Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Separation of Church and State? You Commies!

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay believes there is no constitutional guaranty of separation of church and state. Like many illiterates he believes that when the constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." it means that they can make no law respecting an establishment of "a" religion - meaning a specific religion. People like Tom have been trying to get access to the constitution so they can pencil that "a" in but as of this writing they have not been successful.

Something I find more shocking that the fact that the House Majority leader can not read is the fact that he can not even understand the need for such a separation. What kind of a moron (out side of a few of the more nut bucket-like churches that handle snakes and sleep with their cousins) still thinks that God would be caught dead using the state as an instrument? If God can not get off his ass to pester the non-religious people of earth himself, what makes him think that he wants bureaucrats to do it for him? Where in the Bible does it say:

"Low, I wish you to use every tool of government to instill respect in me, so that every mouth that might criticize me might be silenced and have eternal life. Annoy the unbelievers ceaselessly and put praise to me on you coins. Tell the children to swear loyalty to the nation through me so that unbelievers shall be pissed off. Yea that doth amuse me greatly. Tell the unbelievers that they are not citizens of your nation so that I should not be disturbed by their doubtings."

Maybe after DeLay learns to read he can look that passage up for me.

Jebus freaks can at least take comfort in the fact that it only seems to apply to congress so states can become full fledged theocracies if they want. I am not a constitutional lawyer though so you might want to check that out before you start beating you kids and keeping concubines.


At Wed. Mar. 02, 04:25:00 p.m. 2005, Blogger Eric Grumbles said...

Actually, one of the later amendments essentially says that states cannot violate the constitution either, so I don't think, constitutionally, that any state could do this either. Of course that later amendment (I don't remember the number now, somewhere in the high teens) makes a mockery of the 9th and 10th amendments, which essentially said that the constitution was only binding on the federal government and that all other powers and rights not enumerated in the constitution were reserved to the people and to the states. The idea was that decentralized politics was preferable to centralized, that citizens of the various states would have different ideas about what was good for them and that no single central authority should hold all power. We've screwed that one up pretty good, but what the heck, it's just freedom after all.

At Wed. Mar. 02, 05:23:00 p.m. 2005, Blogger Apesnake said...

The constitution sounds like it has more loopholes and contradictions than the Bible.

I should not talk though. In order to get around our pesky bill of rights, Canada included a "not withstanding " clause. If you want to violate someones rights you just pass a law and when the courts strike it down you stand in a provincial legislature, call out "olly-olly oxen free" and your law is safe for five years at which point you do it again. I think the idea is that you can only keep a moderate number of unconstitutional laws in play before you are spending all your time renewing the not withstanding clause so only the laws people really support will stay valid.

I wonder if not being a citizen affects how much tax atheists have to pay. Is there not some UN principle that a person has the right to be a citizen of some country? Maybe Bush could arrange for atheists to become New Zealanders.

At Wed. Mar. 02, 06:04:00 p.m. 2005, Blogger Eric Grumbles said...

If you ask me, the US founding fathers goal was to create a system that guarunteed deadlock most of the time. That's pretty well genius in my eyes. Create a system that looks pretty on paper but the reality is that no one can easily get anything done. I think we should go further down that road :-).

At Wed. Mar. 02, 09:34:00 p.m. 2005, Blogger Brad Warbiany said...

Can you point out which amendment? I'm having trouble determining which one can be construed to mean that...

I still maintain that none of this matters when the Supreme Court has made a mockery of the original intent of the Constitution. And I'm still trying to figure out how to change that one...

At Thu. Mar. 03, 01:59:00 a.m. 2005, Blogger Eric Grumbles said...

Brad, the 14th Amendment. It seems innocent, but it is far too broadly worded. See this post for more details. I would have done a trackback, but good ole Apesnake doesn't have that turned on.


Post a Comment

<< Home


Day By Day© by Chris Muir.