Sandy Hook

Sandy Hook

Monday, May 17, 2010

Christian Politicians Deliberately Twist Constitution To Gain Votes

If you can pay the price you can buy almost anything you want in this country -- car, home, toothpaste, clothes, food or a charcoal grill. If you can pay the price you can buy services such as sex and votes. It doesn't matter if you don't know your history or your Constitution but it matters how hard you can thump the good book.

Liam Fox sets out to prove this on News Junkie Post.

Religions demand tolerance and acceptance of their own views, practices, prescriptions and prohibitions, when all they offer to others is intolerance. Religions requiring that others be forced, or coerced, to adhere to their tenets are nothing more than fascist political systems, and belief systems that regard their doctrine as being above a democratically elected legislature are seditious.

The founding fathers engineered the separation of church and state to protect America from Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Islam and all other politically insistent theologies while simultaneously protecting those and all other religions from the interference of government.

In the desperate political climate that they find themselves in, Politicians lacking a clear understanding of or commitment to the First Amendment line up in favor of sectarian measures in the hope of garnering votes and winning elections. . . . Politicians can knowingly violate the constitution secure in the knowledge that the support for their unconstitutional decisions will be provided by those that they have benefited.

TED POE, TEXAS REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN: His web page is headlined "National Day of Prayer is constitutional whether federal judges like it or not."

Displaying monumental ignorance, he goes on to say, ". . .James Madison knew more about the First Amendment than anybody else since he was the author; yet, in 1813, President Madison proclaimed a National Day of Prayer. . . ."

Wrong. Liam Fox writes: "In 1789, James Madison proposed twelve amendments that ultimately became the ten amendments. In this respect, Madison was the person who wrote the First Amendment, but he wasn’t the one who initially came up with the idea. In fact, there are several factors that qualify the claim that he is the sole author." See here

Although President Madison did issued prayer proclamations during the war of 1812, at the behest of congress, he later expressed regret for these actions. In an undated essay believed to have been written in the year 1817, referred to as ‘The Unattached Memoranda‘, Madison discusses the issue in detail providing five particular reasons for disagreeing with his prior actions of proclaiming a National Day of Prayer and espousing some insight that we would be wise to heed today. See here.

BRADLEY BYRNE, ALABAMA REPUBLICAN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: He was attacked by the True Political Action Committee "for his previous support of teaching of evolution in public schools and reportedly having the gall to suggest that the Christian bible may not be entirely true."

In a switch reminiscent of John McCain, Byrne became a Born Again Christian and wrote on his website:

“I believe the Bible is the Word of God and that every single word of it is true. From the earliest parts of this campaign, a paraphrased and incomplete parsing of my words have been knowingly used to insinuate that I believe something different than that. My faith is at the center of my life and my belief in Jesus Christ as my personal savior and Lord guides my every action."

SARAH PALIN (no introduction necessary): In a Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly Palin with all blinking eyed ga-ga smiling sincerity declared:

“I have said all along that America is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and, you know, nobody has to believe me though. You can just go to our Founding Fathers’ early documents and see how they crafted a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that allows that Judeo-Christian belief to be the foundation of our lives. And our Constitution, of course, essentially acknowledging that our unalienable rights don’t come from man; they come from God. So this document is set up to protect us from a government that would ever infringe upon our rights to have freedom of religion and to be able to express our faith freely.”

Someone at Fox, if they even know it, should explain to the Palin that neither the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence mentions a particular religion, Jesus, the Bible or God. The Constitution does mention a "Nature's God" a few times but not Christianity or Judaism.
The principle misunderstanding of Mrs. Palin’s, is that her interpretation of “our rights to have freedom of religion” translates in her mind, as it does in the minds of most fundamentalist evangelicals, to ‘the right of Christians to impose their beliefs and practices on American law, politics, society and education.’
STEVE PEARCE, NEW MEXICO REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE, states on his website that one of his political goals, and a promise to voters, is that he will "protect our right to prayer and against the government halting expressions of faith."
It is due to the fact that America is a secular nation that no ones religious freedom is threatened. No ones religious freedom is threatened because America has a constitution that charges it’s government to remain neutral and to not get involved in religion or make any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The only threat to the religious freedoms of all Americans comes from religious organizations and their inability to accept a non-theocratic secular government.

Freedom of religion is not the freedom to impose ones religion on others and the First Amendment is not the property of politicians to trade off for votes. Politicians desperate for votes need to get a platform and leave the constitution, and the American people’s freedom of religion, alone.


  1. Good collection. It shows why we need a Constitution and an independent judiciary. It's clear enough what these people would try to do if they got back in power.

