Rick Santorum: What does the First Amendment really protect?

Quote:

---

E-mail Author
Send to a Friend
Print Version

July 21, 2005, 8:12 a.m.
A Perfect Storm
Privacy. Neutrality. Free Expression.

By Rick Santorum

Editor’s Note: This is the fourth in a series of five excerpts from It Takes a Family, by Sen. Rick Santorum. Together they comprise chapter 23, “The Rule of Judges.”

I could go further and discuss the cases that touch on pornography and obscenity, also part of our moral ecology. For decades, communities in America have tried to shore up common decency, have tried to guard their collective moral capital, by regulating smut. Congress has likewise responded to Americans’ moral sensibilities by attempting to regulate broadcast media and the Internet. But time and again over the past generation America’s communities and Congress have run up against a Supreme Court intent to side against the American people and with the pornographers. The Court’s doctrine has been that virtually all efforts to regulate smut run afoul of the First Amendment, which the Court says protects all individuals’ “freedom of expression.”


But let’s look for a minute at what that First Amendment actually says about our freedoms: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging freedom of speech. . . .” Since this amendment goes on to discuss the people’s right to assemble and to petition the government, as well as freedom of the press, it is clear that the “speech” in question concerns, in the first instance, political speech — arguments about the public good. At the time this amendment was passed, the English Crown could and did regulate what could be published and said about sensitive political questions; in America, things would be different.

But you may have noticed that in pornography the words aren’t really the point, are they? “Speech” implies words, rationally intelligible discussion and argument, communication. Pictures also can be “worth a thousand words,” of course: Sometimes images are central to a political or social cause. But America’s huge porn industry is not about political debate; it is not about the communication of ideas. It’s about the commercial production of objects of titillation for profit. Based on the text of the Constitution, the courts should have recognized a hierarchy of protected “speech,” with political speech and writing receiving the greatest constitutional protection, commercial speech less protection, and mere titillation the least of all. Yet in the topsy-turvy world of the new court-approved morality, limits on political speech like the recently passed McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill are just fine, but congressional restrictions on Internet pornographers are seen as violating the First Amendment and are therefore struck down.

Privacy. Neutrality. Free Expression. None of these terms is in the Constitution. They “look like” terms that actually are there. Freedom from “unreasonable searches and seizures”: That’s in the Fifth Amendment. “Equal protection of the laws”: That’s in the Fourteenth Amendment. “Freedom of speech”: That’s in the First Amendment. That is why liberals believe what they are doing is merely refining the intentions of our founders, making explicit the underlying philosophical tenets of our Constitution. The problem is that these “philosophical” tenets are pure abstractions, fit only for those great abstractions, “liberal individuals.” But the U.S. Constitution was the fruit of long experience in the great complexity and wisdom of English common law.

As Harvard’s Mary Ann Glendon has written,

[T]he peculiar excellence of the Anglo-American common-law tradition over centuries, that which distinguished it from continental “legal science,” was its rejection of simplifying abstractions, its close attention to facts and patterns of facts. . . . It was this unique combination of common sense and modest . . . theory that enabled England and the United States to develop and maintain a legal order possessing the toughness to weather political and social upheavals. . . . When legal scholars distance themselves from those ways of thinking, they repudiate much of what is best in their professional tradition.


The Supreme Court of the United States in the past half-century has been a bad steward of its own jurisprudential traditions, preferring instead the neat abstractions of the latest “theories.”

Privacy. Neutrality. Free Expression. These three abstractions together make for a perfect storm, a jurisprudential hurricane for wreaking havoc on a moral ecosystem. Together they make of our Constitution not a document for democratic self-governance, but instead describe a pure liberal society of isolated individuals each doing their own thing within the politically correct boundaries carefully crafted and enforced by the village elders.

The irony is that the tradition of common law had made marriage and family exactly a privileged institution; Supreme Court decisions originally based on this traditional conception (Griswold) eventually undermined that privileged status in the name of abstract privacy. Similarly, as Justice O’Connor observed, on its face the U.S. Constitution is not neutral between religion and irreligion. Religion is a specially protected category in the actual text of the Constitution: It gets a special mention as the “first freedom” of the First Amendment. Religion and the family were the two main agents for moralizing society, for generating new moral capital. The Court’s decisions have undermined these institutions, creating in their place a society of atomized and de-moralized individuals, shielded by the village elders from the natural moral influences of faith and family.

