Daily Newspaper and Travel Guide
for Pecos Country of West Texas

Opinion

Tuesday, September 9, 2003

Sage Views

By Smokey Briggs

The Ten Commandments

belong in the courthouse

I'm not completely sure that the Ten Commandments ought to be inscribed on the walls of a courthouse or any other publicly funded building.

Well, that is not really true. I think they should be. But having witnessed a few verbal and not-so-verbal stonings of decent people at the hands of so-called good Christians in the name of that which is holy, I do understand some of the motives of some of those who oppose a union between religious belief and publicly owned property.

I am absolutely sure, however, that Christianity does not suffer when religious reference is eradicated from the hall of the courthouse.

Our society, on the other hand, may not fare so well.

I am also absolutely sure that our Constitution does not demand such an absolute divorce between all things religious and all things done and/or owned by the people.

I am also sure that the arguments for such a disunion of Christianity and all things public are based on many things - but not the words of our Constitution.

No rational person can read the First Amendment and get to where we are now from a reading of those words.

The first 10 words of the First Amendment are often referred to as the establishment clause or the separation of church and state clause.

From this clause all of the constitutional law prohibiting such things as prayer in schools and commandments in courthouses hath sprung.

Here are those words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

As often as you hear media talking heads say it, you would think the thing actually said, "separation of church and state."

That is what many would like for it to say, and that is what many have said it says, but none of this changes the actual words, or the actual meaning of those words.

By no means of rational thought can you get to where we are from those ten words. A plain language meaning does not create the divorce between Christianity and public life demanded by the separatists of our society.

Nor does a historical interpretation. Obviously the authors and ratifiers of this Amendment did not mean what the separatists of today say this clause now means.

So how do you get here from there?

The only way is the often misused and misunderstood statement that the Constitution is a flexible document meant to change with the times.

It is - but not the way these folks want it to be.

The Constitution is a simple game - the rules are written on the top of the box it came in - and changing it is a simple matter with the rules clearly spelled out. We have amended it about 26 times since it was originally penned. That is the flexibility the document should and does have.

The separatists do not like that method. Maybe it is too hard. Maybe too many Americans do not agree with them and would not vote for their amendment.

I would not.

So, they contend that the Constitution must be flexible - and what they mean is that it must be open for interpretation by the Supreme Court.

They like this view because they have had a court that was as skewed in its thinking for the past fifty years as they are themselves.

So, according to the separatists, the Constitution means whatever the Court says it means today.

It is a stupid approach that does nothing but weaken the one document that is supposed to provide a basic set of rights and protections to its creators against the government they created.

In truth it relegates the Constitution to nothing more than the collective thoughts of the current group of politically nominated Supreme Court Justices instead of the bedrock and unchanging foundation of freedom that it was meant to be.

Frank Hogan, former president of the American Bar Association said it better than I ever can in 1939 when he said, ""If the Constitution is to be construed to mean what the majority at any given period in history wish the Constitution to mean, why a written Constitution?"

That is the trap we have fallen into regarding the so-called separation of church and state.

If the separatists are right, then we no longer have a written constitution. In its stead we have whatever the Supreme Court thinks today.

If so, we have begun the slide back into the pit of tyranny in which humanity has struggled for most of history.

The Ten Commandments that used to reside in the courthouse in Alabama belong there folks. They belong there if a majority of the people who own the building want them there and the presence does not violate the Constitution.

That presence does not violate the Constitution. Not the one we wrote down over 200 years ago and that every citizen can read.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Smokey Briggs is the editor and publisher of the Pecos Enterprise whose column appears on Tuesdays. He can be e-mailed at: smokey@pecos.net

Our View

Raising taxes is a poor solution

The City Council has some tough decisions in front of it.

Revenues are down and expenses are up.

This is the case even if the County actually pays the $422,000 payment for the new water field that was due last week.

What to do?

There are only two choices: raise taxes or cut services.

The easy decision is to raise taxes. Government is the only "business" in the world where the caretakers simply declare that there will be more profit next year when there is a shortfall.

In the real world the solution is not that simple.

The solution should not be that simple for Pecos either.

There is nothing on the horizon that would make a rational person think that Pecos' fortunes will soon reverse.

The tax base is probably going to continue to shrink in the foreseeable future.

Raising taxes to suck more money out of the tax base that is left is a self-defeating strategy that will do more to drive nails in this city's coffin than it will to help it survive.

Each time we raise taxes we make it that much more unlikely that any business would consider Pecos as a new home and it is new business that can save Pecos, not new taxes.

Cutting services may not be popular but it is the responsible decision and city councilmen are not elected to do what is popular.

Families live within their means.

Businesses live within their means.

Cities should live within their means as well.

Your View

Sorry folks, without your help, no more letters to the editor

Dear Editor:
Two weeks ago I wrote a letter to the editor that mentioned two incidents with the Pecos Police Department and one that mentioned Jimmy Galindo.

Once again you can see that my news was not printed.

Let me start by telling you about my conversation with Smokey Briggs last week. Mr. Briggs informed me that he and the newspaper do not want to be liable for mentioning the truth about certain politicians, their employees and the privileged group we know as the click in Reeves County. Mr. Briggs informed me that the person complaining or that has something to say must write an affidavit or see Mr. Briggs personally for a statement.

Is this a way to keep me from bringing the truth to the citizens and taxpayers.

Perhaps Mr. Briggs feels as though I am not bright enough to bring this to the attention of the people. Maybe Mr. Briggs will take the time to investigate what is going on in our community.

If you are a citizen and taxpayer and you have something to say I urge you to send an affidavit or visit with Mr. Briggs if this is the only way to get your point across or bring out the truth.

If you are scared of the consequences remember you have rights as a citizen of the United States.

This First Amendment gives you the right of free speech. The Texas Penal Code, section 36.06 gives you protection from retaliation.

Retaliation against a person that has information relating to a criminal act such as a witness or informant is a third degree felony. Remember this!

I once again urge you to contact Mr. Briggs or the newspaper and voice your opinion. It's your right.

ROBERT HANKS

Help pass proposition 12

Dear Editor:
As a physician practicing in Pecos for the past 15 months, I have come to love this town and its residents. The warmth and friendliness of the people of West Texas as exemplified by Reeves County is truly outstanding. Several of my patients have bcome my friends. I also believe I have been trying my best to do a good job with the inspiration provided by my clientele. However, all this will not be possible if I am no longer able to practice, driven to close my practice and move to anoter state because the ever-incraseing high professional liability premiums in Texas is driving many physicians out of business. This year alone, many physicians out of business. This year alone, many physicians like myself face an increase of up to 30 to 50 percent in our premium compared to just last year.

I therefore want to use this medium to appeal to all concerned citizens of Pecos and Reeves County who want to continue seeing their physicians to go to the polls on September 13 to vote Yes on Proposition 12. This is a measure, which if passed, will help cut down liability rates for physicians all across Texas and make health care affordable to all, especially low income families living in rural parts of the state like Pecos.

Sincerely,
OLADELE OLUSANYA, MD
Family Physician

Return to top

Pecos Enterprise
York M. "Smokey" Briggs, Publisher
Division of Buckner News Alliance, Inc.
324 S. Cedar St., Pecos, TX 79772
Phone 432-445-5475, FAX 432-445-4321
e-mail news@pecos.net

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium.
We support Newspapers in Education
Copyright 2003 by Pecos Enterprise