Constitutional contrivance: House leadership goes for the gimmick

Counterww

But religion as you describe it is just a political tool. Shouldn't it be more than that?

You have freedom of religion, don't you? How do you think you do not? What example can you give?

If religion in general, or some specific churh, is not as culturally popular as it used to be, then that is just how it is. Just because religion may not be so dominating as it once was, how does that stop you in the practice of your own religion?

I always find it interesting when someone quotes the "founding fathers". What about the outlawing of native american and slave religious practices when these "pious" men were writing about "freedom". This country has always been about power and control and more than anything else greed. All else is myth and manipulation.

The GOP does not take the Constitution seriously. And anyone who believes that they do is too gullible to live without assistance.

Barry lynn throws the proverbial baby out with the bath water on separation of church and state , particularly with funding social service programs, that has been done in some form or another since the founding of this country from orphanages, hosipitals, schools, and upheld in the courts. its time lynn, stop beating the dead horse, its dead already.

I think Barry is trumped by George Washington. The founders never meant the "wall" to be so high the religious would be completely shut out. See following.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

-------------

Sorry Barry, you and the others agreeing with you here won't ever get your way.

GAMILLER1 you miss so much, yet say so much.

Whatever it is in you, whatever defect makes it possible for you to believe in the religious nonsense you believe in, is also operating in those muslims you hate so much.

Really, the only difference between you and them is where you were born. Here in the west we have begun the process of abandoning our childish, barbaric, primitive religions, and your kind are losing the strength to tell the rest of what to do. In Islam this has yet to happen.

Hopefully, it will happen there before you christians and their muslims decide to have a nuclear war over whose fantasy sky daddy has a bigger dik!

S C H N A U Z E R 21. et al;

Well, Looks Like [NEPOTIST] Clinton's got away with the "SAXBE FiX." Interesting.

PS: Some Of America's Nepotists (like KINGs & Queens) Political Folk like GANDHi's {pnu Them and Nepotists KENNEDY's {pbu Them] Have nothing to do with that "Zaxbe Fix."?

EXCERPT: "...To prevent ethical conflicts, James Madison proposed language at the Constitutional Convention that was adopted as the Ineligibility Clause after debate and modification by other Founding Fathers...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxbe_fix

Don't Know much about that "Salary Throwback" though.

Thanks For The Interesting SCRiPTure.

KOODHA-AFEZ! SHALOM!

This column is an interesting juxtaposition of obvious truths mixed in with more than enough toxic snarkiness to ensure that whatever value it has is wasted. There is more than one kind of opinion, and the author certainly has his right to any of them. But all the opinions in this column about parties and personalities only serves to stroke the political genitalia of those who agree, while ensuring that the actual arguments it tries to express will be dismissed as just more partisan ranting by those who might otherwise be persuaded. Our political discourse has to get beyond this, regardless of how much fun it might be.

Steven T Abell
Author of DAYS IN MIDGARD: A THOUSAND YEARS ON

GAMILLER1 wrote:

“As one of the ignorant knuckle draggers, it is really interesting to hear so many liberals being so tolerant of so many of those of us unfortunate souls who happen to believe in something greater than ourselves. In addition, the main premise is protection of religion FROM governmental interference, as had occurred in England years earlier.”

If you are correct about this “premise”, which as far as I know never was written as such, let's add your premise to the relevant part of the constitutional amendment to see if it alters in anything the so called separation of church and government:

**Because there must be protection of religion FROM governmental interference, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;**

Hummm, don't see this changes much the fact that government is not allowed to promote religion in general much less promote one particular religion. Nor affects the fact that the exercise of a particular religion cannot be prohibit (assuming that the exercise of the religion do not violate any other law, ordinances, etc.).

But hold, now that we are on this, please allow me to add other premises that have been mentioned by constitutionalists, historians and politicians:

**Because there must be protection of religion FROM governmental interference; protection of government FROM religious interference; and protection of we-the-people FROM religious interference, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;**

Hummm, still not much change to the fact that government and religion don't mix, nor changes the fact that the practice of a religion or no-religion cannot be imposed to we-the-people, and that we-the-people should not interfere with the exercise of the religions (with the caveat mentioned above).

But there is more, don't forget “or abridging the freedom of speech”, which means that practitioners of a religion can say that the not-religious are immoral and deserve to fry in hell, and we not-believers/not-practitioners can say that god(s) are myths, the believers are deluded and by condoning the crimes committed by their religions they become promoters of evil.

If only all Americans and our Congress critters could be so logically consistent.
But alas we know better.
Very well argued Barry, and thank you for continuing to hammer on the myth of the "Christian Founding."

Gamiller1

You did not say anything specific, other than expressing snarky sarcasm.

My complaint was over the Republicans bragging about reading the Constitution on the floor of the House of Representatives, and then, reading an edited version of it, that I have never heard of, nor seen before.

On to your other criticisms, the legal doctrine of separation of church and state is pretty simple and clear cut. Do you disagree with it?

