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]

[Modernman]

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

So Jews can't really be Americans? Interesting....

I'm guessing that only Protestants of the snake-handling variety really qualify as Americans.

[Modernman]

If the High Court continues to accept cases involving religion, which they are strictly forbidden by extension of the First Amendment to do

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.

[ForGod'sSake]

Not now, not ever, never.

I take it you don't like the bill. Do you have some ideas by which we could bring our judicial system back into the fold? Or maybe you think they're doing an OK job?

FGS

[Modernman]

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.

That is a matter of opinion- your opinion. There are a billion Catholics and about 200,000,000 Orthodox who disagree with your opinion and the opinions of various Protestant sects.

Of course, they're all fools, right?

[gcruse]

There is a reason for separation of powers.
And a very good reason for keeping religion
out of government. If the Founders had wanted
a theocracy, we'd be Iran.

[Modernman]

If the Founders had wanted a theocracy, we'd be Iran.

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

[ForGod'sSake]

The fact of the matter is that SCOTUS is empowered to hear cases dealing with questions of Constitutional violations by the government.

FWIW, the courts have used their authroity to infringe upon religious freedom; an inalienable right. Can you cite a relevant case where the scotus or any other court has stood for religious freedom and not against it? They are using their hammer from the wrong end it seems.

FGS

[Modernman]

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

How about cases that outlaw forced prayer in school- I certainly don't want the state telling my kids when and how they should pray. There have been numerous cases allowing the Amish to be exempt from certain legal requirements due to their faith. Federal courts have allowed various religious groups to claim conscientious objector status from serving in military. Courts have generally told the state to butt out of religion. Sounds like religious freedom to me.

[antiRepublicrat]

You really think we have more to fear turning back to Him?

We as a people or we as in the government officially? As a people, go ahead. But given the many differing and contradicting beliefs even within Christianity, yes it would be a mistake for government to start endorsing views. Read up on that Bible riot.

(to various quotes...)

I could quote you oh so many from those we admire stating quite the opposite. However, I'll limit it to George Washington's most applicable ones to this situation.

The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy.

Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.

The latter one is especially important to my point. The government promoting one religion or sect will spark religious controversy, which has been known often to get bloody. Better to stay away from it all.

I am also against government involvement for another reason. In modern days, government involvement in religion has always harmed religion. This is not a dog you want to lie down with.

Okay, I'll give you some Jeffersons:

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.[he believed Jesus was simply a wise man]

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law

[Gargantua]

"Of course, they're all fools, right?"

Those who believe upon the Word of God have found the beginning of Wisdom. Those who calls His Son a liar and follow instead the paths of men, they are the foolish ones.

Let each say for himself which he is.

[antiRepublicrat]

I won't even rebutt your reply since I disagree with just about everything you posted. There are so many if's, and's, and but's in your reply, it becomes meaningless.

I'll make really simple as you apparently require:

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

Part II: If this law did not single out one religion (well, three religions, but we know which version will be used), then it would be more likely to survive constitutional challenges. But they will not do that, because the aim is to endorse one religious sect.

[Modernman]

Let each say for himself which he is.

I can live with that, but I certainly don't accept your opinion of Catholicism/Orthodoxy. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

This just goes back to the central issue- look at how a group of (predominantly) Christians can't even decide on the 10 Commandments. Imagine the strife that this law would cause once you involved the myriad other believers and non-believers in our society.

[antiRepublicrat]

If the High Court continues to accept cases involving religion, which they are strictly forbidden by extension of the First Amendment to do

Please explain.

[antiRepublicrat]

Excuse me if I barf!!

That was highly inappropriate. Have you no respect for peoples' beliefs?

[ForGod'sSake]

If the Founders had wanted a theocracy, we'd be Iran.

That's your best shot? Surely you have some ideas on how we can curtail the unconstitutional activism of the courts without throwing up red herrings???

FGS

[gcruse]

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

[Gargantua]

God and His Son are hated by the world, and strife crouches waiting for those who deny Him. Jesus was sinless and perfect, and He was slaughtered. What fate awaits the likes of us?

If you think we can avoid strife by avoiding the mention of God or His Son's Name, please think again.

[antiRepublicrat]

and I'll bet your constitution is a living document to be molded by the latest fad. It's a very slippery slope.

No way. For example, while I am pro-choice, I also believe Roe vs. Wade to be an unconstitutional extention into states' rights that needs to be overturned ASAP. My personal likes or dislikes in debatable matters have nothing to do with how I see the Constitution. If it's against me, then I guess I need to try for an amendment because re-interpretation isn't going to cut it.

I also know the general meaning of the Constitution is to restrict government to a few functions, and the Bill of Rights is meant to further restrict government action. In light of that, whenever there is a restriction of government power, I support all interpretations that result in a restriction of government power.

"Respecting an stablishment of religion" can be easily interpreted a few ways, as the loose language allows for it. One of course is "can't make a law establishing a church or national religion." Good, I'll take that. Another is "can't make a law having anything to do with a religious establishment, physical or doctrinal." Good, I'll take that one too and add both of them up. Same with the 2nd Amendment. A government with restricted power is a government good for the people.

[Modernman]

If you think we can avoid strife by avoiding the mention of God or His Son's Name, please think again.

No one is being prevented from praying, going to church or expressing their religion. The only thing the courts have done is say that religion is not something the government should be involved in.

The whole Judge Moore thing seemed silly. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a church in Alabama. Was there ever any real danger to religion in that State?

[antiRepublicrat]

LOL!