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]

Because a group of policitians calling themselves Democrats found a gold mine in dividing and conquering.

If nothing else, I can always agree with you 100% on that one.

I'm a bit younger than you and I was raised under the backlash you described. From my point of view, what I'm seeing now is a return backlash against the religous oppression of your backlash. It really has to end somewhere, and I would hope that the atheists could take the moral high ground on this one, but obviously they haven't.

[antiRepublicrat]

Only when every single aspect of religious "diversity" is recognized by government, there will be no end to it.

Personally, I'd prefer that religions didn't get a special exemption from laws that apply to everyone else, erasing this problem entirely ("no law" and it takes a law to exempt them). Of course this idea angers Christians when it is applied to them -- note laws exempting churches from zoning regulations, tax-free status, etc.

[antiRepublicrat]

Your hatred transcends your illogic

I'm outside of this. I was just describing your hatred towards the Catholic sect of Christianity.

Jesus told His believers that, just as the world hated him, so will the world hate those who follow him.

Standard jargon when creating a religion. It was an inevitibility that any large following would curry some hatred somewhere. It's a safe bet that amazes the uninformed. It is related to the technique used by cold readers to amaze their audiences.

Jesus died for you

Jesus died, period, as does any mortal man. At least Thomas Jefferson agrees with me on that. You go ahead and keep your personal beliefs, but leave me out of it with statements like that.

[ForGod'sSake]

...and I would hope that the atheists could take the moral high ground on this one, but obviously they haven't.

Atheists taking the moral high ground? Something akin to an oxymoron, no? FWIW, people of faith have been on that high ground for decades; allowing our rights to be slowly eroded. We're talking decades here! Believers stoically ate their pride and kept their mouths shut for the most part. We may be approaching the point where believers have been backed up as far as we can go. The backlash has barely begun, it's just getting off to a wobbly start IMO.

FGS

[Buggman]

More like what I said before: The atheist is trying to fight a strong man, while 99% of the religious people aren't particularly concerned about which ennumeration to use.

[mcg1969]

Constitutional interpretation does not permit you to simply decide which definition applies when there are multiple possibilities. You must consider the context in which the word is chosen and the intent of the drafters. Given the obvious and numerous references to God and/or the Creator deliberately inserted into our nation's founding documents and founding traditions it is clear the definition is not the one you chose.

[mcg1969]

Did I say just the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? No, I didn't. I said the founding documents and traditions. That includes more than the Constitution, and they provide the necessary context within which one must interpret the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution itself does not mention God does not change the fact that its authors explicitly condoned the acknowledgement of and recognition of God in government. Therefore they could not possibly have intended to ban such recognition when they chose the word "establish." Like I said, you don't get to choose which definition they intended to use. Nor do I of course. But I do claim they chose differently than you do.

It also helps to consider how the word "establish" is used elsewhere in the same document. For example:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If we use your favorite definition for "establish" here it would be rather meaningless. "Yes, we prefer Justice, but we're not really doing anything here to insure it." "We prefer this Constitution and hope the States accept and follow it."

[Pro-Bush]

"In God We Trust" honors a symbol of American freedom, much like the National Anthem (from which the words are taken) and the Pledge of Allegiance reflects the national sentiment that we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being Who created us all to be free.

[Havoc]

HUH? The guy on the Island would never become a Methodist, Bapist or whatever either.

No, he'd become a Christian. And that is the point. Once you boot philosophy out of it, you have what it is supposed to be. What we're all supposed to be. Rather unsettling for most of the religianity types.

Actually if someone was on a deserted island with a lot of freetime to read the bible the odds are he would become an Athesit, As they say no book has created more Athesit than the Bible.

The Bible in my experience makes one of two decisions - Christian or NonChristian. If you're picking and choosing what you'll follow of the teachings of the New Testament, then you may like to call yourself Christian; but, the picking and choosing means you're a fence rider. And scripture plainly states you are with me or against me. If you're in between, you're against me. 'be ye either hot or cold, if you're luke warm, I'll spit you out.'