As one of the ignorant knuckle draggers, it is really interesting to hear so many liberals being so tolerant of so many of those of us unfortunate souls who happen to believe in something greater than ourselves. In addition, the main premise is protection of religion FROM governmental interference, as had occurred in England years earlier. This gets lost in these enlightening open minded forums where so much love and tolerance is shown to one's fellow man; it is sad that almost all of the posters here and Mr. Lynn really only speak partial truth when referring to separation of church and state.

I'll go back to my undeveloped group of knuckle dragging believing friends. Oddly, many of those friends hold multilple advanced degrees, but alas, most of the intellectual giants pontificating here must be the intellectual elite of the DC area if not the country or world, for that matter.

In reality, I rarely waste the time to respond here, for simply reading this narrow minded drabble not only makes me sick but saddens me that so many highly intelligent people truly talk out of both sides of their mouths. They demand so much yet are so quick to run down their fellow man. THEN, they blame Christianity for all strife and war, lumping it in with radical Islamic terrorists and what they do under "monotheism", "Abrahamic faith", or some other such moniker. Really, since we do disagree, can't we do so in a mutually respectful way?

Great column. We need more Christians like you who denounce your radical extremist theocons.

Without your voices we'll soon be reciting a new Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the flag,
of the Christian States of Jesuslandia
and to the theocracy for which it stands
one nation under god
with ignorance and intolerance for all.
In the name of our personal Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Amen

CPRFerry wrote:
"The history of First Amendment points that the use of "respect" means granting a particular privilege, say allowing one denomination the sole right to issue marriage certificates."

CPR,

All three points Barry made involve granting special privileges to monotheistic religions over polytheistic religions and also over non-religion. For example, monotheists get to advertise their religion opinion on U.S. government currency. Atheists never get to use U.S. currency to advertise their religious opinions. Talk about granting special privilege!

And the case of Congressional Chaplains (always Christian) involves granting special privilege to Christianity in particular.

The history of First Amendment points that the use of "respect" means granting a particular privilege, say allowing one denomination the sole right to issue marriage certificates.

Respect, as in showing esteem for an individual of office they hold, is not unconstitutional. Respect isn't merely refusing to throw a hissyfit any time something resembling religion is brought up around us and spitting at every one with ministerial garb. Respect is a human value. We should all practice it.

Bravo, and while we are at it (restoring the Pledge and firing the chaplins) can we restore the national motto and remove "In God (which one?) We Trust" from our money and government buildings? And: Remove "so help me God" from our oaths and, swearing instead on he US Constitution instead of a religious book? Thank you.

Posted by: ITs-TIME "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was/is NOt supposed to be the Secretary Of State.
Please see U.S. Const. ART.1:SECTtion6 reading (for All The World to see, not only Americans):
"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."
-----------------------------
Perhaps you should have done a little reading of your own. This is the 4th time it has been used (twice by each party)

The Saxbe fix, or salary rollback, is a mechanism by which the President of the United States, in appointing a current or former member of the United States Congress whose elected term has not yet expired, can avoid the restriction of the United States Constitution's Ineligibility Clause.

The rollback, first implemented by an Act of Congress in 1909, reverts the emoluments of the office to the amount they were when that member began his or her elected term.

Barry,
Once again you are spot on. And you make this issue so clear and irrefutable--it's hard to believe that some folks still don't 'get' the separation of church and state. Keep up the good work and thanks for being our leader.
Ellen

... and by the way, what hypocrites ...

... they didn't even read the Constitution in its original wording ...

... they read an editted version ...

... with all of the amendments integrated into a modified text ...

... so presto ...

... no mention of slaves being counted as three-fifths of a person ...

They are gutless cowards, whose pretentions of piety are transparently deceptive.

The Constitution's reference to slavery implied that it was a Consitutionally sanctioned institution, and THAT is why we fought the Civil War, to set this terrible mistake right; and the Republi-KLAN Teapartyists have edited it right out of history.

I don't expect that Lenin and Stalin could have done a better job.

Ooopps. Please Excuse for inadvertent post (without Correcting).

Nr. Barry Lynn et al;

Sir, i believe YeYo never got to watch one of the "PERRY MASON" {pbuh} Movie entitled: The

"NO means NO, Not Yes." AND

What the Crying Dutchman (Mr.Speaker) is doing is, yes, a First; but also a Wise Call [To DUTY]!

Reciting and or Reminding, Not only 'THE-PEOPLE" but, the U.S. "Congress" folks and U.S. "Senate" folk (Not G_Ds) that All LAWS MUST BE DECIDED By The PEOPLE, For The People! [Similar enshrined) and Law #1 is that;

NO Folk, Elected or Not, can turn a [USURP] "NO" into a "YES" without Express... lalala. Example:

Senator Hillary R. Clinton (The one Ye Sued) was/is in Fact (According to "NO" in Holyi U.S. CONSTITUTION) said, Clearly, NOt ambiguously, THAT

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was/is NOt supposed to be the Secretary Of State.

Please see U.S. Const. ART.1:SECTtion6 reading (for All The World to see, not only Americans):

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

Interestingly enough what Boehner-M's try'n to do is be in "CHECK" with the talk/walk yet but Do without The "BALANCE?"

