Thursday, August 25, 2011
I'm Running for the Office of the President. Do you like My Hair?
I was reading online the other day what Rick Perry Republican Party presidential candidate hopeful would like to do. Reading it I was surprised that the man would even consider doing such things. But then again, this shows you just how far the so called “Republican Party” has gone to the right.
Now I grew up in Houston in the only congressional district in Texas, if not the country that carried Berry Goldwater in the 1964 Presidential campaign. In fact, I remember when Daddy Bush was a local congressman. Just FYI, Ellington Field was where his son’s Air National Guard unit was stationed, which by the way, was in his congressional district. Daddy was all for stopping communism, but only if other sons of less influential and non-politically connected families would and could do it. I have a cousin who has a lovely Purple Heart he got in South Vietnam because it was “expected” that he serve, as his father had during WWII.
Well, besides that sore point with me…
Perry would like to do away with having WE THE PEOPLE VOTE WHO WE WANT TO REPRESENT US IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE. Now originally, US Senators were chosen by the individual states government. This was done away with in the late 1800’s. They were in short, political appointees.
But due to various things, like, oh corruption and the like, an amendment to the Constitution was made, and passed. The people, not the likes of Tammany Hall, would choose their Senators.
Also Perry would like to see that any ruling by the US Supreme Court could be overturned by 2/3 of the Congress. So much for the “Checks and Balances” in our form of government. So many things, like citizens’ RIGHTS would be so easily taken away. A woman’s right to abortion, Rights Warning statements to those being arrested, trial by jury, access to the courts, the right to vote even.
If you think I’m off base here…just go scan the Patriot Act. Warrantless searches….yup….check it out. Just like they use to have in the former USSR. Searches without warrants…..and ya know…it was all due to the needs of “NATIONAL SECURITY” too….
Then there is the balanced budget he’d like have made part of the Constitution. Well, here in Texas it is part of the Texas Constitution. And every year, it has to be balanced. Now mind you a couple of years ago it wasn’t. But it did get balanced. You see, what the Texas State government does is shift a lot of things down to the counties to handle. Therefore, people are still taxed for these things, but on the county level and not the state.
Oh, by the way, with the end of Reconstruction back in the 1800s, after the Civil War, Texas wrote a new state Constitution. In there was the Balanced Budget part. This hasn’t changed in about 140 years. Rick Perry had nothing to do with it. Sorry Ricky.
But this isn’t the first time we’ve had this attempt….let’s hop into our time machine and go back to the 1980’s…….
The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (99th Congress, S.1702, Pub.L. 99-177, title II, December 12, 1985, 99 Stat. 1038, 2 U.S.C. § 900) and Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Pub.L. 100-119, title I, Sept. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 754, 2 U.S.C. § 900) (both often known as Gramm-Rudman) were, according to U.S. Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, "the first binding constraint imposed on federal spending, and its spending caps have become part of every subsequent U.S. budget. Together with a rapidly growing economy it produced the first balanced federal budget in a quarter of a century.”
President Reagan signed the bill on August 21, 1986.
The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 supplanted the fixed deficit targets.
Balanced budgets did not actually emerge until the late 1990s when budget surpluses (not accounting for liabilities to the Social Security Trust Fund) emerged.
….now what is not being brought up is that the Republican Party controlled the Congress and Senate from 1994 until 2006. With G. W. Bush in the White House, the Republican Party controlled all three from 2001 until 2006.
Now while I do hold the Democrats as responsible for the unbridled spending, the Republicans were in control and charge.
So this idea of a balanced budget amendment kind of throws me. And when I would mention this in chat room and on bulletin boards online, I was told that my “tin foil hat” was on too tight. Or that with inflation, the cost will be reduced…..
NOT.
