Displaying 31 To 60 Of 67 Comments Religion & The U.S. Constitution: The Official Record Thank you very much, Kalima. I’m glad you like the painting, but you might have had a hard time lurking in the shadows while wearing a corset.=^P » Posted By Zeke On July 3, 2014 @ 5:55 am Thank you kindly, Adlib. I’m still irritated that the five could just openly and blatantly ignore the science in the Hobby Lobby case. » Posted By Zeke On July 3, 2014 @ 5:46 am Thanks, gentle friend ST. » Posted By Zeke On July 3, 2014 @ 5:19 am Thank you, Sally. You are absolutely right, it didn’t happen overnight. If you look at the progression from Declaration of Independence, to the Articles of Confederation, to the Constitution you see less and less religious language. Many people don’t realize that religious disestablishment was a process that went on for decades, and indeed, is still ongoing today. » Posted By Zeke On July 3, 2014 @ 5:16 am Ha! I guess I’m not a good reader either by mistaking “can’t” for “don’t” D’oh ~(_8^(I) » Posted By Zeke On July 2, 2014 @ 5:14 pm Thank you, Nirek. If you have an interest in this era, I would encourage you to read some of the record for yourself. You can find a number of other interesting and sometimes humorous items. Just be aware that, if you’re anything like me, large chunks of political legalese WILL make your eyes glaze over and raise the question “what the hell did I just read?” » Posted By Zeke On July 2, 2014 @ 4:50 pm Thank you very much, KT. You pose a good question, one that I don’t have a good answer for because I am neither a good thinker or writer, but my glib answer would be television. As I’m aware of some of you past articles, I think you would enjoy reading some of the record for yourself. I would occasionally come across something that would make me chuckle. For instance, when they were debating the phrase “but no persons religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms” a phrase cut from the 2nd amendment, after Mr Gerry expressed his concern about the wording, Mr Jackson states “(I) do not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quaker or Moravians;” But then again, I have a quirky sense of humor. » Posted By Zeke On July 2, 2014 @ 4:38 pm Is The United States Of America A Christian Nation? Hey Kilgore, I just wanted you to see this excerpt from James Madison’s ‘tyranny of the majority’ speech June 6, 1787: “We have seen the mere distinction of colour made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man. What has been the source of those unjust laws complained of among ourselves? Has it not been the real or supposed interest of the major number?” » Posted By Zeke On July 7, 2014 @ 8:19 am Thank you, but I concur with Kilgore, completely. » Posted By Zeke On July 3, 2014 @ 7:36 am The founders did have a way with words, didn’t they? That sign is a sad reflection of how far education has fallen in this country. It also reminds me of sign one protester was holding while protesting the atheist monument in Florida. “Hook for Jeses” …gotta laugh to keep from crying. » Posted By Zeke On July 3, 2014 @ 7:06 am “That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time” » Posted By Zeke On July 2, 2014 @ 9:12 am Excellent and accurate piece KT. Looks like we are delivering a one two punch for historical accuracy (see my piece due later today.) “Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. 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.” “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.” “The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy — a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.” “I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another: for freedom of the press, & against all violations of the constitution to silence by force & not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.” “It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behoves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith, which the laws have left between God & himself.” » Posted By Zeke On July 2, 2014 @ 8:50 am Hobby Lobby, Contraception and Bearing False Witness SCOTUS hands yet another victory to the anti-science crowd… “Alito and the four other conservative justices on the court were essentially overruling not just an Obamacare regulation, but science. According to the Food and Drug Administration, all four of the contraceptive methods Hobby Lobby objects to—Plan B, Ella, and two intrauterine devices—do not prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus, which the owners of Hobby Lobby consider abortion. Instead, these methods prevent fertilization. Yet this scientific determination did not guide the five justices. In his opinion, Alito contends that these four contraception methods “may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus.” He does not cite any science to back this up (HA! Scoff!). Instead, in a footnote, Alito concedes that Hobby Lobby’s religious-based assertions are contradicted by science-based federal regulations: “The owners of the companies involved in these cases and others who believe that life begins at conception regard these four methods as causing abortions, but federal regulations, which define pregnancy as beginning at implantation, do not so classify them.” Still, he and the other conservative justices are saying that in a conflict between a religious view and scientific research, religion wins.” http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-decision Yet again, Christians are allowed to