    I see these attempts to back up religion with state power as a sign of weakness; they know they're losing the culture war. The non-religious percentage of the US population has doubled in the last ten years, and even the majority of nominal Christians don't actually obey the religion's dictates and taboos in any meaningful way (see actual rates of birth-control use among Catholics, for example). The last hope for the true believers is a church propped up by the state.

  2. "The last hope for the true believers is a church propped up by the state."

    True, but the minute the state passed a law they didn't like their screams would be heard from CA to NC.

    You're right about birth control in the RC church, but I think you only find that in the more educated countries. In less educated areas, like SA, people still obey the Pope.

  3. They scream their nonsense louder with each passing day with the media allowing it time it does not deserve.

    There may be a few less of them but the voices are louder.

    ET could show in person in front of every religious nutter in this country and tell them they are wrong and that there was never a finger snapper and their belief system is complete wrong.

    My penny's worth says these people are so far gone something like that would not register on most. They'd just sic god on the poor fellow.

  4. Now, now...

    I found a new religion...thanks to Dave Miller...its called Prosperity Theology...

    People are poor and suffering because God doesn't like them....

    I am rich and healthy because God likes me....

    We need this as a state religion...

    Think about it....its so Orwellian!

    I think it is awesome! Jesus died on the cross so I could be well off....

  5. Great article, Leslie...

    I think we should start saying it is Freedom FROM Religion instead of Freedom OF Religion.. That shows more choice to me.. and if I choose no religion then I am free from it not of it.....

  6. If we truly had "separation of church and state", we would not give religion tax-exempt status. I say, tax the son-of-bitches for every dollar they take in and every piece of property they own -- just like the rest of us sons-of-bitches!

  7. I found a new religion...thanks to Dave Miller...its called Prosperity Theology...

    People are poor and suffering because God doesn't like them....

    I am rich and healthy because God likes me....

    We need this as a state religion...

    No need. We already had this as a state religion. The Puritans espoused these very tenets, which is why Roger Williams set Rhode Island up as a refuge from Puritan Massachusetts.

  8. Many good points in that, and the thrust of it is right on. I will quibble with a couple of things.

    First, Mormonism hadn't been invented when the founding fathers were alive.

    Second, the founders clearly referred to a deity, politely sidestepping specifics about which deity they were referring to -- a wise move from the start.

    Palin's statement is a hodgepodge of illogic, which is what I expect from her. She has the intellectual depth of a parrot that's been taught to "talk."

  9. Madison didn't want a Bill of Rights at all -- he was pressured into writing one when it looked like the Constitution wouldn't be ratified without it. That's why it took so long to ratify.

    SP is as coherent as ever, I see. I'd like someone to show me where in the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or any of Madison's private letters the phrase "Judeo-Christian belief" appears.

    There's more to the Bradley Byrne ad than meets the eye. See my blog entry today (Tuesday).

  10. Palin gets away with mouthing idiocy all the time. And she's a liar.

    First of all, the US Constitution has no mention of any deity in it. It begins with "We the people..." Nothing in that document refers to gods--except the date in which it was signed. So she's grossly ignorant on that point. The Declaration of Independence mentions a Creator or a God of Nature, but our laws are NOT based on the DoI.

    Just recently Palin said that Mr. Obama would take away our 2nd Amendment rights from us if he could.

    That is a lie she pulled out of the scrambled eggs that passes for her brain.

    In fact, Mr. Obama has expanded gun rights.

    She's nothing but a run-away train wreck of an idiot who gets attention because of sexism in the GOP.

    No one whose intelligence I admire thinks she's anything but a embarrassing joke.

  11. I just added two links, one of which didn't show up and one in a paragraph I inadvertently left out re Madison. One is about his authorship and the other is "The Unattached Memorandum" where he discussed his reasons to oppose a National Day of Prayer.

    It just struck me. When are these religious zealots going to start calling it the ten commandments?

    Mormonism. Right. Will note.

  12. While it pains me to say this, in a sense Palin is correct when she says:

    "...they crafted a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that allows that Judeo-Christian belief to be the foundation of our lives."

    The D of I and the Constitution do allow Judeo-Chirstian beliefs. BUT they do allow virtually all other beliefs as well. They put no restriction on beliefs as long as they don't advocate the overthrow of the country.

    She is wrong, of course, when she says the country was founded on those beliefs. It simply allows them.

  13. I have often heard it argued whether the establishment clause guarantees freedom of religion or freedom from religion. I don't think it's an either/or proposition. It's both/and.

    For those who want to practice any faith, the government has no right to interfere, as long as no taxpayer funds are spent promoting the practice.

    For those who do not, the government has no right to interfere, as long as no taxpayer funds are spent promotting the non-practice.

    The legislative imposition of one faith's piety codes on adherents of another violates the establishment clause.