And of course, there is the “abortion” issue. Mr. Perry wants to stop all abortion. This broken record has been the battle cry for the so called Republican Party since the 1992. When the Republicans saw that the Christian Coalition had Political Action Committees (PAC) which could generate more money the “god”, and the preachers would tell their followers who to vote for, thus giving them a “block” vote, they quickly rolled onto their back, spread their legs and cried, “TAKE ME!”
Prior to this the idea of a women not having access to birth control, weather prescription or through medical procedures was not acceptable nor taken lightly. I watched older women who grew up when birth control pills were only a day dream, and abortions were done in backrooms fight tooth and nail to protect their rights to have control over their bodies. My mother was one of them.
So when I look at Perry, I just see a slick politician who plays the religious card BIG TIME. And what is so sad, these religious people just don’t see or want to see how they are being played. Sad. It’s really sad.
But like the old Wobbly union song use to go, “work all day and live on hay, and when you die there will be pie in the sky…”
I think I’d like to have my pie now, thank you.
I'm Running for the Office of the President. Do you like My Hair?
I was reading online the other day what Rick Perry Republican Party presidential candidate hopeful would like to do. Reading it I was surprised that the man would even consider doing such things. But then again, this shows you just how far the so called “Republican Party” has gone to the right.
Now I grew up in Houston in the only congressional district in Texas, if not the country that carried Berry Goldwater in the 1964 Presidential campaign. In fact, I remember when Daddy Bush was a local congressman. Just FYI, Ellington Field was where his son’s Air National Guard unit was stationed, which by the way, was in his congressional district. Daddy was all for stopping communism, but only if other sons of less influential and non-politically connected families would and could do it. I have a cousin who has a lovely Purple Heart he got in South Vietnam because it was “expected” that he serve, as his father had during WWII.
Well, besides that sore point with me…
Perry would like to do away with having WE THE PEOPLE VOTE WHO WE WANT TO REPRESENT US IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE. Now originally, US Senators were chosen by the individual states government. This was done away with in the late 1800’s. They were in short, political appointees.
But due to various things, like, oh corruption and the like, an amendment to the Constitution was made, and passed. The people, not the likes of Tammany Hall, would choose their Senators.
Also Perry would like to see that any ruling by the US Supreme Court could be overturned by 2/3 of the Congress. So much for the “Checks and Balances” in our form of government. So many things, like citizens’ RIGHTS would be so easily taken away. A woman’s right to abortion, Rights Warning statements to those being arrested, trial by jury, access to the courts, the right to vote even.
If you think I’m off base here…just go scan the Patriot Act. Warrantless searches….yup….check it out. Just like they use to have in the former USSR. Searches without warrants…..and ya know…it was all due to the needs of “NATIONAL SECURITY” too….
Then there is the balanced budget he’d like have made part of the Constitution. Well, here in Texas it is part of the Texas Constitution. And every year, it has to be balanced. Now mind you a couple of years ago it wasn’t. But it did get balanced. You see, what the Texas State government does is shift a lot of things down to the counties to handle. Therefore, people are still taxed for these things, but on the county level and not the state.
Oh, by the way, with the end of Reconstruction back in the 1800s, after the Civil War, Texas wrote a new state Constitution. In there was the Balanced Budget part. This hasn’t changed in about 140 years. Rick Perry had nothing to do with it. Sorry Ricky.
But this isn’t the first time we’ve had this attempt….let’s hop into our time machine and go back to the 1980’s…….
The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (99th Congress, S.1702, Pub.L. 99-177, title II, December 12, 1985, 99 Stat. 1038, 2 U.S.C. § 900) and Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Pub.L. 100-119, title I, Sept. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 754, 2 U.S.C. § 900) (both often known as Gramm-Rudman) were, according to U.S. Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, "the first binding constraint imposed on federal spending, and its spending caps have become part of every subsequent U.S. budget. Together with a rapidly growing economy it produced the first balanced federal budget in a quarter of a century.”
President Reagan signed the bill on August 21, 1986.
The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 supplanted the fixed deficit targets.
