Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 05-29-2003, 03:19 PM

Obviously political grandstanding.

text here

Quote:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States restoring religious freedom.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification, and is intended to include protection of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, the display of the Ten Commandments, and voluntary school prayer:

'Article --

'To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience:

'The people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including schools.

'The United States and the States shall not establish any official religion nor require any person to join in prayer or religious activity.'.

check out the discussion on the Interfaith Alliance

SLD · 05-29-2003, 07:24 PM

Political grandstanding, maybe. But we live in dangerous times. We've got Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress and the Presidency. They could make an issue of it.

Damn you Ralph Nader.

SLD

BibleBelted · 06-02-2003, 07:25 AM

Oh no! Another Oklahoma fundy nitwit congressman grandstanding for votes. He'll probably get them too in this information and education-starved state.

This isn't even anything new .. he tried this in 1998 and was knocked down - even by Republicans.

Here is a statement by Rep. Jim Leach, R - Iowa from '98:

Jim Leach opposing constitutional amendment to "protect" religious freedom

Quote:

The question this House must answer is thus whether expressions of faith in America will be freer with or without this proposed amendment.

My view is that the Constitution as it currently is written, which carries with it certain court decisions which at times are perplexing, nonetheless better protects freedom of religion than the well-meaning but potentially counterproductive language of the proposed amendment

.....................

I believe Congress would be wise to validate the appropriateness of moments of silent prayer or meditation in public schools, but for all its good intentions, the amendment before us opens the door to the authorization of majority-crafted spoken prayer in public schools. To say that children need not participate and would, for example, be free to leave the room is to deny the coercive power of peer pressure on young people.

...................

Our founding fathers established a nation "under God," one in which revolution against British authority was premised upon "self-evident" individual rights and an appeal to a higher law of conscience to justify a revolutionary government. America's first citizens labored carefully to construct, in Jefferson's terms, a wall between church and state.

When erecting this Constitutional barrier between church and state, the crafters of the Bill of Rights looked inward as well as outward and turned a wary eye to the American as well as European experience. They fully understood that it was religious authoritarianism in Europe that drew many of the early settlers to our shores, but that upon arriving in the New World, some like the Puritans invoked a rather exclusionary discipline of their own, with witchcraft trials and stocks and pillories used to coerce alleged nonbelievers. "Who does not see," Madison warned, "the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same care, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects?" The strength of the haven we have provided for oppressed people the world over comes from a tolerance for diversity rather than an enforced conformity.

So why is this coming up again? Has fascism suddenly become all the rage?

I guess so.

Feather · 06-02-2003, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BibleBelted
Oh no! Another Oklahoma fundy nitwit congressman grandstanding for votes. He'll probably get them too in this information and education-starved state.

This isn't even anything new .. he tried this in 1998 and was knocked down - even by Republicans.

Here is a statement by Rep. Jim Leach, R - Iowa from '98:

Jim Leach opposing constitutional amendment to "protect" religious freedom

So why is this coming up again? Has fascism suddenly become all the rage?

I guess so.

What do you mean "suddenly?" The Conservative Right has always been about authoritarian government; a dictatorship of the Xtians over the non-Xians.

Grumpy · 06-02-2003, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLD
We've got Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress and the Presidency.... Damn you Ralph Nader.

In this case, the President cannot veto Constitutional amendments, so far as I know. So the Nader factor makes no difference.

Istook does this every year, I think. Of course, a lot has happened in the past 12 months.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-29-2003, 07:24 PM	#2
SLD Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Birmingham, Alabama Posts: 4,109	Political grandstanding, maybe. But we live in dangerous times. We've got Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress and the Presidency. They could make an issue of it. Damn you Ralph Nader. SLD

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.