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]

[ForGod'sSake]

Reposted in light of recent events in Florida relating to Terri Schiavo and liberal judicial activism. Senator Allard and his cosponsors need our support in their efforts to restore religious freedoms and to rein in an out-of-control judiciary. The congress has every right to lay down the law to the judicial branch of government. Read them the riot act as it were.

[ForGod'sSake]

Hereyago...

FGS

[ForGod'sSake]

Pinging additional interested parties. Anyone with a Schiavo ping list interested in curtailing activist judges' activities?

FGS

[The Mayor]

Bump!

[ForGod'sSake]

FYI...

FGS

[ForGod'sSake]

And a "rein in the judges" bump to you. For reasons only allergy sufferers can appreciate, I've got to leave the thread for a while. Additional bumps/pings/comments are needed.

Hey Meek; one of yer Texas pings sir?

FGS

[antiRepublicrat]

It's a pretty poorly written bill, likely to get thrown out.

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

Isn't this one such law? It does everything it can to allow the states to quasi-officially establish Christianity as the state religion.

I've noticed when reading the findings of bills that they often are completely out of synch with reality. This is actually one of the better ones though.

DISPLAY OF TEN COMMANDMENTS- The power to display the Ten Commandments...

This is why it will get thrown out. It is by law giving preference to only one religion's expression, making only that religion's founding documents legal for display. This is tantamount to establishing that religion. If they broadened it to religious statements and documents in general they would be safer, but then the states would have a problem when they tried to stop other religions (which they would).

Even though we factually know they're lying, they can as usual justify the "God" stuff by saying they are talking about higher powers in general, and that's not necessarily establishing a religion.

...is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively.

This is also why it will get thrown out. Congress is stepping on the judiciary's toes and interpreting the Constitution on separation of powers.

On the other hand, this really pisses me off. All powers not specifically granted to the fed are automatically reserved to the states or to the people. Yet the fed's huge power grab over the last 60 years has forgotten that fact. So now they want to let states have one little power back. How incredibly nice of them.

The subject matter of subsections (a), (b), and (c) are excepted from the jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court.

They do have this power and it would be nice to see some circuits neutered in one of their activist areas. But this does mean that the issue jumps straight to the Supreme Court. All they did here was cut the timeline for ultimate resolution.

But don't be fooled people. This is yet another grandstanding law. They are wasting time on something they know won't stand constitutional muster just to curry favor with the voters.

[Gargantua]

The Ten Commandments are the widely acknowledged foundation of all Western Law, and are intrinsic to Judaism (non-Christian), the Coptics, Gnosticism, the Mormons, Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Church of Scientology, and Christians. Further, they contain precepts held forth by many other religions as well.

Therefore, Congress approving of their public display does not favor any one particular religion, and could easily be interpreted as hinging upon their place in our culture as the very foundation of all Western Law.

Your argument thus falls apart.

;-/

[MeekOneGOP]

Reposted in light of recent events in Florida relating to Terri Schiavo and liberal judicial activism. Senator Allard and his cosponsors need our support in their efforts to restore religious freedoms and to rein in an out-of-control judiciary. The congress has every right to lay down the law to the judicial branch of government. Read them the riot act as it were.

Sure, FGS ! I'll ping my Florida, General Interest and Texas list on this one ...

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Florida, General Interest or Texas ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[Blzbba]

"Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Church of Scientology, and Christians."


Glad to see your anti-Catholic bias is consistent. Not only are Catholics Christians, they are the first unified Christian church. Your need to label them separate from "Christians" speaks volumes.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Gargantua]

"Not only are Catholics Christians, they are the first unified Christian church. Your need to label them separate from "Christians" speaks volumes."

Catholics pray to the Virgin Mary. The Bible does not tell Christians to do that, nor do we.

Catholics confess their sins to a priest. The Bible does not tell Christians to do that, nor do we.

Jesus told us to confess our sins to God in His [Jesus'] Name, and that we were then forgiven. Period. The very concept that "ten Our Fathers and three Hail Marys" might accomplish some form of absolution is a heathen teaching that Salvation can be accomplished through human works, which the Bible is clear it cannot.

Jesus teaches us in the Bible that baptism is a conscious choice of public acknowledgement, a public display, of our Faith in Him, and that "a man must be born a second time of the water [baptism]" to have Eternal Life.

Catholicism preaches the existence of "pergatory" The Bible does not.

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."

[antiRepublicrat]

The Ten Commandments are the widely acknowledged foundation of all Western Law

1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.

Yes, those commandments are really intrinisic to Western law. the ones dealing with law are further down on the list, mirroring Christ's six commandments. Why don't you demand Christ's commandments be put there instead? Probably because they don't include items of obedience to God.

Therefore, Congress approving of their public display does not favor any one particular religion

Which one do you display? Will the Jews have objection to Catholic doctrine being enshrined by their country? How about Protestants?

Did you do know that when the Bible was taught in public schools there was a riot and murders involving something as simple as which version to use? And that's just within Christianity.

Further, they contain precepts held forth by many other religions as well.

Good, then let the law allow all law-oriented religious texts. But you wouldn't want that fairness, would you?

[antiRepublicrat]

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.

See what I mean? Even within your religion you believe the others are not following God's wishes and likely you think other differently-believing Christians will not be saved. Now think of when this goes public, directly showing the government prefers one form of Christianity over another.

It's not the atheists you necessarily have to worry about, but other theists.

[Gargantua]

"Good, then let the law allow all law-oriented religious texts."

The law already does allow all those other texts, and despite your ill-based assumption, I truly have no problem with that. Please don't blame me for the fact that a predominantly Christian society expresses no urge to place statues of Buddha in front of their courthouses.

What I do object to is "the Law" (aka 'Rogue Courts') discriminating only against Christianity, in all its forms and at every turn.

Then again, Jesus did predict that this would happen over 2,000 years ago, so while I object to it, it doesn't surprise me... any more than does your judgemental venom for my fair and honest observation.

[Gargantua]

It's not the atheists or theists I necessarily have to worry about, but whether I am obedient to God's Biblical Word, and whether I use my life to fulfill God's command that I help my fellow man to hear the Gospel [good news] of Jesus Christ.

That's the one and only filter through which all doctrinal questions must pass.

I fear none in this world, and neither should you or anyone else.

[antiRepublicrat]

Please don't blame me for the fact that a predominantly Christian society expresses no urge to place statues of Buddha in front of their courthouses.

So the majority gets to tell everyone else that they are living in a state that officially recognizes one belief above theirs. I thought that wasn't supposed to happen here. It's a very slippery slope.

I have a feeling those other religions don't try to put up those things because they have more respect for the beliefs of others, or they feel marginalized by the Christian majority and therefore powerless to try to get their beliefs expressed in that manner.

[mcg1969]

Recognition is not establishment.

[antiRepublicrat]

It's not the atheists or theists I necessarily have to worry about, but whether I am obedient to God's Biblical Word, and whether I use my life to fulfill God's command that I help my fellow man to hear the Gospel [good news] of Jesus Christ.

I'm not referring to your personal belief or salvation. That is your prerogative that no one should question your right to have. I'm referring to the civil unrest and challenges that can arise due to government endorsement of one religion, or even one sect within a religion.

[Klein-Bottle]

Yes a wonderful law, but I doubt it will pass constitutional muster. They are already writing the lawsuits.