Balanced budgets did not actually emerge until the late 1990s when budget surpluses (not accounting for liabilities to the Social Security Trust Fund) emerged.
….now what is not being brought up is that the Republican Party controlled the Congress and Senate from 1994 until 2006. With G. W. Bush in the White House, the Republican Party controlled all three from 2001 until 2006.
Now while I do hold the Democrats as responsible for the unbridled spending, the Republicans were in control and charge.
So this idea of a balanced budget amendment kind of throws me. And when I would mention this in chat room and on bulletin boards online, I was told that my “tin foil hat” was on too tight. Or that with inflation, the cost will be reduced…..
NOT.
And of course, there is the “abortion” issue. Mr. Perry wants to stop all abortion. This broken record has been the battle cry for the so called Republican Party since the 1992. When the Republicans saw that the Christian Coalition had Political Action Committees (PAC) which could generate more money the “god”, and the preachers would tell their followers who to vote for, thus giving them a “block” vote, they quickly rolled onto their back, spread their legs and cried, “TAKE ME!”
Prior to this the idea of a women not having access to birth control, weather prescription or through medical procedures was not acceptable nor taken lightly. I watched older women who grew up when birth control pills were only a day dream, and abortions were done in backrooms fight tooth and nail to protect their rights to have control over their bodies. My mother was one of them.
So when I look at Perry, I just see a slick politician who plays the religious card BIG TIME. And what is so sad, these religious people just don’t see or want to see how they are being played. Sad. It’s really sad.
But like the old Wobbly union song use to go, “work all day and live on hay, and when you die there will be pie in the sky…”
I think I’d like to have my pie now, thank you.
Now I grew up in Houston in the only congressional district in Texas, if not the country that carried Berry Goldwater in the 1964 Presidential campaign. In fact, I remember when Daddy Bush was a local congressman. Just FYI, Ellington Field was where his son’s Air National Guard unit was stationed, which by the way, was in his congressional district. Daddy was all for stopping communism, but only if other sons of less influential and non-politically connected families would and could do it. I have a cousin who has a lovely Purple Heart he got in South Vietnam because it was “expected” that he serve, as his father had during WWII.
Well, besides that sore point with me…
Perry would like to do away with having WE THE PEOPLE VOTE WHO WE WANT TO REPRESENT US IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE. Now originally, US Senators were chosen by the individual states government. This was done away with in the late 1800’s. They were in short, political appointees.
But due to various things, like, oh corruption and the like, an amendment to the Constitution was made, and passed. The people, not the likes of Tammany Hall, would choose their Senators.
Also Perry would like to see that any ruling by the US Supreme Court could be overturned by 2/3 of the Congress. So much for the “Checks and Balances” in our form of government. So many things, like citizens’ RIGHTS would be so easily taken away. A woman’s right to abortion, Rights Warning statements to those being arrested, trial by jury, access to the courts, the right to vote even.
If you think I’m off base here…just go scan the Patriot Act. Warrantless searches….yup….check it out. Just like they use to have in the former USSR. Searches without warrants…..and ya know…it was all due to the needs of “NATIONAL SECURITY” too….
Then there is the balanced budget he’d like have made part of the Constitution. Well, here in Texas it is part of the Texas Constitution. And every year, it has to be balanced. Now mind you a couple of years ago it wasn’t. But it did get balanced. You see, what the Texas State government does is shift a lot of things down to the counties to handle. Therefore, people are still taxed for these things, but on the county level and not the state.
Oh, by the way, with the end of Reconstruction back in the 1800s, after the Civil War, Texas wrote a new state Constitution. In there was the Balanced Budget part. This hasn’t changed in about 140 years. Rick Perry had nothing to do with it. Sorry Ricky.
But this isn’t the first time we’ve had this attempt….let’s hop into our time machine and go back to the 1980’s…….
