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]

[Gargantua]

"Any particular reason why you left out Islam?"

I didn't. The paragraph you selectively quoted goes on to refer to "many other religions as well."

"And why do you differentiate between Catholics and Christians?"

By "Christians" I refer to those who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ found in the Bible. See also my reply #12.

Catholicism is a man-made religion loosely based upon the Bible, but full of doctrine and ritual which directly contradicts much of what Jesus teaches in the Bible.

There are many Catholics who are Christians, but the Roman Catholic Church is nontheless a cult.

[Dave S]

Whenever I see a long posting like this I know Im dealing with a nut who cant express his beliefs in his own words. Rather it is thus saith the Lord or whatever or a bunch of quotes from dead people who cant be cross examined to determine what they meant by that if in fact they actually said it.

[Noachian]

I think so too. Then wouldn't it be more sensible to focus attention on where the real problem lies -- Congress?

Why not jump on individual congressmen each time the High Court accepts a religious case, and jump on them again when the High Court rules on that case.

If a bunch of people barged into their local congressman's office, all over the country, each time a religious case was about to be heard by the High Court, and demanded that he look into it, perhaps "over time" individual congressmen across this nation would understand that they will be getting the heat for what Congress as a whole fails to do about the High Court.

If Congress is lax it's because the people have allowed it to be lax by not holding their congressmen responsible. That has to change. An angry constituency can make a congressman sweat more than his party leader can.

[NutCrackerBoy]

I think this bill would be great and I support such a bill whole-heartedly.

[ForGod'sSake]

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.

Do you find it odd that the 1st amendment has worked in this country until it came under attack by the loonies on the left? And now it suddenly doesn't work any more. You have fallen for the big lie, and I'll bet your constitution is a living document to be molded by the latest fad. It's a very slippery slope.

Really? I hadn't noticed. Maybe it's because the socialists have been pouring tons of oil on the slope.

FGS

[Gargantua]

This isn't a Catholic-bashing thread. If someone says, "Baptists try to follow the Word of God in the Bible," that isn't "Baptist-bashing."

Neither is it "Catholic-bashing" to point out that the bulk of Catholic Canon, ritual, and doctrine are found nowhere in The Bible. It is merely an observation of fact.

Now, if that fact makes some Catholics uncomfortable, that's okay. God's Truth makes me uncomfortable at times, but I don't mind, because I know that it should.

[Dave S]

You are being disrespectful of someone's sincere expression.

I would be a whole lot more respectful if he werent such a hypocrite and I could see Christ's love shinning out from him but I dont. I see a little bigot convinced that his little sect is the be all and end all and everyone else is going to hell. He knows all the laws and theology but he doesnt do the things that Christ demanded of his followers like love one another...

[NutCrackerBoy]

This isn't a Catholic-bashing thread.

No, but it is tangential. Does it aid the discourse to pointedly bring up this distinction you are making?

[Dave S]

There are many Catholics who are Christians, but the Roman Catholic Church is nontheless a cult.

Case closed. Either you are ignorant, a bigot, or both. Enjoy your eternity in Hell.

[Blzbba]

Gargantua, your assumptions about what it means to be 'Catholic' and why you think Catholics aren't Christian are so ignorant and uninformed as to be both amusing and sad at the same time.

Amusing, as the comments fully illustrate that you are nothing more than an ignorant, anti-Catholic bigot, apologies for the redundancy.

Sad, in that I've encountered so many (sic) self-righteous, pious, ignorant "Christians" like yourself that I've lost count.

Read this slowly: Catholics are Christian since they believe in the risen Jesus Christ as their Savior. Do you fully comprehend that? Can you take your bigoted head out of your ignorant ass long enough to understand this?

For every inane Biblical reply you'll come up with, remember this and other examples: Some Baptist "Protestant Christians" preach against dancing and alcohol, although the Bible expressly permits both. Other Protestant sects have similar beliefs/rituals with no Biblical back whatsoever. That doesn't make them any less Christian, though.