— Senator Rick Santorum is the junior United States senator from Pennsylvania. Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, he is the third-highest-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate.

---

I dissagee with him on the porn but the main points are solid. Im going to have to read the rest of this series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I dissagee with him on the porn but the main points are solid. Im going to have to read the rest of this series.

---

That was pretty much what I thought too. I think porn is protected, but the 1A was pretty clearly written with political speech in mind. It's absurd to protect porn on one hand while limiting political speech on the other.

I dont always agree 100% with him, but I like Santorum. His positions are always , at least, well thought out and he's uncompromising on his beliefs- not one to take a poll before saying something controversial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Rick Santorum is a joke. He couldn't care less about the Constitution or the meaning of the first Amendment. He, like many other religious congressmen and senators, are only interested in finding a loop-hole for their agenda.

---

Religious congressmen? Pushing an agenda is hardly limited to the religious ones. In fact, what's wrong with that? They're elected for their beliefs, why shouldn't they try to enact them? It'd be far worse to spout a bunch of beliefs and stances for the purpose of getting elected and then do a 180 when in office. It's up to voters to elect those that support their views.

Quote:

---

Religious congressmen? Pushing an agenda is hardly limited to the religious ones. In fact, what's wrong with that? They're elected for their beliefs, why shouldn't they try to enact them? It'd be far worse to spout a bunch of beliefs and stances for the purpose of getting elected and then do a 180 when in office. It's up to voters to elect those that support their views.

---

Hear here!

~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Religious ones are, in my opinion, the worst of them, because they seek to undermine one of the clearest statements of the Constitution: "Congress shall not pass any law that respects an establishment of religion."

---

It would be nice if you could back that up with some info on attempts to pass laws respecting an establishment of religion. I think we could also argue to a stalemate the definition of a "law that respects an establishment of religion."

GC, politicians come in three varities: those who tell you what they want do when elected, then do it; those who tell you what they want to do when elected then do the opposite; those who tell you what they want to do when elected, then do nothing. The first is an honest politician, the second is a liar, the third is a luggard. Would you really prefer a liar to a man who acts to principles you disagree with?

In General, I lost all respect for Rick Santorum during Arlen Specter's primary race. We had a chance at getting a real conservative into the other senate seat in Pennsylvania, and Santorum was the death blow during the primary. He sacrificed any credibility with me by stumping for Specter, and I don't care what he wrote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Oh i'd love to see you argue that it means anything other than "Congres shall not pass a law that respects an establishment of religion."

That's really got to be one of the clearest statements in there.

---

Not establishing a particular religion is NOT the same as requiring anyone who holds office be areligious, and trust me, the founding fathers were aware of the difference. It's Freedom OF religion, not Freedom FROM religion.

Quote:

---

In General, I lost all respect for Rick Santorum during Arlen Specter's primary race. We had a chance at getting a real conservative into the other senate seat in Pennsylvania, and Santorum was the death blow during the primary. He sacrificed any credibility with me by stumping for Specter, and I don't care what he wrote.

---

Oh yeah. Forgot about that. :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Oh i'd love to see you argue that it means anything other than "Congres shall not pass a law that respects an establishment of religion."

That's really got to be one of the clearest statements in there.

---

I would probably argue that what Santorum is allegedly trying to pass in Congress is not an establisment of religion.

I agree that it is very clear, but it's been so brutally misinterpretted.

Nobody's forcing anything. If I call myself a Christian in public, how is that forcing you to be a Christian? If I claim my acts are dictated by my Jewish faith, how does that force you to be a Jew?

People, if you've been wondering what I mean by 'secular fundamentalism', this is it, in a nutshell...

GC has no religious beliefs, and therefore, he is attempting to force the rest of us to act as though we have none to make himself feel validated. Again, you have freedom OF religion, including none. You do not have have freedom from religion, and have a right to enforce a secular worldview on the rest of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

In General, I lost all respect for Rick Santorum during Arlen Specter's primary race. We had a chance at getting a real conservative into the other senate seat in Pennsylvania, and Santorum was the death blow during the primary. He sacrificed any credibility with me by stumping for Specter, and I don't care what he wrote.