The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (99th Congress, S.1702, Pub.L. 99-177, title II, December 12, 1985, 99 Stat. 1038, 2 U.S.C. § 900) and Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Pub.L. 100-119, title I, Sept. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 754, 2 U.S.C. § 900) (both often known as Gramm-Rudman) were, according to U.S. Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, "the first binding constraint imposed on federal spending, and its spending caps have become part of every subsequent U.S. budget. Together with a rapidly growing economy it produced the first balanced federal budget in a quarter of a century.”
President Reagan signed the bill on August 21, 1986.
The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 supplanted the fixed deficit targets.
Balanced budgets did not actually emerge until the late 1990s when budget surpluses (not accounting for liabilities to the Social Security Trust Fund) emerged.
….now what is not being brought up is that the Republican Party controlled the Congress and Senate from 1994 until 2006. With G. W. Bush in the White House, the Republican Party controlled all three from 2001 until 2006.
Now while I do hold the Democrats as responsible for the unbridled spending, the Republicans were in control and charge.
So this idea of a balanced budget amendment kind of throws me. And when I would mention this in chat room and on bulletin boards online, I was told that my “tin foil hat” was on too tight. Or that with inflation, the cost will be reduced…..
NOT.
And of course, there is the “abortion” issue. Mr. Perry wants to stop all abortion. This broken record has been the battle cry for the so called Republican Party since the 1992. When the Republicans saw that the Christian Coalition had Political Action Committees (PAC) which could generate more money the “god”, and the preachers would tell their followers who to vote for, thus giving them a “block” vote, they quickly rolled onto their back, spread their legs and cried, “TAKE ME!”
Prior to this the idea of a women not having access to birth control, weather prescription or through medical procedures was not acceptable nor taken lightly. I watched older women who grew up when birth control pills were only a day dream, and abortions were done in backrooms fight tooth and nail to protect their rights to have control over their bodies. My mother was one of them.
So when I look at Perry, I just see a slick politician who plays the religious card BIG TIME. And what is so sad, these religious people just don’t see or want to see how they are being played. Sad. It’s really sad.
But like the old Wobbly union song use to go, “work all day and live on hay, and when you die there will be pie in the sky…”
I think I’d like to have my pie now, thank you.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Fear and Mongering..for money on Sunday.
I just got a call from a so called “Conservative” group playing on the general populations’ ignorance.
Right of the bat they are calling “socialism.” Then they say that President Obama raised the national debt to 14 trillion. Funny how they ignored the fact that under G.W. Bush the national debt doubled and ended up around 10 trillion dollars. They also pushed how Obama was the worst president since Carter. While not a Carter fan, I do recall G. W. Bush’s ratings being pretty damn low.
And of course, they cried, “MUSLIMS!!!!” In my view all religions are dangerous. All of them.
They also mentioned how fat the government has grown. Oddly enough, they didn’t mention how fat it got under G.W. Bush and Company. Nor did they mention that G.W. Bush also signed the bailout in the fall of 2008.
When I mentioned that I voted for Obama and liked the man, and that the government got “fat” under G.W.Bush, there was also a frivolous war, and how under the Patriot Act, they wiped their asses with the Constitution.
They quickly said thank you and hung up.
And all they were asking for was a hundred or two dollars to run a full page ad in US Today…..
I use to be a Republican until the 1992 National Convention. I walked out saying to myself, "The Republican Party has left me...." The religious nut cases had taken it over....or so they thought.
I knew the party leadership was using them. The "Religious right" had money, Political Action Committees, and a block of votes. And the Republicans used them. Even the first head of the Faith Based Initiative said they had been used. Funny how it took them almost 20 years to figure that out...
Right of the bat they are calling “socialism.” Then they say that President Obama raised the national debt to 14 trillion. Funny how they ignored the fact that under G.W. Bush the national debt doubled and ended up around 10 trillion dollars. They also pushed how Obama was the worst president since Carter. While not a Carter fan, I do recall G. W. Bush’s ratings being pretty damn low.