  14. Sorry folks. Had to fade away to have a 24 hour conversation with Mildred the Mighty Migraine. What a bitch she is.

    Re taxing the churches. I wonder how much revenue that would generate for our socialistic government. Not a bad thought when you think of these churches the size of sports arenas which sit on four or five acres of prime land.
    It would hurt the small congregations but maybe some sort of allowances could be made.

    The richer the churches, the more they'd have to pay. And the money could be earmarked for social programs. : )

  15. I agree with Mr.Infidel's first paragraph 110% also, it hit's the nail on the head. I am all for any American's right to pray anywhere they choose,as long as it dont interfere with government or the general public/ society, having an understanding of the need of most human's for meditation/ ritual, some sense of hidden hope's or for whatever reason, I am a compassionate man my Dear, never had nothing against any concept's of god's/ spirit's/ prophet's, etc. "BUT" (and this is a "BIG BUTT") :) .... These shady character's of these mega religion's are very stealthy in some way's with the crap they pull, all of these organization's are corrupt, and power hungry icon's responsible for most of the war and bloodshed and problem's of humanity, they also destroy choice, individualism, democracy, freedom, and anything in it's path. Even the very religious teaching's and doctrine's that are presented to the masses are a phoney, all constructed and revised from era to era, society to society to cater to the want's of a few individual's and show no respect to nature or any living creature. I see no connection with any of these religious iconic teaching's with any kind of spirituality/ deities of any kind beside's those that are manufactured by them. Regardless of how any of this is twisted by who in this 21st century .... those who founded this nation were very anti church from what I gather, and were disgusted with the Church of England entity for instance, and all the rest of the crap that is manufactured by these type's. It has nothing to do with a person's actual belief, organized religion is a power trip to enslave the masses and government structure's of the world and are purely political and forced as culturalism on the masses. It ought to be a crime, but it is what it is .... and it will change in time, rest assured. I dont write perhap's as much as I should about organized religion, but only because I loathe it, and have alway's been it's opponent since day one of my existence, never did care for it.

    Anywayz my Dear .... just wanted to say that I thought this was an excellent posting, and other than that .... I'll shut the Hell up now. :)

  16. One more lil ole comment if I may Ms. Leslie (TNlib).... the so called line between the seperation of church and state has been becoming thinner and thinner, this need's to be stopped in it's track's, by even those who are fervent believer's of God, they really should take a close look at what they are being tricked into supporting and believing in those they do, it is all a political scam/ snowjob to take more from those who have the least as well. This so called "tax exempt" crap is nothing but rubbish set up by those on the right and supported almost exclusively by them, even though many leftee's may support it, it's only because they dont know what the deal is behind this, this is designed by the so called "elite" (who have even twisted the definition of elite for that matter) so that these organized religion's are a sort of "social service's" for the masses of working classes (working folk's being the true "elite" because they are the one's who do all the work and make this whole system work, they are the engine, in other word's) so that they can invest/ use all the surplus and tax revenue's, which is why they push the idea that socialization by government is so evil, because they dont want government to help the needy in tough time's, they want to give the church the tax exempt so it can do all that, they call it in these time's "faith based" plan's, they want to even make all health care for those at the bottom faith based oriented businesses, this is so deep, that many would be appalled if they knew what was up. This also in a way forces common people to accept these group's because they would have to depend on them, even those average bottom barrel tax paying citizen's would get no exemption from their taxes of any kind. Former Pres.(W) Bush was all about this .... he wanted to "faith base" every damn social service across the board, most nauseating was to those who served in our military as well .... I voted for this SOB in 2000 .... and he really pissed me off when I seen what he was doing and the monitary manipulation behind this.

  17. tnlib: "Re taxing the churches. I wonder how much revenue that would generate for our socialistic government. "

    I have a problem with anything that claims to be a charity but people at the top are making millions from it. This happens to include United Way along with the businesses ahem churches of the limousine ministers.

  18. Oh those Krazy Kristians!! I am with Infidel 100% on this one.

  19. RC: There was a minister in Denver who was head of one of these mega churches. He "misused" the money, losing the savings and retirement funds of all the old people. But he went up in the mountains and prayed. These foolish people forgave him and welcomed him back even though they were ruined financially.

    dmarks: United Way is one of the worst but don't judge all charities by them. Many work very hard with very little.

    And Dave and Mike. I don't think I can add anything particularly profound but thanks for stopping by.

  20. I oppose taxing churches, on the whole. As long as they are not taxed, they have no right to representation as churches, and it remains illegal for them to engage in partisan politics. This best suits the establishment clause.

    The problem is that they are breaking the law and not being held accountable for so doing. Those churches who do should be stripped of their tax exempt status and their right to be incorporated as churches. Ebforce the law.

  21. tn: I do distinguish "charities for millionaires" like United Way from the the real ones. I just did not think of good ones to post at the time.

    Now, Oxfam comes to mind.