[ppaul]

Rather it is thus saith the Lord or whatever or a bunch of quotes from dead people who cant be cross examined to determine what they meant by that if in fact they actually said it.

Yeah.
That's the unfortunate thing about a civilized society based upon the rule of law.
Our entire system of government, our laws, our courts, is based upon "a bunch of quotes from dead people."
Just one example: the legal principle of stare decisis
But would you really want to live under any other sort of system?

[Blzbba]

Besides 'everything about Christianity', what our resident ignoramus Gargantua doesn't seem to grasp is that America can never be a 'Christians-only nation' due to the dangers of handing over control of religion, morality, and legality to ignorant bigots like himself.

I mean, can you imagine some a$$hole like this teaching his warped version of Christianity in schools to innocent children? Or worse, being a judge in a court of law? God help us if that day ever comes...and thank God those days are long past for now.

[ForGod'sSake]

If Congress is lax it's because the people have allowed it to be lax by not holding their congressmen responsible.

True enough. Given that the Dims were the majority in congress for most of the last 50 years, it should come as no surprise that their idealogical comrades in the judiciary were given freedom of expression.

FGS

[ppaul]

[O]ur resident ignoramus Gargantua...

Whoa!
You may disagree with what the dude says, but why the ad hominem attack?
Chill.

[ForGod'sSake]

I think this bill would be great and I support such a bill whole-heartedly.

As I stated earlier, I have mixed feelings. We would be making a law that is subject to the whims of the next set of autocrats. Tougher to trample on the constitution, but that hasn't stopped 'em from trying....and winning in many cases. When do we say enough is enough? And maybe more importantly, how?

FGS

[Gargantua]

The great and fearful day of the Lord approaches. Choose this day whom you will serve. Squirming and writhing are not signs of someone at peace with themselves... or at peace with God.

That I may quote from Scripture or from our Founders should not be misconstrued to imply that my ability to express myself minus that penchant is somehow deficient, or that my decision to so quote should somehow label me as a "nut."

Quite the contrary. Such quotes only underscore that my beliefs actually parallel those of the greatest minds in history.

Try again.

[Blzbba]

Those historical quotes mean nothing, as I can counter with a handful of selected quotes that counter them: "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." From: The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY) " John Adams: He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." Thomas Jefferson: "The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained." From: Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814. James Madison: ""Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." From: The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785. Ethan Allen " "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those "written in the great book of nature." From: Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolph Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York, NY.) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man and A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press, Inc., New York, NY.) Benjamin Franklin: delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, said: As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian. From: Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming, p. 404, (1972, Newsweek, New York, NY) quoting letter by BF to Exra Stiles March 9, 1790. The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers. I'm sure you'll deny all these, but a google of 'Treaty of Tripoli' will show that, once again, I'm right and you're still an ignorant bigot.

[Blzbba]

"You may disagree with what the dude says, but why the ad hominem attack?"


Because this is the umpteenth time he's incorrectly bashed Catholocism. I'm not one to sit idly by while my faith of choice gets trashed by a moron.

[ForGod'sSake]

He knows all the laws and theology but he doesnt do the things that Christ demanded of his followers like love one another...

Where in the world did that come from? You're a mind reader, right?

FGS

[NutCrackerBoy]

can you imagine some a$$hole like this teaching his warped version of Christianity in schools to innocent children? Or worse, being a judge in a court of law?

A certain individual made a remark some consider intemperate. But bigoted? Not clear.

But you did say "some a$$hole like this". Given that qualification, the statement I quoted of yours appears to be way over the top.

First, are you referring to teaching within religious schools? I imagine in those schools they teach what they commonly believe. I don't happen to like something I know was being taught in a church in my town, but what else is new?

Second, I hope it is generally accepted that religiousity does not hamper the ability of a person to do any job, including that of judge. I would agree that true bigotry would be a detriment, but I do not believe that has been established in this case.