And of course, they cried, “MUSLIMS!!!!” In my view all religions are dangerous. All of them.
They also mentioned how fat the government has grown. Oddly enough, they didn’t mention how fat it got under G.W. Bush and Company. Nor did they mention that G.W. Bush also signed the bailout in the fall of 2008.
When I mentioned that I voted for Obama and liked the man, and that the government got “fat” under G.W.Bush, there was also a frivolous war, and how under the Patriot Act, they wiped their asses with the Constitution.
They quickly said thank you and hung up.
And all they were asking for was a hundred or two dollars to run a full page ad in US Today…..
I use to be a Republican until the 1992 National Convention. I walked out saying to myself, "The Republican Party has left me...." The religious nut cases had taken it over....or so they thought.
I knew the party leadership was using them. The "Religious right" had money, Political Action Committees, and a block of votes. And the Republicans used them. Even the first head of the Faith Based Initiative said they had been used. Funny how it took them almost 20 years to figure that out...
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The Silliness of Religion
The Silliness of Religion
I was doing some reading and came across George “Goofy” Bush’s statement that, “God wanted me to be President….”
And all this time I thought it was a frivolous lawsuit filed with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Was I one of the few who saw Bush’s statement as something we should have been alarmed at?
I mean, back during the American War of Independence, my ancestor and others put their necks in a noose to create this country. They no longer were going to have a King or Queen rule them and their country because “God” had decided it.
No, the founders of the United States had decided that “they” were going to choose their own leaders.
Not some “God.”
Not some religious leader.
The people were.
Seems that there are those who are opposed to what our “Founding Fathers” and my ancestor created.
Or what untold numbers have given their lives and limbs for on battlefields around the world.
So when I see these individuals who are frothing at the mouth about President Obama, I just think back to George “Goofy” Bush, and say to myself….
”God wanted Obama to be President…”
I was doing some reading and came across George “Goofy” Bush’s statement that, “God wanted me to be President….”
And all this time I thought it was a frivolous lawsuit filed with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Was I one of the few who saw Bush’s statement as something we should have been alarmed at?
I mean, back during the American War of Independence, my ancestor and others put their necks in a noose to create this country. They no longer were going to have a King or Queen rule them and their country because “God” had decided it.
No, the founders of the United States had decided that “they” were going to choose their own leaders.
Not some “God.”
Not some religious leader.
The people were.
Seems that there are those who are opposed to what our “Founding Fathers” and my ancestor created.
Or what untold numbers have given their lives and limbs for on battlefields around the world.
So when I see these individuals who are frothing at the mouth about President Obama, I just think back to George “Goofy” Bush, and say to myself….
”God wanted Obama to be President…”
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
One for the Money...Two for the Show...
I haven’t posted in a while. To be honest with you, I’ve really found nothing that has made me want to “post.” But in the last couple of days, the election of a Senator in Kentucky, where Rand Paul is running has caused me to want to post.
Politics is a dirty thing. Name calling, accusations, mudslinging, are the “standard.” You have to have a thick skin to be in that field. Sarah Palin is one who really shouldn’t. Her skin is very very thin. But this isn’t about her.
As you know, I’m an atheist. I have been one since age six. I guess that makes me what is “wrong” with America and the world. In some arenas I can only assume that I am the “root” of all “evil.” But that also means I don’t vote for a candidate due to their religion or religious views. Nor do I accept a candidate for public office that has a religious leader backing them. You can then safely assume that I am a firm believer in the “Separation of Church and State.”
Now as of late the concept of “Separation of Church and State” has been debated. Many attribute it to Thomas Jefferson. But the concept was around long before Mr. Jefferson was born. It wasn’t anything new Mr. Jefferson created. But that oddly enough, is ever brought up.
But has caused me to post has to do with Rand Paul one time beliefs and actions. The actions were something he did while in college. His belief was a form of Buddhism. Now, I’m in no way a Rand Paul supporter. I currently live in his father’s congressional district here in Texas.
