Now why not try to do something useful with the memetic engineering that is being discussed. Like establishing a meme suggesting that people lobby for a law allowing the salary of Congressmen and Senators who vote in favour of unconstitutional laws to be docked for the cost of having them declared unconstitutional. Especially the second time around. Imagine how much taxpayer's money that could save. They call this waste of time and money moral?
Perhaps we should call on them to attend a remedial education class as well. This would make a good starting point. "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State." " The U.S. Supreme Court, 1947
All of them took oaths of office, which aside from contravening Commandment 3, also had them swearing to uphold the constitution. Perhaps they have forgotten.
Don't these idiots realise that 10% to 22% of the population is either atheist or "not religious"? And don't let me get going on Pat bloody Robertson.
See also http://www.aclu.org/congress/congress.html
Let's look more closely at this nonsense:
So ten out of ten are contradicted directly by the babble itself, and all but 3 are unconstitutional and would be illegal to enforce. So how do these nincompoops imagine they are contributing to "morality"?
Perhaps somebody will highlight their own words... As President, I will oppose the political agenda of the organized "gay rights" movement, including same-sex marriage and "special rights" legislation, permit voluntary prayer in public schools, protect religious freedoms and pass federal legislation to permit state facilities to post the Ten Commandments. Gary Bauer on his presidential campaign 2000 website. I guess he is out to keep his promises. Are the religious right not a wonderful bunch? Here are some quotes from his fellow travellers.
"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring
Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" Pat Robertson, in his book The New World Order
"Those who practice homosexuality should swiftly be put to death by the
government. God emphatically condemns the practice of exchanging proper gender characteristics among men and women. God justly calls for the death-penalty for anyone who practices homosexuality. " Citizens for the Ten Commandments
"The perversion that follows homosexuality is bestiality and then human
sacrifice and cannibalism." (Barbara Blewster, a member of the Church of Latter-Day Saints and the Arizona State Legislature)
These are "moral" people?
In any case, for the true beeeliever this should be irrelevant - Acts 5:29 "We ought to obey God rather then men." The Bible's God, ruler of the universe, runs counter to the American Constitution. He does not support democracy (He rules;Psalms 2,89,110: the King is Yawweh's son), freedom of religion (no other gods allowed) or freedom of speech (no blasphemy). The Bible's god, many believe, will throw the majority into a lake of fire. I wonder if this is really what they are advocating? Along with a return to slavery perhaps?
"The national government ... will maintain and defend the foundations on
which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality." No, this is not Pat Robertson or any of the current motley mob in Washington, this is Adolf Hitler. But it is admitedly easy to become confused, "They have kept us in submission because they have talked about separation of church and state. There is no such thing in the Constitution. It's a lie of the left, and we're not going to take it anymore." was Pat Robertson speaking. His knowledge of History is flakey:
"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine. "
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Thomas Jefferson, in his historic Danbury letter, January 1, 1802
TheHermit <Muttering into his soup>
Would it be constitutional to refuse to enter a courthouse that posted this crap on the grounds that it offends one's "religious sensibility"?
"For surely it is folly to preach to children who will be riding rockets
to the moon a morality and cosmology based on concepts of the Good Society and of man's place in nature that were coined before the harnessing of the horse! And the world is now far too small, and men's stake in sanity too great, for any more of those old games of Chosen Folk (whether of Jehovah, Allah, Wotan, Manu, or the Devil) by which tribesmen sustained themselves against their enemies in the days when the serpent could still talk."
Morality in the House - Lawmakers Say Yes to Ten Commandments
Republican Tom DeLay, the House Majority Whip and a driving force for cultural conservative issues, was one of the House lawmakers today that approved a measure to allow schools and government buildings to post the Ten Commandments. (AP Photo)
By J. Jennings Moss ABCNEWS.com
W A S H I N G T O N, June 17 - As the House debates its juvenile justice bill, lawmakers seem determined to go beyond creating a "more perfect union," to creating a more "moral" one.