Most people who look at it are of the luke warm breed who think they can be good, show up on saturday or sunday to hold a pew down and do what they will and be Christians. That ain't what scripture tells us. They laid out in writing in 27 books everything we need to know.. And what did they otherwise say:

2 Corinthians 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him]... [13] For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. [14] And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. [15] Therefore [it is] no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: [7] Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. [9] As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. [10] For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. [11] But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. [12] For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Pretty plain language. The guys that want to be heard even though they come with another gospel will shout and scream and carry on about "interpretation" and the like; but, the apostles said, if they preach other than we have preached, let them be cursed. If it didn't come from the Apostles or Christ - don't heed them. If it came from the Apostles or Christ, let them prove it, else it shall be rejected and the bearer of the false testimony be accursed. I would say however, to keep in mind that this is a curse from God, not a directive to make up your own or to use foul language lol.

Therefore if someone comes to me saying 'pray to Mary for this or that' I follow the judgement. I bear with them in correction but otherwise consider them accursed of God for their false teaching. It must remain in God's hands. God owns the judgement of them and has set aside special place for false teachers.. If they suffer not correction, do not suffer your head worrying about them. Pray for them and send them away.

[antiRepublicrat]

The atheist is trying to fight a strong man, while 99% of the religious people aren't particularly concerned about which ennumeration to use.

"Strong man?" You guys have rioted and killed, burned churches over this kind of stuff in this country. At least you don't burn or behead each other anymore.

[antiRepublicrat]

Atheists taking the moral high ground? Something akin to an oxymoron, no? FWIW, people of faith have been on that high ground for decades; allowing our rights to be slowly eroded.

Theists do not have a monopoly on morals, nor do they have a monopoly on immorality. I'd say atheist morals are more pure, because the theist acts morally under threat of persecution from his god, while the atheist acts morally simply because he knows it's the right thing to do.

If an atheist can't act morally and do the right thing, then please tell me why I bought dinner last night for a disabled veteran who I didn't even know.

[Modernman]

Therefore if someone comes to me saying 'pray to Mary for this or that'

Sigh... nobody prays to Mary. Asking Mary to intercede on your behalf is not praying to Mary.

[mcg1969]

You, however, have one definition that you want to exclude, because it prevents you from promoting your religion in an unconstitutional manner.

I'm not twisting your words at all. You have yet to challenge my argument directly, so frankly you're the one treading water here. Allow me to explain my argument once again so you can either avoid the issue again or challenge it properly.

You posted the dictionary definition of "establish", highlighted one of the many definitions of the word, and then claimed that supported your case that recognition of religion constitutes establishment.

But that simply is not the way it works. Whenever a word appears in sentence it was selected because has one meaning. That's because the authors of the text, the ones that chose the word "establish", had only one meaning in mind. (OK, a poet might exploit ambugious meanings for artistic effect, but a framer of a descriptive government document?)

There are two ways we can learn, therefore, what "establish" means in this case. We can see how those same authors used the same word in other contexts, one. And two, we can infer meaning from other documents, statements, and actions that help us understand their intent.

In my opinion, when we perform this study, we have no choice but to conclude that the definition is not the one you chose. The framers, the very people who wrote the First Amendment, did not consider the simple recognition of God or the Creator as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. And thereore, we should not either.

[mcg1969]

If an atheist can't act morally and do the right thing, then please tell me why I bought dinner last night for a disabled veteran who I didn't even know.

Because God endowed all men with a conscience, even those that don't believe in Him.

[Havoc]

Atheists still have a gut instinct for differences between good and bad, right and wrong. But lets say it is supressed, what then is the compass upon which they rely for guidance - it is what they feel from moment to moment or what they can logically reason out. When morality is left as a debateable matter of opinion, the end result is what we've seen from liberals for 40 years. Each year, we are supposed to become more and more permissive and promiscuous because vice feeds upon vice like an addiction.
If today we say it's ok only to sleep with someone before marriage, tomorrow they want to sleep with 12 girls or guys in public. The next day they're beeting down your door wanting to sleep with your wife.. We've seen this progression in society already. Thus there must be a non subjective basis for morality. Personal opinion is subjective and a moving target.

[Havoc]

It's my example, leave it alone. If you call it talk or prayer - it's communicating with the bodily dead which is a scriptural no no and has been since long before Christ. It's sin. As such I'll call it what it is.

[exmarine]

It's about time, but it's not enough. We need to impeach rogue judges, and we need to pass legislation based on the exceptions clause that will limit further BAD rulings by marxist judges.