What I am posting about is not about Rand’s politics, but the fact that his opponent has gone after his onetime “beliefs.”
What a sad state of affairs we are in. Rand’s political views or economic views are not important. But his onetime religious views are. In our country the Constitution and Bill of Rights state that there shall not be a “religious” test for office. This fixing on Rand’s onetime religious practice is or should be a non-issue in the election. But then, when you are dealing with a group filled with angry people, anything you can direct their angry at, especially if it is one of their own candidates, I guess it is a good thing.
I think such actions are total “clap trap.” And as an American I think we, the people, ought to expect better from those who seek public office. And what’s more, I think it is time we began to demand better.
Politics is a dirty thing. Name calling, accusations, mudslinging, are the “standard.” You have to have a thick skin to be in that field. Sarah Palin is one who really shouldn’t. Her skin is very very thin. But this isn’t about her.
As you know, I’m an atheist. I have been one since age six. I guess that makes me what is “wrong” with America and the world. In some arenas I can only assume that I am the “root” of all “evil.” But that also means I don’t vote for a candidate due to their religion or religious views. Nor do I accept a candidate for public office that has a religious leader backing them. You can then safely assume that I am a firm believer in the “Separation of Church and State.”
Now as of late the concept of “Separation of Church and State” has been debated. Many attribute it to Thomas Jefferson. But the concept was around long before Mr. Jefferson was born. It wasn’t anything new Mr. Jefferson created. But that oddly enough, is ever brought up.
But has caused me to post has to do with Rand Paul one time beliefs and actions. The actions were something he did while in college. His belief was a form of Buddhism. Now, I’m in no way a Rand Paul supporter. I currently live in his father’s congressional district here in Texas.
What I am posting about is not about Rand’s politics, but the fact that his opponent has gone after his onetime “beliefs.”
What a sad state of affairs we are in. Rand’s political views or economic views are not important. But his onetime religious views are. In our country the Constitution and Bill of Rights state that there shall not be a “religious” test for office. This fixing on Rand’s onetime religious practice is or should be a non-issue in the election. But then, when you are dealing with a group filled with angry people, anything you can direct their angry at, especially if it is one of their own candidates, I guess it is a good thing.
I think such actions are total “clap trap.” And as an American I think we, the people, ought to expect better from those who seek public office. And what’s more, I think it is time we began to demand better.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
PERSPECTIVES
Today I did something that I only do for weddings and funerals: I went to a church.
A “relation” was celebrating their birthday and chose to do so at the church they attend. That’s fine. The gathering wasn’t religious in nature. No praying, or speaking in “tongues” nor was there any snake handling.
Having to answer “natures call” I headed off to the restroom.
Just before getting there I saw a flyer for the church’s summer camp for kids. Of course it was religious. But what really got me was that they used a cartoon on it’s cover.
Now it wasn’t the fact that they were using a cartoon on the cover, it was the cartoon they had chosen to use.
The cartoon was one that I’ve seen on various web pages and folders of atheists. And it is anti-religion.
So I am standing there looking at this flyer asking myself just why in world would they use such a thing?
Then it dawned on me.
THEY HAD TOTALLY MISSED THE ENTIRE MEANING OF THE CARTOON!
The derogatory message the cartoon was sending was totally misunderstood by the person or people who chose to use it.
Now, there was a side of me that said I should bring this to these peoples attention. Then the other side said, that if they are as blind to the blatant meaning of the cartoon, would they even after being shown the real meaning, would they even then understand it?
Thinking about all those narrow minded people who are so wrapped up in their religion and their beliefs, I decided not too.
Just my little “jab” at their little world and their even smaller world view.
And here is the cartoon is at the top of the page....
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Atheist and want to hold Public Office in America? GO FOR IT!