---

I happened to be in my car today when he gave an interview to Rush and was trying to explain his and Bush's support of Specter. It basically came down to Spectre went along with the party on things he didn't necessarily agree with and as a party leader it was his responsibility to support those who support the party.

Read into that what you want. But, I too wish Toomey was in the Senate now instead of Specter. I voted Toomey in the primary, but it obviously wasnt enough, so I voted 3rd party in the actual election instead of voting for Specter.

Define your 'allowable religiosity', if you would sir.

I may pray, but only if I don't hold public office?

I might be able to attend services once a year, with your blessing, but only if afterwards I denounce it as rubbish?

Would you secularists please at least define what you're fighting for? This back and forth, 'we allow religion, but we dont'... I'm sorry, it confuses someone as simple of mind as me. I need your help. Enlighten me. How religious may I be and still consider myself elligible for office?

Murder is forbidden in the bible, long before it was forbidden in American legal statutes.

Should we allow it to make ourselves free from the taint of religious fundamentalism?

Irrepressable bum. That's a new one. I've been called many things by many people. I might have to consider... NO, GC, you win. I am indeed an irrepressable bum. A panhandler that will not say no. I will be sure to update my title in honor or your wise categorization.

Now that the name calling is done, perhaps back to the issue at hand?

I dont' argue that abortion is a religious issue to some. Do you argue that it's a religious issue to all? Would you be willing to bet me $1000 US that I can't find an atheist member of Operation Rescue?

Gay marriage is a tricky one. Most people that respect their religion and Constitutional Law agree with me that marriage is defined, currently, as a social contract between two people seeking permanence, which homsexual lifelong partners certainly qualify for. My issue with gay marriage has little to do with the genders, and much to do with the lack of permanancy. To that end, I actually fight for making divorces harder to obtain, in the absence of abuse, then making marriage licenses harder to get. But you better stop that too, cause it also comes from my religious views.

"Readily obvious" is code, whether you're aware of it or not, for "my own views". Sorry chief, anybody who's debated politics more than a year or two knows not to use a phrase like that, unless they consider themselves 'particularly enlightened'. As you hold no belief in a higher power, I find your use of the term indicative of either an inexperienced, or confused viewpoint. Unless of course, you believe you can send me "really obvious" mental messages, which I will indeed try to look for.

No offense taken. I am a panhandler. I do beg for knowledge, and I'm quite irrepressable at it, so point taken. What's more, even if you meant it with a wink, I wear it with a wink.

Again, gay marriage, we agree. Me, Christian voodoo doctor, and you enlightened humanist. Woo hoo! Gays can legally marry. Now what?

I've answered your charges, yet you have steadfastly refused to answer any of mine....

Murder was wrong according to the 10 Commandments thousands of years before anybody knew there was a Philadelphia, let alone birthed a Constitution in it. Should we allow it on the grounds that this religious edict impugns on my secular freedom?

Theft was also frowned on in the Bible. I guess that's allowable, now, according to you, eh? Did you work to help Bernie Ebbers defense on the grounds that the charges of theft were unconstitutional because of religious bias?

You know, GC, you keep this up, I might be able to get away with anything. Please do.... ~;)

Aah!!! Clever answer! As you secular fundamentalists say... prove it!!! Prove that a secular law existed against murder before a religious one did, or against theft, and I shall drop trow in front of the entire org. Otherwise, I'm pretty happy to say, atheist or not, you've lived on the backs of theists for quite some time. Maybe you ought to understand that before you banish us all.

By the way, my religious argument against murder does not stem from the Book of Exodus. I actually worship Thoth & Ra, and I choose to honor the sacred word of the Book of the Dead, dated at 2235BC. Please, enlighten me about how a secularist belief against murder existed in those days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Rome. ~:cheers: Their law was not effective, by any means, but Murder and Theft were clearly not legal. There is no evidence to support that that stemmed from religion, although there is little doubt that most Romans were religous people.

Just as with our Government, I want our laws to stem from common-sense and logic, not Religion. If, coincidentally, common-sense, Logic, and Religion all agree on something than that's all well and dandy, but much of the time they tend to be at odds.

