To Restore Religious Freedoms.

Thomas Legislative Information on the Internet ^ | 8/21/03 | Wayne Allard(R-CO)

[ForGod'sSake]

S 1558 IS

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1558

To restore religious freedoms.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

August 1 (legislative day, JULY 21), 2003

Mr. ALLARD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

A BILL

To restore religious freedoms.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Religious Liberties Restoration Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The Declaration of Independence declares that governments are instituted to secure certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with which all human beings are endowed by their Creator and to which they are entitled by the laws of nature and of nature's God.

(2) The organic laws of the United States Code and the constitutions of every State, using various expressions, recognize God as the source of the blessings of liberty.

(3) The first amendment to the Constitution secures rights against laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof made by the Federal Government.

(4) The rights secured under the first amendment have been interpreted by the Federal courts to be included among the provisions of the 14th amendment.

(5) The 10th amendment reserves to the States, respectively, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government nor prohibited to the States.

(6) Disputes and doubts have arisen with respect to public displays of the Ten Commandments and to other public expression of religious faith.

(7) Section 5 of the 14th amendment grants Congress the power to enforce the provisions of the 14th amendment.

(8) Article III, section 2 of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to except certain matters from the jurisdiction of the Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court.

SEC. 3. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY RIGHTS DECLARED.

(a) DISPLAY OF TEN COMMANDMENTS- The power to display the Ten Commandments on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively.

(b) WORD `GOD' IN PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- The power to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively. The Pledge of Allegiance shall be, `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and justice for all.'.

(c) MOTTO `IN GOD WE TRUST'- The power to recite the national motto on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively. The national motto shall be, `In God we trust'.

(d) EXERCISE OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO EXCEPT- The subject matter of subsections (a), (b), and (c) are excepted from the jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court.

END

The bill has a total of 10 cosponsors; they are:

Sen Brownback, Sam - 9/23/2003 [KS]	Sen Bunning, Jim - 10/20/2003 [KY]
Sen Burns, Conrad R. - 9/29/2003 [MT]	Sen Cochran, Thad - 9/30/2003 [MS]
Sen Craig, Larry E. - 10/21/2003 [ID]	Sen Enzi, Michael B. - 10/2/2003 [WY]
Sen Graham, Lindsey O. - 9/26/2003 [SC]	Sen Inhofe, Jim - 9/30/2003 [OK]
Sen Lott, Trent - 9/30/2003 [MS]	Sen Shelby, Richard C. - 9/25/2003 [AL]

[antiRepublicrat]

How would posting the Ten Commandments, endorsed by Jews, Christians of all denominations, and many quasi-Christian groups constitute the government preferring one form of Christianity over the other?

Which version do you prefer posting?

[antiRepublicrat]

Surely you're not suggesting we attempt to intimidate our elected officials?

It is his right to share his views with his congressman. I'd suggest he keep it civil and less confrontational though.

[ForGod'sSake]

Your whole rant serves nothing except support my contention. The courts have ruled against mainstream religions in every instance. And by doing so they have placed the minority religions above maintstream religions. Upside down. How were these minority religions banned/disbarred/disenfranchised, or in any way threatened by mainstream religions before the courts showered them with their newfound freedoms?

As for your children being forced to pray or recite the pledge, well, does it reflect the values of the local community? Would you want to raise your family in a community that didn't hold these values? I wouldn't.

FGS

[Natural Law]

My first thought was that Congress has no authority to pass laws relating to religion, however upon further review......

This does not establish a religion and actually addresses previous acts and actions prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Its brevity and simplicity are its beauty.

[antiRepublicrat]

As my dear-departed grandpappy said about Iran: "Who the hell wants priests running a country?"

Sounds like a true Jefferson man. Sorry for your loss.

[antiRepublicrat]

What?! No they don't. Are you ill?

Isn't that what official posting of the 10 Commandments is? It's saying that the government recognizes the sacred texts and laws of one religion (one sect over another).

What on earth are you talking about? Are you even capable of stringing together a coherent pair of thoughts?

That so much of Catholic ritual directly contradicts Christ's own verbatim teachings should speak volumes to you. I pray one day that it will. For the time being, let's differentiate more specifically between "Catholics" and "Protestant Christians."

Your quote. You do not believe he, a Catholic, will be saved. In this context "I pray one day that it will" is Christian-speak for your soul is in need of saving. What I just read was a fairly low level of animosity, pity, and attack on another's deeply held religous beliefs. Now take the thing public with a big shrine in a courthouse to argue about. It's not going to be pretty.

Their country? You mean Israel? Who suggested placing Catholic shrines in Israel? I didn't.