Fortney Hillman "Pete" Stark, Jr. (born November 11, 1931) is an American politician from the state of California. A Democrat, he has been a member of the U.S. House of Representatives since 1973 (37 years), currently representing California's 13th congressional district in southwestern Alameda County. Currently he is the sixth most senior Representative as well as 8th most senior member of Congress.
AND IS AN ATHEIST.
United States Constitution Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Why?
Why is this part of the Constitution?
Why did the Founding Father’s have this as part of the Constitution?
The answer is very simple:
HISTORY
George Santayan’s famous quote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” was published in 1905.*
The Founding Fathers were well ahead of their time but they knew their history.
Sadly many today do not wish to study history or learn from it’s lessons. These are the lessons of mankind. Our successes, achievements, follies and failures. The good, the bad and yes, the ugly.
At first the United States was organized as a Confederation.
The result was a weak Federal government. While there were some productive measures taken, overall the “Confederation” form of government was not working. A stronger form of government was needed by the young country.
The country needed a government that could guarantee stability. “On the same sheet of music.“ Some issues the country was facing were: order, property rights, lack of economic stability, state taxes and problems with foreign trade.
Then there was Shays’ Rebellion. The country was for the lack of a better term, in a “recession.” In New England it was worse. High prices, high taxes and veterans who’d never been paid. Many feared debtors prison, losing all they had and forced to become tenant farmers.
In short, a new form of Government was needed. This lead to the Continental Congress convening and writing the Constitution completed in September 1787. By July 1788 New Hampshire ratified the US Constitution which created the new government and the scheduling of an election. In March 1789 the 1st Congress was held and Washington was inaugurated that April.
Ok. So what does this have to do with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the Founding Father’s were closer historically to the rule of countries by Kings and Queens. Where the Pope or a religious leader could bring a country to its knees by a papal decree. Or where wars could be started for no other reason then for personal glory of the crown.
The Founding Father’s knew and understood that they had the ability to free themselves and the people of the United States from such tyranny.
They were also well aware of the war between Catholics and Protestants.
And the uses and abuses of Religious Tests that had been applied in England and other countries.
Remember the story of the Pilgrims? Why they left England and eventually settled in America? For Religious Freedom. They were escaping from a national religion, the Church of England.
And then there is the subject of Churches subjecting people to taxes.
So the Founding Father’s made sure that no religion or church enjoyed any advantages or disadvantages because of an established “National” religion. Religion had no relevance in a person’s citizenship, the right to vote or hold office and therefore no political privilege or
discrimination.
This is potent stuff. This is the stuff that makes religions and it's leaders back off. The “teeth” that religion and religious leaders had were pulled out. In other words, religion could not be used against the United States as a weapon or a tool for extortion or blackmail.
You see, in the 1600’s and the 1700’s in England, they had “Religious Tests” to exclude anyone who wasn’t a member of the Church of England from holding office. In other words if you were Catholic, nonconforming Protestants or Jewish, you were not going to hold office.
Now, just how long do you think it would take for someone like Mike Huckabee or Mit Romney to start screaming bloody murder if they had to take such an oath? Or were denied office? Or not even allowed to run for an office? These are two American politicians who are very
religious and let you know they are. They attempted to run for President representing the Republican Party in the 2008 elections but lost to John McCain. McCain lost to Obama.
There are six states: Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas that have laws on their books that essentially do no allow atheists to hold office.
Nice try guys.
Sorry.
No go.
Constitution of the United States says there isn’t a religious test.
And, as we all know from our government classes, the US Constitution cannot be superseded by a State’s Constitution.
And the icing on the cake is the case of, Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court reaffirmed that the US Constitution prohibits States and the Federal Government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office.
So the next time some yahoo whose been listening too much to “talk radio” or some talking head on “Fox,” just remember that the Founding Father’s had their heads on straight. They foresaw that one day, some religious half wit would try to use religion to force their way of life on you and they created the “No Religious Test” clause of Article VI.
