I'll be ignored. I think if I question the members I'll be branded a "gun pushing nutcase" or something equally unkind and will find my thoughts deleted.

Permit me to label the argument to all the Baptists out there who are big fans of that site: it's like the Bible. We cannot pick and choose to overlook Biblical verses where women are not to teach men and that a church should have elders who decide and deacons who work. That clearly Jesus stated that work is meaningless if your heart is not for God first. That the only way to heaven is through Jesus. So also we cannot invent the idea that a religious man (such as Dr. Dobson but not a specific endorsement of him) organizing other like minded people to vote a certain way is in some way pushing religion instead of defending a moral ideal. That the religious man's actions in some way constitute an imposition of religion where all that is intended is for the limitations of forcing legal acceptance of issues where our founding fathers never dreamed we would tread.

Telling someone that you don't want a Judge to change morality is not the same as forcing someone to worship under a state religion. Quite frankly I'm tired of hearing this ignorant argument.