---

I hate to do this to you, but I have to go to bed. And I was so enjoying this. BUT!!! Before I go, my high priest of Thoth, or was that Ra, wants to point out that the Romans stole all their laws from us or the Greeks. They and us both acknowledge our laws are divinely inspired, only their 'divinity' is a bunch of gutter snipes and ours are the True Gods.

PS The Romans were a Theocratic society, whether they believed it or not. I challenge you to find a legal document 'NOT' addressing Jupiter or Apollo at some point.

Can you name me one great athiest nation that lasted over a long period?

Quote:

---

An Athiest nation is pure folly, as shown by the USSR.

---

Yet you want it removed from our government it seems? The founding fathers dont agree with you. Youve got a very strange interpretation of the 1st amendment. This is the very reason they said a relgous people were nessacary for democracy to work. But of course thats all nonsense. We know better now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Yet you want it removed from our government it seems? The founding fathers dont agree with you. Youve got a very strange interpretation of the 1st amendment. This is the very reason they said a relgous people were nessacary for democracy to work. But of coursae thats all nonse. We know better now.

---

Indeed, not supporting a law because of moral or religious reasons hardly 'making a law respecting establishment of a religion'. Even supporting a law for religious reasons, in my mind, doesn't infringe on the 1A. It's like he's saying legislators can have any opinion they want- so long as it isnt a religious one.

Quote:

---

Believe what ever you want, the Constitution says you can. But Congress cannot give religions preferential treatment. That's it.

---

How do you explain their tax exempt then? Also how do you expalin all the original states that had established religions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

How do you explain their tax exempt then? Also how do you expalin all the original states that had established religions?

---

Well, clearly the states were in violation of the Constitution.... that they had just ratified... :dizzy2:

Honestly, as far as the wording goes, it couldn't possibly be much clearer:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Somehow, this has now been taken to mean everything from the BoyScouts not being able to use public land to students not being able to say the word "God" at graduation speeches. I guess we have our judiciary to thank for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Yet you want it removed from our government it seems? The founding fathers dont agree with you. Youve got a very strange interpretation of the 1st amendment. This is the very reason they said a relgous people were nessacary for democracy to work. But of course thats all nonsense. We know better now.

---

way to ignore half of Cube´s post ~;) *props*


he said that a nation will never be completelly atheist because there will allways be religious people.
But religion shouldn´t be the base for governamental positions, you live your own personal life based in whatever you want, christianity,islam, jewish values, wicca...whatever...

but laws and regulations should be based on logic and reasoning, that way everyone can be what they are without having anything pushed on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Indeed, not supporting a law because of moral or religious reasons hardly 'making a law respecting establishment of a religion'. Even supporting a law for religious reasons, in my mind, doesn't infringe on the 1A. It's like he's saying legislators can have any opinion they want- so long as it isnt a religious one.

---

That's exactly what he was saying, and I don't buy it.

You said you objected to abortion laws, because they're religious in nature. I asked you wouldn't murder qualify, and you gave me that wonderful story about the glory days of secular Rome... (???)

I'm not trying to twist your words. If you've got a good way to explain to me how it is that we can distinguish religious laws you will not tolerate (such as abortion or public prayer) and religious laws you will tolerate (such as murder or theft), then by all means, I'd love to hear it.

Aaah, okay. Believe it or not, you've actually made a very good point, and now it is clear. You're saying people in power should not rule solely on their religious beliefs. I agree totally, but I do not believe that was Rick Santorum's intent. Your original argument made it sound that because his thought process was tainted at all by religious persuasion, he was acting unconstitutionally. Now that I understand your point, let me assauge your fears. I seriously doubt Rick Santorum does anything solely because his minister told him to.

Quote:

---

Where I get suspicious is when people start using absolutely christian ideas like "It's alive at Conception."

---

It is alive at conception . How can you deny that? This is a fact not some christain belief? ~:confused: It doesnt matter why someone supports something if its the right thing to do. This country would be very different if it were based on Islamic beliefs yet people try to deny Christianites role in forming this nation. We wouldnt have this government if not for christianity.