Note: As a Young Lad (And All Young Lads & Lado's) Watching the Perry Mason {pbuh} LAW Practice/Action Movies That From a Young Age, After Watching Each Perry Mason {pbu Milton Buhrl's} Episodes; THAT

i[WE] was able to watch ANY-MOVIE, Even John Wayne {pbuh}, and Ronald Reagan {pbuh} and still be to discern or Sight or Point Out any and All or Most HUMAN WRONGS Committed Against Another's HUUMATE-RIGHTS! Includes Either BUSiness-LAW, Criminal and or Civil; Let Alone in Biblical Proportions!

Those Who Appose The "Reading Of OUR HOLYi Parchment/Scroll/Document [CONSTITUTION], is tantamount To Any CHURCH Perp or GO'r, Praying Once or 5 times Daily.

Oooppsss.

My "HOlyi COsmic FEeler's FAith" Scripture; Has The "DECLARATION of HUMAN RIGHTS" appended to the Front of IT, and our Holyi U.S. CONSTITUTION" appended to the Back Of IT. NOW

Show US Where On This [NEBULA-BUILT] S.Pace S.hip Earth Which or What RELIGION, other than HO-CO-FE-FAian SYSTEM, have such a Religios Book, aka our O.NE U.niversal R.eligion or simply The "RELIGION of Everything before the SCIENCE of Everything:

PS: One Of me favorite Jurists, Besides Normal Siegal (ACLU), or Johnathan Weiss et al, is His Honorable JACK B. WEINSTEIN (E.D.N.Y.).

NOTE: i[WE] will Be releasing Americas "SPACE-FORTH & FUTURE-BOUND" Plans (For MEME's) To Convert U.S. oldtime GOVERNMENTALs into a Newtime ">b>APOCALYPTIC GOVERNMENT" plus "GRIDARIAN-DEMOCRACY"

Stay Tuned for a NEW-UNITED-STATES and with a NEW-RELIGION! An More Good Tidings; As Promised US/U.S. et al!

Thank you for your excellent article. When will secularists of every stripe gather to demand that "our" Congress honor the separation of church and state? Isn't it overdue?

OUR GOVERNMENT IS OF THE PEOPLE,BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE only. No religion what so ever. Please keep your religion to your self and bear in mind what Tomas Jefferson said.

The religious-political right uses the idea of faith as a way to lead the ever more uneducated masses to the water trough of a pretend Constitution. Their constituency cannot begin to tell you what the founding father's intended in the penning of that document. They prefer to be told by self-appointed messengers of God what they meant. It is why they go to church in the first place. To be a critical thinker requires cracking open a few books and actually reading them, and that takes time. Time away from their friends and their sports and their T.V and their church activities. To be religious has as its only requirement to be capable of suspending critical thought and giving your will over to God. The interpretation of that will come once again, from a self-appointed emissary. It has become a boon for the political right. They are no more religious than a rock, but they read the masses as the imbeciles that they have become and guide them on a leash tethered by ignorance to acts of prejudice, violence, self-inflicted economic hardship and finally the voting booth. They imagine a world for them peopled and ruled by faces of color, made possible by a planned caucasian annihilation. They imagine for them a world where there will be no more aborted babies, no more immigrants to take their pretend jobs, no more uppity married gays walking the streets unashamed as if they had a right to exist, contrary to what they KNOW God intended. They lift their faces to the sky and the podium wailing about Obama and his health care plan as if the devil incarnate hatched a plot to overcome the world by giving affordable healthcare to everyone. It isn't difficult to understand why the separation of church and state is so fundamentally important. Republicans have touted the abortion debate as their main cause for years, but they are not fools, they only lead fools. Do you really think that these avaricious power monsters want several hundred thousand unwanted babies born EVERY year for the state to support when one of their favorite banners to carry is the elimination of the welfare state? And the religious right weeps for all those aborted babies, but how many have they adopted? Are they willing to give up their SUVs and big t.vs to pay for them or do they think it alright for them to starve in the streets? It is necessary to get them born, what happens after that is up to God. See, critical thinking. Our founding father's saw this ignorance rise across the sea. They did their best to avert it, and oddly after all these years the battle rages on. I love the Constitution. It is a perfectly executed attempt by great thinkers to form for us a safety net against the insanity of a religious fervor that can deconstruct a society. But the more important battle is in ourselves. If we educate our children and give them the words of the great thinkers of our species, whether we agree with them or not, we won't have to worry about the intent of scheming politicians.

Nicely put, Reverend Lynn. Madison is credited with saying that the purpose of the separation of Church and State was to protect the integrity of both institutions. I'm a Deacon in the Presbyterian Church and am teaching a class on our confessions. In a couple of weeks, we tackle the Theological Declaration of Barmen and its powerful message about the corrupting influence secular power has on the Church.

I'm also painfully aware as someone who grew up Presbyterian in the deep South (and baptized as an infant!) that if this ever becomes a "Christian Nation", it won't be my brand of Christianity.

Excellent points, Barry Lynn.