*George Santayana, The Life of Reason or The Phases of Human Progress: Reason in Common Sense, Chapter XII, "Flux and Constancy in Human Nature"
AND IS AN ATHEIST.
United States Constitution Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Why?
Why is this part of the Constitution?
Why did the Founding Father’s have this as part of the Constitution?
The answer is very simple:
HISTORY
George Santayan’s famous quote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” was published in 1905.*
The Founding Fathers were well ahead of their time but they knew their history.
Sadly many today do not wish to study history or learn from it’s lessons. These are the lessons of mankind. Our successes, achievements, follies and failures. The good, the bad and yes, the ugly.
At first the United States was organized as a Confederation.
The result was a weak Federal government. While there were some productive measures taken, overall the “Confederation” form of government was not working. A stronger form of government was needed by the young country.
The country needed a government that could guarantee stability. “On the same sheet of music.“ Some issues the country was facing were: order, property rights, lack of economic stability, state taxes and problems with foreign trade.
Then there was Shays’ Rebellion. The country was for the lack of a better term, in a “recession.” In New England it was worse. High prices, high taxes and veterans who’d never been paid. Many feared debtors prison, losing all they had and forced to become tenant farmers.
In short, a new form of Government was needed. This lead to the Continental Congress convening and writing the Constitution completed in September 1787. By July 1788 New Hampshire ratified the US Constitution which created the new government and the scheduling of an election. In March 1789 the 1st Congress was held and Washington was inaugurated that April.
Ok. So what does this have to do with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the Founding Father’s were closer historically to the rule of countries by Kings and Queens. Where the Pope or a religious leader could bring a country to its knees by a papal decree. Or where wars could be started for no other reason then for personal glory of the crown.
The Founding Father’s knew and understood that they had the ability to free themselves and the people of the United States from such tyranny.
They were also well aware of the war between Catholics and Protestants.
And the uses and abuses of Religious Tests that had been applied in England and other countries.
Remember the story of the Pilgrims? Why they left England and eventually settled in America? For Religious Freedom. They were escaping from a national religion, the Church of England.
And then there is the subject of Churches subjecting people to taxes.
So the Founding Father’s made sure that no religion or church enjoyed any advantages or disadvantages because of an established “National” religion. Religion had no relevance in a person’s citizenship, the right to vote or hold office and therefore no political privilege or
discrimination.
This is potent stuff. This is the stuff that makes religions and it's leaders back off. The “teeth” that religion and religious leaders had were pulled out. In other words, religion could not be used against the United States as a weapon or a tool for extortion or blackmail.
You see, in the 1600’s and the 1700’s in England, they had “Religious Tests” to exclude anyone who wasn’t a member of the Church of England from holding office. In other words if you were Catholic, nonconforming Protestants or Jewish, you were not going to hold office.
Now, just how long do you think it would take for someone like Mike Huckabee or Mit Romney to start screaming bloody murder if they had to take such an oath? Or were denied office? Or not even allowed to run for an office? These are two American politicians who are very
religious and let you know they are. They attempted to run for President representing the Republican Party in the 2008 elections but lost to John McCain. McCain lost to Obama.
There are six states: Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas that have laws on their books that essentially do no allow atheists to hold office.
Nice try guys.
Sorry.
No go.
Constitution of the United States says there isn’t a religious test.
And, as we all know from our government classes, the US Constitution cannot be superseded by a State’s Constitution.
And the icing on the cake is the case of, Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court reaffirmed that the US Constitution prohibits States and the Federal Government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office.
So the next time some yahoo whose been listening too much to “talk radio” or some talking head on “Fox,” just remember that the Founding Father’s had their heads on straight. They foresaw that one day, some religious half wit would try to use religion to force their way of life on you and they created the “No Religious Test” clause of Article VI.
*George Santayana, The Life of Reason or The Phases of Human Progress: Reason in Common Sense, Chapter XII, "Flux and Constancy in Human Nature"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