impose their religious beliefs onto others. Oh, and the ruling is supposedly only regarding the contraception issue, thereby ensuring that in no way can this be turned back on Christians. There will be no “what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.” Nope, now it’s going to be “suck it up goose, while the least educated among the gander scream at you while holding a hateful sign and video camera from outside the floating buffer zone” Women’s rights lose again. Venting complete… for now. » Posted By Zeke On July 1, 2014 @ 6:07 am The Weekend Music Thread-Ladies Night The first two tracks off the album “Stuff” Numb Elmo » Posted By Zeke On June 21, 2014 @ 12:31 pm One Veteran’s Opinion About the POW Swap Good article, and a hearty thank you for your service. I certainly wouldn’t put it past them to pull some kind of shenanigans. Did you see this from Colbert on Monday? If you make it to the end you will see that Stephen also thinks some shenanigans might be afoot. [img]http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/xtbsgf/obama-s-prisoner-exchange-with-the-taliban[/img] » Posted By Zeke On June 5, 2014 @ 4:47 pm Huffington Post Finalizes Its Divorce From Its Bloggers Thank you for the warm welcome, Nirek. > cue “The Godfather” theme < » Posted By Zeke On June 5, 2014 @ 4:00 am Thank you. » Posted By Zeke On June 5, 2014 @ 3:55 am Greetings friends! My first comment since leaving HP at the first site I signed up with in the aftermath. Many thanks to MurphTheSurf3 for his diligent efforts in the waning hours of the HP debacle. Had I not run across his last pundit post and contacted him by email, I might not have found this place… and I know I’m going to like it here. » Posted By Zeke On June 4, 2014 @ 7:00 am Snicker… » Posted By Zeke On March 9, 2015 @ 6:58 am Kes, I share your opinion of Sen. McCain’s speech. At the end of the video Sen. Whitehouse (who I think is great, by the way. You should check him out on twitter/youtube) speaks briefly just to thank people and closes with this: “I appreciate very much in particular Senator McCain coming forward. He brings a unique moral perspective and force to this conversation; and he has wielded that moral perspective and force with great courage.” Even Jon Stewart liked his speech. So much so, that he broke out the McCain puppet! Haven’t seen that in awhile. But, if I’m to be completely honest, while listening to Sen. McCain’s eloquent speech, my brain (which is unquestionably my greatest flaw;) was distracted with the thought that his ‘whistling esses’ echoed exquisitely in the hallowed hall of “The World’s Greatest Deliberative Body” » Posted By Zeke On December 11, 2014 @ 1:16 pm Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s speech today. 3:50:56 http://www.c-span.org/video/?323252-1/us-senate-2015-federal-spending-legislation “Mr. President, yesterday I came to the floor to call on house democrats to withhold their support from the omnibus spending bill until one provision is removed. The provision was slipped in at the last minute to benefit Wall Street. In fact, it was written by lobbyists for Citicorp. That provision means big money for a few big banks. It would let derivatives traders on Wall Street gamble with taxpayer money and when it all blows up require the government to bail them out. Just to be clear, I want to read the title of the part of the law that will be repealed if this provision is not stripped out of the Omnibus. The title: “prohibition against federal government bailouts of swaps entities.” that’s what’s on the table to be taken out of the law. Now, I’m here today to ask my Republican colleagues, who don’t want to see another Wall Street bailout, to join in our efforts to strip this Wall Street giveaway from the bill. This is not about partisanship. This is about fairness. This is about accountability and responsibility. This is about preventing another financial collapse that could again wipe out millions of jobs and take down our whole economy. If big Wall Street banks want to gamble with their own money, so be it. Let them take their risks with their own money and let them live with the consequences of those risks. That’s how markets are supposed to work. But they shouldn’t get to gamble with government-insured money, and they shouldn’t get to run to the government when the deal goes sour. Opposition to government bailouts on Wall Street is not a liberal or conservative issue. The current law, the one about to be repealed, was put in place years ago because, after the 2008 financial collapse, people of all political persuasions were disgusted by the prospect of ever having to use tax payer dollars to rescue big banks from their own bad decisions. This morning senators from both parties, Sherrod Brown, a democrat from Ohio, and David Vitter, a republican from Louisiana, called for this provision to be taken out of the spending bill. And here is what they said: “if Wall Street banks want to gamble, Congress should force them to pay for their losses, not put tax payers on the hook for another bailout. Congress should not gamble on a possible government shutdown by attempting to tuck this controversial provision into a spending bill without having been considered by the committees of jurisdiction where it can be subject to a transparent and rigorous debate.” Senators Brown and Vitter are exactly right. This provision has no place in a must-pass spending bill. Conservative activists have jumped in as well. They are raising their voices today to say that