There are a lot of Jews in this country, and besides, Christianity is founded on Judaism. If not, we wouldn't be talking about the 10 Commandments at all.

[ForGod'sSake]

Part 1: The government officially endorsing a religion or sect is not good in a society that values religious freedom.

Lemme guess, made from whole cloth; you made up this little phrase yourself? Like I've said several times, I don't think this bill is a cureall, and in fact, is somewhat redundant in that it essentially restates what's already in the constitution. I would prefer the constitution, but it seems our jurists can't comprehend its, er, complexity. Unlike most of us I daresay.

...because the aim is to endorse one religious sect.

Who's aim? I gather you also prefer the constitutional version? What would you suggest as a means for flogging an out-of-control judiciary. Or do you also think they're doing an OK job?

FGS

[ForGod'sSake]

No, I have no desire to think up ways for shoe-horning religion into the government.

I see. So you're content to allow the courts to continue trampling our God given rights as set out in the constitution?

FGS

[Modernman]

The courts have ruled against mainstream religions in every instance.

Define mainstream- about 1/3 of this country is made up of Catholics, there are dozens of "mainstream" Protestant denominations. What about Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc. Are they not mainstream? If not, why?

And by doing so they have placed the minority religions above maintstream religions.

Your statement would be true if the "minority" religions were allowed to post their equivalent of the TC in courthouses or if kids were required to recite a Buddhist prayer before class. SCOTUS decisions on religion treat all religions evenly.

As for your children being forced to pray or recite the pledge, well, does it reflect the values of the local community?

I have no problem with the pledge, as I consider it to be secular. I do have a problem with forced prayer in school. If you're okay with mandatory prayers as chosen by the community, I hope you're okay with kids being forced to recite "There is but one God, and Allah is his prophet" if they happen to live in Dearborn, MI, Patterson, NJ or certain parts of Northern Virginia.

[antiRepublicrat]

Can you cite a relevant case where the scotus or any other court has stood for religious freedom and not against it?

Here goes:

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
The Court ruled that the statute requiring a license to solicit for religious purposes was a prior restraint that vested the state with excessive power in determining which groups must obtain a license.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) (and another couple like this one)
The Court found that the Jeanette ordinance requiring solicitors to purchase a license from the borough was an unconstitutional tax on the Jehovah's Witnesses' right to freely exercise their religion.

United States v. Ballard (1944)
The Court found that neither the courts nor the government have the right to evaluate the religious beliefs of a citizen or group.

Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral (1952)
The Supreme Court ruled that neither the Establishment Clause nor the Free Exercise Clause permitted the New York legislature to pass a statute designating which religious group may have control over a church.

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the woman's right to refuse to work on her Sabbath without relinquishing her right to unemployment benefits.

Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church (1969)
The Court unanimously decided that a Superior Court overstepped its constitutional powers by involving itself in an internal church dispute and that a Georgia law was unconstitutional for giving juries the right to make decisions in theological disputes.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
On May 15th 1972 the Court ruled 6 to 1 that the compulsory education law in Winconsin did indeed violate the Free Exercise Clause for Amish parents.

McDaniel v. Paty (1978)
The Court ruled that Tennessee's statute forbidding clergy from holding public office improperly forced citizens to choose between exercising two of their fundamental rights.

Lynch v. Donnelly (1983)
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the city of Pawtucket could continue to display a nativity scene as part of its Christmas display.

There are also others that I would consider to be upholding religious freedom, but that a person with a narrow "Christians only" view would see otherwise.

Then there are several anti-religious freedom ones you'd probably agree with. One of which is:

Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
In an 8-1 Court Decision, the Court ruled that a school district's interest in creating national unity was sufficient to allow them to require students to salute the flag.

[antiRepublicrat]

This does not establish a religion and actually addresses previous acts and actions prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Please show me previous laws limiting the religious freedom of Christians.

[NutCrackerBoy]

I understand from your other posts on this thread that you are primarily concerned with reining in the judiciary, something I agree with. But you have mixed feelings about this particular bill.

Reading it, I find nothing repugnant. You said We would be making a law that is subject to the whims of the next set of autocrats. At some point, could you clarify what you see the risk to be? Don't sweat it if there are more important things for you to work on.

[antiRepublicrat]

Lemme guess, made from whole cloth; you made up this little phrase yourself?

Made of electrons, I echoed the sentiments of many of our Founding Fathers.

What would you suggest as a means for flogging an out-of-control judiciary.

I did say that part of the law was pretty cool. Congress has complete Constitutional authority over the lower courts. I do fear that this will overburden the Supreme Court though.