Quote:

---

Alive is a relative term. At Conception it is just a cell, with no brain, no thoughts, and no feeling. A little Blastocyst or what have you. Saying that it is a crime to kill such a thing is like claiming amputation is a crime.

---

I dont think so. Its alive and its human theres no denying that. Again if 2 week old fetuses tasted good would you eat them or feed them to your dog? Ask any woman who lost a baby at any stage if she felt it was just a clump of cells.

All thats fine and I agree with you. But as you see religion really doesnt matter on this issue. If your only argument were god says its wrong then you would have a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Alive is a relative term. At Conception it is just a cell, with no brain, no thoughts, and no feeling. A little Blastocyst or what have you. Saying that it is a crime to kill such a thing is like claiming amputation is a crime.

---

I agree with where you're headed with this argument, but you need to be more careful with your terminology. A blastocyst meets all the biological requirements for life. It does not meet all the medical ethical standards to call it a human being. Of course it's alive at conception. There's lots of things that are alive that we have no qualms about changing that status. The argument you should be making is that it's not a human being, and therefore it isn't murder (if that's how you feel).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Abortion has, for some reason that is beyond me, become very attached to the agenda of the Religious Right. They oppose it to make a statement.

---

You need to stop and ask yourself if this boogeyman the media has created, the shadowy Religious Right, or the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, as they were once called, really threatens you in the way the Democrats would have you believe.

By their definition YOU ARE in the Religious Right!!! How dare you deny a woman her right to choice in her 38th week!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I agree with where you're headed with this argument, but you need to be more careful with your terminology. A blastocyst meets all the biological requirements for life. It does not meet all the medical ethical standards to call it a human being. Of course it's alive at conception. There's lots of things that are alive that we have no qualms about changing that status. The argument you should be making is that it's not a human being, and therefore it isn't murder (if that's how you feel).

---

At the risk of side-tracking the thread, I've got to say I don't understand that argument. At conception the baby has a uniquely identifiable genetic code- that person has never existed and will never exist again and has everything it needs to grow into an adult. All it requires is oxygen, nutrition, and a safe environment- not unlike newborns. Where do we draw the line? When it has a heartbeat? When it grows limbs and begins to 'look' human? When it emits brainwaves? When its capable of feeling pain?

Quote:

---

Abortion is good for society. More unwanted babies is bad for America--Of all people, Republicans should be FOR Abortion, as it's less people whom you'll have to pay for their welfare.

---

Advocating millions of murders for the good of society is monstrous.


Now, more on topic (sorta), politicians should base their legislative actions on their beliefs, period. Why is it ok if his fiscal beliefs say we should have lower taxes, but an outrage if his religious beliefs tell him abortion is murder? Its a ridiculous litmus test to suggest that legislators should determine whether a view has religious influence before being able to support it. Again, they are elected for their beliefs- if those beliefs are different enough from ours, we vote someone else it. Whether he holds views because of his religion is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

You euthanize animals,

---

Their not human in any sense and this is done to ease their suffering. I dont know why they shoot horses with broken legs though. Cant they be fixed well enuff to at least walk?

Quote:

---

you kill prisoners on death row

---

I dont back that and doubt that most Americans do. In fact we went many years with none and as gpmpared to abortion the mumbers are truley insignificant. That is unless your one of the few are executeted.

Quote:

---

you do assisted suicide (in my state anyway), ect.

---

This is also a result of Roe vs Wade and the culture of death it started. What state is that?

Quote:

---

It's not abortion

---

Thats arguable

I wonder when it'll be that people begin thinking abortions will be beneficial to human kind rather than the opposite.

~overpopulation etc

probably 50-75 years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I live in Oregon, and the Morning After Pill not being abortion is NOT arugable. Read the thing. It prevents the Sperm from uniting with the egg, the same way all Birth Control does.

---

The morning after pill works in 3 ways. It tries to prevent an egg from being released, tries to impede the sperms travel to the egg and finally, it tries to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting- the 3rd part is how it can be called abortion.

Also, its only about 80% effective even when used properly and clinical studies show it has no net effect on pregnancy rates. Then there's the list of side-effects that can result from dosing your body with a massive amount of hormones.