this provision has no place in a must-pass spending bill. Here’s what one front-page contributor on the conservative blog Redstate said this morning: “I have no way to refute the basic point that democrats are making about the Cromnibus fight right now. In fact, I might even go so far as to say, they are right. What possible good-faith reason can republicans have for threatening to gum up the whole works over doing a favor to Wall Street? Generally speaking if Nancy Pelosi is opposed to something then instinctively, I know I should be for it. Beyond that, I haven’t the slightest clue why the proposed tweak to Dodd-Frank ought to be anything resembling a hill the republicans should die for.” These conservative activists are right. If you believe in smaller government, how can you support a provision that would expand a government insurance program and put taxpayers on the hook for the riskiest private activities? You know, if you thought the Ex-Im bank exposed taxpayers to risk, even though it has never cost the taxpayers a dime, how can you support a provision to prevent another calamity like the one that cost taxpayers billions of dollars just six years ago? House republican leaders are moving quickly to try to jam this bill through today before their own members have had a chance to digest this Wall Street bailout provision. The fact sheet that republican appropriators sent around to their members explaining the provision doesn’t even describe it accurately. According to the fact sheet, the provision in question would — quote — “protect farmers and other commodity producers from having to put down excessive collateral to get a loan, expand their business, and hedge their production.” Whatever you think about the bill, that description is flatly wrong. In fact, that description applies to yet another Wall Street reform rollback that the republicans are pushing right now, which is attached to a completely different bill. Now, I don’t know if republican leaders in the house are deliberately trying to confuse their members into voting for a government bailout program or whether they just can’t keep straight all of their efforts to gut financial reform. Republican leaders are about to bring this bill up for a vote, so here’s the bottom line: a vote for this bill is a vote for future taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street. When the next bailout comes, a lot of people will look back to this vote to see who was responsible for putting the government back on the hook to bail out Wall Street. To republican leaders in the house, I would ask this: you say you’re against bailouts on Wall Street. I’ve heard you say it again and again for five years. So why in the world are you spending your time and your energy fighting for a provision written by CitiGroup lobbyists that would increase the chance of future bailouts? Why, in the last minute, as you head out the door and a spending bill must be passed, are you making it a priority to do Wall Street’s bidding? Who do you work for? Wall Street or the American people? This fight isn’t about conservatives or liberals. It’s not about democrats or republicans. It’s about money, and it’s about power right here in Washington. This legal change could trigger more taxpayer bailouts and could ultimately threaten our entire economy, but it will also make a lot of money for Wall Street banks. According to Americans for financial reform, this change will be a huge boon to just a handful of our biggest banks — Citigroup, J.P. Morgan, Bank of America. People are frustrated with Congress. Part of the reason, of course, is gridlock. But mostly it’s because they see a Congress that works just fine for the big guys and won’t lift a finger to help them. If big companies can deploy their armies of lobbyists and lawyers to get Congress to vote for special deals that benefit themselves, then we will simply confirm the view of the American people, that the system is rigged. This is a democracy. The American people sent us here. Republicans, democrats, and independents — they sent us here to stand up for them, to stand up for taxpayers, to protect the economy. Nobody sent us here to stand up for Citigroup. I urge my republican colleagues in the house to withhold their support from this package until this risky giveaway is removed from the legislation. It is time for all of us to stand up and fight.” » Posted By Zeke On December 11, 2014 @ 1:01 pm Torture Report from the morning session of the Senate. http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4518291/torture-report Sen. Feinstein 0:05:07 Don’t miss Sen. Rockefeller relating his experience from his time during the Bush years. » Posted By Zeke On December 9, 2014 @ 12:35 pm That’s right, I forgot about that and I missed Kalima’s reference. After a quick google search I found this And this… » Posted By Zeke On December 3, 2014 @ 10:50 am What else can I say except… » Posted By Zeke On December 3, 2014 @ 10:48 am Almost the perfect antithesis of the famous » Posted By Zeke On December 3, 2014 @ 10:47 am The House of Representatives, back from their Thanksgiving vacation, reconvened at 2pm(ET) for all of five minutes before recessing till 4pm(ET) after this one speech: Rep. Joe Wilson(R-SC): Mr. Speaker, the president’s illegal alien amnesty plan is unconstitutional and destroys American jobs. According to a recent article in the “Washington Times,” quote, “President Obama’s temporary amnesty which lasts three years declares up to five