[antiRepublicrat]

I see. So you're content to allow the courts to continue trampling our God given rights as set out in the constitution

As far as I'm concerned, government entities have no rights. And empowering government entities with the ability to endorse a religion is what this law is about. Now have the government trying to stamp out personal religious beliefs, and I'll be right up there fighting with you.

[NutCrackerBoy]

SCOTUS doctrine with respect to First Amendment Establishment cases is by any standard strict. I would go further and call it insane. Be that as it may, strict jurisprudential treatment of establishment tends to hamper free exercise in a general way, and vice versa. There is a tension.

If you take a loose definition of "free exercise", then the landmark 1947 Everson case outlawing prayer in public schools limits free exercise. As does the recent Moore's rock case.

I don't argue either one strictly as free exercise cases, I argue them as establishment cases. But still, people in a 99.9% Hasidic community definitely felt they were restricted in their free exercise when the government came in and told them they couldn't have their prayers in the school. Alabamans felt their free exercise was trampled upon by the ruling to remove Moore's rock.

[antiRepublicrat]

But still, people in a 99.9% Hasidic community definitely felt they were restricted in their free exercise when the government came in and told them they couldn't have their prayers in the school. Alabamans felt their free exercise was trampled upon by the ruling to remove Moore's rock.

Sometimes I just don't understand. If the Hasids wanted prayer in school, they should have built a yeshiva. Actually, it sounds strange that a Hasidic community would put so many kids in public schools instead of in a yeshiva.

In Alabama, a government official was prevented from using his position of office to force endorsement of a specific religious code of law in a public place of law where the only laws that matter are the laws of the country and of the state (and he did have to force it, as he snuck it in at night to avoid being stopped by the other judges). I can't see any reduction in the religious freedom of Alabamans.

[NutCrackerBoy]

As far as I'm concerned, government entities have no rights

Yes, therein lies the rub. With the Doctrine of Incorporation applying strict Establishment down through the states to every public school, you are bossing a lot of people around, no longer protecting any individual rights. It defies common sense. Folks in a state (e.g. Alabama) certainly feel that the state government is a part of them because of rule by the people.

[NutCrackerBoy]

If the Hasids wanted prayer in school, they should have built a yeshiva. Actually, it sounds strange that a Hasidic community would put so many kids in public schools instead of in a yeshiva.

I am not versed on all the details, but this is from a case that has been described as egregious by Judge Robert Bork, a scholar I respect tremendously. I also have a friend that was involved from the ACLU side. (I like her despite her faults).

Anyway, I think your response is irrelevant. Communities have schools. There are different requirements for creation of private schools, including less funding. Why should they be forced to build a yeshiva?

Many many communities are mostly homogenous and it is inevitable that they will have practices that reflect their commonality. Should this public school in a Hasidic community, if they were allowed to have their prayers, force the one Muslim kid to take part in their prayers? Of course not.

[Noachian]

Please come up with a legal source, any legal source, that says SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over religious cases. The fact of the matter is that SCOTUS is empowered to hear cases dealing with questions of Constitutional violations by the government. The 1st Amendment falls squarely into that power.

Let's start with the Constitution's First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. That should work as a legal source.

Everyone knows the First Amendment, but overlooks that one word "respecting", which means, in this case, to have nothing to do with. In effect it means Congress can have nothing to do with religious matters. And, in the beginning of this nation individual states had all sorts of religions popping up without a national calamity. The Congress and the Judiciary stayed away from the subject and everyone was happy except the atheists who seemed no worse for wear.

Since the High Court deals with questions of Constitutional violations by the government the Court cannot hear a religious case unless that case was proposed by Congressional legislation which Congress cannot do. Therefore ...SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over religious cases. To do so requires the Court to go outside its scope of authority, which today's Court seems to have no problem doing by use of a pretext. This is where the Court has constructed fabrications such as the "Wall of Separation", and the "incorporation" of the First into the Fourteenth Amendment.

Since the High Court cannot legally hear cases on religious matters it has taken to "interpretation" of the First Amendment to means that every mention of religion in a federal area has the imprimatur of the Congress establishing a religion. Of course no one has bothered to ask just what it is that Congress has to do to establish a religion. But, this hasn't stopped the Court from intruding into the Tenth Amendment, and violating state Constitutions to achieve its purposes.

Congress has to have a hands off approach to religion, and since the High Court deals with congressional matters it too, by extension, cannot deal in religious matters relating to the First Amendment. Today's Supreme Court has overstepped its constitutional authority.

[qam1]

Congress has to have a hands off approach to religion, and since the High Court deals with congressional matters it too, by extension, cannot deal in religious matters relating to the First Amendment. Today's Supreme Court has overstepped its constitutional authority.

uummm, It was Congress that added Under god to the pledge.