After hours of rhetoric about bringing religion into public life and increasing the nation's morality, House lawmakers today approved a measure that would allow schools and government buildings to post the Ten Commandments.
"The focus must be returned to God," said Rep. Tom DeLay, the House
Republican whip and a driving force for cultural conservative issues.
"Our nation will only be healed through a rebirth of religious
conviction and moral certitude."
Democrats Go Along
About 45 Democrats joined Republican lawmakers in the 248-180 vote to allow states to display the Ten Commandments on public property, despite objections that the measure was unconstitutional.
"I understand that simply posting the Ten Commandments will not
instantly change the moral character of our nation," said sponsor Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala. "However, it is an important step to promote morality, and an end of children killing children."
Opponents noted that in 1980, the Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky law that required the Ten Commandments to be posted in every classroom.
Some also pointed out that the United States is a diverse religious
nation. "Whose Ten Commandments? The Christian version, the Protestant
version or the Jewish version?" asked Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
"They're different, you know."
The vote was a victory for conservatives in the debate over whether violent culture or the proliferation of guns is responsible for the recent outbreak of school shootings and other youth violence. Republicans generally favor a cultural solution and have taken aim at the entertainment industry, pushing legislation to limit violent and sexually explicit content in movies, video games, music and thus real life. Democrats, meanwhile, are pushing for more gun-control laws.
Christian Coalition President Pat Robertson described lawmakers as being courageous for stressing morality. "Allowing the Ten Commandments to be posted on a schoolhouse wall is a commonsense measure that reaffirms the traditional moral values that our nation was built upon," Robertson said.
Over at Americans United for Separation of Church and State - an organization at the opposite end of the spectrum from the Christian Coalition - Executive Director Barry W. Lynn said the House's action was outrageous, not courageous.
"Government-forced religion is never the answer. Families need to be
responsible for any religious education of their children, not government," Lynn said.
As the House continues to debate its juvenile crime bill, it appears that Republicans have successfully separated popular cultural targets - such as media violence - from gun control. Those measures, contained in a separate bill, are to be taken up later today.
The House started the day by debating and then accepting on a voice vote an amendment expressing the "sense of Congress" that the entertainment industry be condemned for its use of "pointless acts of brutality in movies, TV, music and video." Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., the sponsor of the amendment, said: "Anyone who thinks [school violence] has nothing to do with the media is an idiot."
The entertainment industry mounted an aggressive lobbying campaign to thwart any restrictions on its products. Earlier this week, Gerald Levin, chairman of Time Warner, argued that his industry was not responsible for youth violence. "We have basically obscene politics at work drawing attention away from the issues that are really important," Levin said.
In at least one vote, entertainment industry officials were victorious. The House voted 266-161 to reject an amendment that would have required violent video games to carry warning labels.
The House also approved by voice vote a proposal by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., commissioning a study of the firearms industry's marketing practices to children. A similar provision was passed by the Senate.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
Is It Unconstitutional?
Legal experts say the recently passed House amendment to allow the public display of the Ten Commandments may not pass Constitutional muster.
Many cite the court's 1980 decision in Stone vs. Graham, in which justices decided that a Kentucky law that required the Ten Commandments to be displayed in classrooms was unconstitutional, as binding precedent that would overrule the measure.
"This is clearly unconstitutional," says Michael Dorf, a constitutional
law professor at Columbia University. "Recently the Court has allowed a little more leeway concerning the religion, in terms of what people can do in the own time or during the hours when schools are out, but this crosses the line."
Richard Fallon, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University, agrees.
"In some cases ... the court has decided that objects can be viewed as
symbols of diversity if they are part of a larger holiday decoration," he says. "However, the Ten Commandments standing alone on a wall would probably be seen as promoting Judeo-Christian beliefs, not diversity."
"In a way this sounds to me like political grandstanding," he adds.
"From the sound of it Congress is saying that states have the right to
post the Ten Commandments in public places at their discretion. But states could always choose to do that, and then, like now, the courts would decide whether it was unconstitutional or not."
Ayaz Nanji, ABCNEWS.com