million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on health exchanges. Under the affordable care act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage. Making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker who the business by law would have to cover,” end of quote. This gives the disadvantage to legal Americans and citizens and also legal immigrants who deserve a job. Sadly we are seeing yet another example of how the president has pushed failed policies instead of working with house republicans to help American families find jobs. In conclusion, God bless our troops and the president should take actions, never forgetting September 11 and the global war on terrorism. » Posted By Zeke On December 1, 2014 @ 12:23 pm Great video, Kalima. Because I’m a bit of a quote junky, I feel compelled to relay a couple of my favorite quotes by Carl Sagan. “The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.” “I can remember one occasion, taking a shower with my wife while high, in which I had an idea on the origins and invalidities of racism in terms of gaussian distribution curves. It was a point obvious in a way, but rarely talked about. I drew the curves in soap on the shower wall, and went to write the idea down. One idea led to another, and at the end of about an hour of extremely hard work I found I had written eleven short essays on a wide range of social, political, philosophical, and human biological topics.” » Posted By Zeke On November 27, 2014 @ 2:53 am Happy Thanksgiving planeteers. » Posted By Zeke On November 27, 2014 @ 2:39 am You’re welcome, Nirek. I couldn’t help but smile when Sen Leahy said “Balderdash!” I tried to pin the c-span video in the comment box, but It didn’t work. If anyone can tell me how to pin c-span videos in the comment box you will make me very happy. » Posted By Zeke On November 21, 2014 @ 5:30 am Kes, I agree with you about the Presidents speech. Afterwards just to see what was being said, I flipped over to Fox. O’Reilly and Krauthammer… need I say more? They just make my skin crawl. In case you may be interested, Senator Durbin gave another fantastic speech yesterday calling out repubs on immigration. And later in the day Senator Leahy piled on. –“Balderdash!” http://www.c-span.org/video/?322867-1/us-senate-morning-business Sen. Durbin starts at about 1:17:50 (10 min). » Posted By Zeke On November 21, 2014 @ 5:02 amComments Posted By Zeke
It can be very interesting, but there can also be large sections of boring. Do lots of skimming looking for key words or phrases. One thing that I noticed when reading Madison’s notes of the 1787 convention is how concerned the delegates were of creating either a monarchy or an aristocracy, and that by preventing one they might ensure the other. Patrick Henry even declined (thankfully) his invitation to the convention because he, “smelt a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy.” They may have prevented a monarchy, but an aristocracy… maybe not so much.
I spent about five months doing the research in my spare time. With the pertinent information so spread out in the record of the Bill of Rights debates, posed quite a challenge. I had the research part done, but I was unsure of how I wanted to open and close the article, as I am not the best writer. I decided that I wasn’t going to rush it, figuring that it would come to me eventually and worse come to worst I could try to submit this in time for ‘Constitution Day’ on September 17; however, SCOTUS’s gang of five provided the needed inspiration. I knew recent rulings would inspire typical theocratic misrepresentations of history and I wanted to ensure that this information was more readily available. I wish I could say that I hope this helps even one person, but I would much prefer that every theocrat receive a copy of this article and it inspires them to read the record for themselves, even if it’s only out of a desire to prove me wrong.
Appropriate words from you that are unfortunately true, as much of society seems to have such a difficult time learning from history. Thankfully most of our founders had no such problem.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0606-2/
Please post what you were planning, Sally.
[img]http://oi42.tinypic.com/hslz77.jpg[/img]
~~Thomas Jefferson’s, “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom”
enacted on January 16, 1786
I hope you don’t mind me adding a few quotes from prominent founders.
~~James Madison, “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” 1785
~~John Adams, preface “A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” 1787
~~George Washington Letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport,
August 18, 1790
~~Thomas Jefferson Letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799
~~Thomas Jefferson Letter to Benjamin Rush, 21 April 1803
…by actually ignoring science.
by Holly McNarland
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/xtbsgf/obama-s-prisoner-exchange-with-the-taliban
And my congratulations for being “made” official.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/the-error-in-the-senators-letter-to-the-leaders-of-iran/
http://on.cc.com/1vGKoO6
Sen. McCain 1:03:44
Sen. Rockefeller 1:17:00
Sen. Graham 1:36:51
Sen. Whitehouse 1:46:15
SNL’s theory on Wilson’s ‘You lie!’ outburst
“Damn Right!”
Winston Churchill quote.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?322957-1/us-house-legislative-business
«« Back To Stats Page
[c-span.org 322867-1]
Sen. Leahy starts at about 4:21:00 (10 Min.).
Home Stats