On freedom of, and from, religion

When the constitution was originally written, these set 'rules' applied to the society of that time and place.

The First Amendment guarantees all citizens the five basic freedoms. Since the amendments were written, changes in society and government have influenced how each freedom is interpreted and since, put limits and restrictions on each freedom.

Obviously, there was no foresight to how the document would later stand, but then again, who knew what the future would hold? How can our government amend or constantly redefine these rights when these exact terms are subjectively used?

These amendments are supposed to be rock solid. How can we censor speech and press rightfully? Who gets to decide what is socially acceptable and what should be censored? What makes the people who put limitations on these rights any more qualified or superior than you or I?

Another problem with the Constitution itself is that the government makes it a point to separate church and state. Why does the public see no openly anti-religious people in positions of power in this country and why are people so quick to jump all over them when someone does say something to offend their religion?

Because the Constitution was written to be based off of Christian principles, isn't it impossible to separate church and state then? Because there is a freedom to be involved with whatever religion you so choose, shouldn't that allow for more leeway in political figures' religious interests?

I personally don't understand why it appears that the religion of people running for office has a big influence on voters. Because there is the freedom of religion, doesn't this means there's supposed to be freedom from religion?

This is obviously impossible if this country is guided by the practices and ethics defined by a religion.

Nicole Glasgow

Bloomingdale