I'm against human euthanasia, as well as the death penalty. However, at least with the death penalty its presumably a violent criminal being killed, and with euthanasia its supposedly a person who is terminally ill with no chance of recovery. An unborn child has done nothing wrong and is not terminally ill- most will grow into healthy adults. So, if one supports euthanasia or the death penalty -again, I dont- I still think they have to sink lower still to allow for killing because of simple inconvenience.

Quote:

---

I wonder when it'll be that people begin thinking abortions will be beneficial to human kind rather than the opposite.
~overpopulation etc

probably 50-75 years

---

They have already been saying this for many years. People say it right here on these boards all the time.

How did a thread on free speech turn into another abortion thread.? The point is that we dont oppose abortion for the most part because were reigous. I know as far as Im concerned religion has nothing to do with it but its the fact that its human. Theres no way around it . And its alive. It may not be fully formed but then neither is a baby or even a teenager. We believe that humans are all something special. As has been said you may be killing the greatest person who would ever have walked the earth. Then again it could be the next Stalin. None of us oppose abortion to save a womans life but there are so many people looking for children who cant have their own. Surley birth and adoption are a better alternative.

that comment about women who have had abortions not giving a crap about what they aborted is wrong.
Probably true for some of them but I've known several who were absolute wrecks because they had had abortions. The one who'd been pressurised to have several abortions by her boyfriend was particularily fucked up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Adoption Agencies are overflowing these days. What would you have done? Do you want to pay for them? I don't.

---

That's not true at all. Newborns have huge demand and waiting lists are common. Heck, couples go to other countries to adopt babies. It just comes down to it being to 'inconvenient' to bear the child- so instead they kill them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

It's both. Believe what you want, but cannot force it on the people. I have nothing against religious congressmen, I have something against religious congressmen who don't respect that official state business should not be religious business.

---

To put the thread back on track to the initial intent.


You are incorrect in this - the amendment states very clearly what its intent is - and it has nothing to do with Freedom From that is an interpation that is incorrect.

The actual wording of the amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now it explictly states no law respection an establishment of religion those words had a very specific meaning to the founding fathers. And it did not mean that religious people could not be in the government, it did not mean religion could not be mentioned in the government - what it means is very clear that the government will not establish a state religion.

Nor will congress make any law that prevents an individual from practicing a religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Example of unnaceptable religion in the government would be something like this:

---

Good concept - but your logical is flawed.

Quote:

---

"We won't pass gay marriage laws, because it is against our Christian values."

---

A senator, a representive and even the President are perfectly entitled to state something like this, a group of politicians are perfectly entitled to state something like this.

This is the same as saying We will pass income redistrubtion legislation because it is within our beliefs that the government knows best

Quote:

---

"We won't pass abortion laws because it offends our christian values."

ect. ect.

---

Again a perfectly acceptable statement coming from individuals or a group of individuals in politics.

Quote:

---

And not just on uber liberal issues like that either, they are just the most readily obvious. It becomes a problem for me when the basis for their ACTIONS in office are religious.

*edit*

---

The constitution does not forbid this - again you can disagree with the politians statements, you can protest their statements because you disagree with them - but once again its within the intent of the Constitution. People are still allowed to base their politicial opinion on their personal beliefs be it religious, or otherwise.

Quote:

---

Don, Don, you irrepressable bum. Murder has been unnacceptable in society since long before the bible came about.

---

And again it goes to the point about the constitution that you are missing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

My words become so twisted even I am beginning to think the world is flat!


No, I want it removed from Legislation, as per the Constitution. Mind you, so far, Congress has done a decent job of keeping in line with the constitution regarding religion--indeed sometimes i think we've crossed the line into repressing religion.

Believe what ever you want, the Constitution says you can. But Congress cannot give religions preferential treatment. That's it.

---

Again where in the constitution does it state that the Legislative body can not mention religion? Where in the amendment does it state when you enter politicial office that you can not have religious views or mention it in a speech while in congress?

THe wording of the constitution is very clear on Religion as it relates to the government involvement. The congress shall make no law respection an establishment of religion how is any of the above mentioned items an establishment of religion by the government?

I hope you do realize that in essence your attempting to deny public officials one of their constitutional rights - or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

So to prevent something that is not against the constitution - you are willing to have unconstitutional laws passed?