It Wasn't Supposed To Be This Way

Our founding fathers understood something...power corrupts everyone. To protect both the government and the church, they intentionally made sure to eliminate religious entanglements from our country's founding documents. So much of that wisdom seems lost now.

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, 12/6/1813

Compared with:

"I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."

- Mike Huckabee, January 2008

What Mr. Huckabee and others like him do not seem to understand, is that our government was INTENTIONALLY created devoid of religion. Not just devoid of Christianity - but ALL religion. Aside from the date line, there is no mention of "God" in the document.

I have a feeling that Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson have been spinning in their respective graves, since at the very least the 1950s. Our money, our oaths of offices, our Pledge of Allegiance, offices of "faith based initiatives" - it wasn't supposed to be this way.

"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and tese are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation."

- James Madison, "Detached Memoranda"

Madison was concerned about Chaplains - and look where we are now.

During the Presidential elections of my lifetime, I cannot recall one where the candidate didn't feel the need to affirm his/her Christianity. Ask someone if they would vote for an Atheist for President - 53% of the time you'll get a "NO". So while we do not have a law that violates Article VI of the Constitution, we have a national attitude that does.

Article VI clearly states (emphasis added):

"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."

So what are we doing?

How is it that the same people who believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in the strictest manner are the same ones who focus only on the "freedom of religion" but ignore the "no law respecting the establishment of religion"? The people that believe in "intelligent design" can't see the intelligent design in our Constitution. The wall of separation between church and state is for the protection of ALL of us.

Our founding fathers understood this and they took measures to prevent religious arguments from damaging our Republic. We should be infinitely thankful for that.

Check out other Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm posts!

Awesome Art Courtesy of TheKarmicHammer

It Wasn't Supposed To Be This Way

Neo-McCarthyism?

so⋅cial⋅ism

-noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

So there it is folks, the new boogieman. This definition and those that might not see it as a bad thing are to be feared. They are coming for you. They are in your government. They wish to take your Plasma screen TV and put it up in the Town Square.

In case you haven't heard - our House of Representatives is besieged by Socialists! Now before you say "OMG! Our Country is Doomed!", please take a breath and realize, our country has ALWAYS had socialists. While not a card carrying member, I do have socialistic tendencies. I believe in Public Works, the Commons, the Government working for the benefit of its people (all of us - not just those of that can plunk down a giant donation). So the breaking news that we have socialists in our House - well, it didn't really bother me. What did bother me, was that someone felt the need to "flush" them out, make a list and then tell people about it.

I wasn't alive in the era of McCarthy, but from what I've learned in school and research, this should sound strangely familiar.

Republican Representative Spencer Bachus of Alabama claims to be the listmaster...

"But he said he is worried that he is being steered too far by the Congress: "Some of the men and women I work with in Congress are socialists."

Asked to clarify his comments after the breakfast speech at the Trussville Civic Center, Bachus said 17 members of the U.S. House are socialists."

Lets do the math on this folks...17 out of 435 members of the House...a whopping 4% of our House of Representatives MIGHT be Socialists!

Here's the bigger issue are we really headed back to the days of interrogations and blackballing? Why can't we have a free flow of information and ideas? Why is it okay to have voices from the absolute right, but not from anywhere that is deemed "fringe" on the left?

Our Government, especially the House, should represent the people. That means Republicans, Democrats, Green Party, Libertarians, Socialists....everybody.

I would like these 17 members of the House to come out and proudly proclaim their Socialism, but instead one of two things will happen. 1) We will find out that this guys idea of a Socialist is anyone that believes the Capital Gains tax is okay or 2) Fear will prevent it.

So to Rep. Bachus: Focus on the people of Alabama, the people of this country, not on grabbing headlines and furthering your political career - ya know, do your job!

Neo-McCarthyism?

Newt Gingrich Doesn't Get It.

Newt Gingrich is an asshole, there I said it. I mean it. The guy has done nothing but pander and lie throughout most of his life. Well apparently, someone pulled his string (emphasis is mine):

Newt Gingrich said Tuesday the Obama administration is "intensely secular" and "anti-religious," the former House Speaker's second hard-hitting criticism of the new administration this week.

In an interview with FOX News, Gingrich said he strongly disagreed with Obama's choice of Harry Knox — an outspoken activist for gay rights — to the White House advisory council on faith-based initiatives.

"I think their goal is to have a very secular America in which government dominates everything," he said. "Why wouldn't you put an anti-religious, left-wing zealot on a faith-based group? It's a perfect pattern for this administration."

Well, Mr. Gingrich - our nation is secular. Our government is a secular entity. While I would not characterize the Obama administration as "intensely secular", I am happy to have a President that does not believe he was chosen by God to lead our nation.

Here's some fun from tonight's Hardball on this subject:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This weekend is the annual Blog Against Theocracy! Make sure to check out all the great posts!

Newt Gingrich Doesn't Get It.

Request!

I hope everyone is crafting their letters to their legislators! We have a RIGHT to healthcare! As much of a RIGHT as they do and it's time we show them!

I am requesting information from my readers, friends, family - their friends and family, random strangers - anyone.
What has your experience been with your health insurance? Did they deny services? Did they rescind your policy? Do they make you pay for pregnancy riders? What kind of problems have you had getting care? Are you uninsured and sick? Are you uninsured and scared?
I want your story!

Please email your stories to healthcarefairness@gmail.com or if its something you don't mind sharing please leave comments!

Thanks!

Request!

Brownback Must Have Been Jealous!

My last post was directed at Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), well, now Senator Sam Brownback is rearing his ugly head regarding Obama's nominee for the Ambassadorship to Iraq. As you might imagine, that position is a bit important... Here's Rachel Maddow:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

So - am I understanding this correctly? The party of the "up or down" vote, is holding important nominations hostage due to their need to keep the transgressions of the Bush Administration hidden? As TexBetsy at Relaxed Politics posted on Friday with more fun from Rachel Maddow - the problem of torture will haunt us for the foreseeable future, unless of course we have the intestinal fortitude to investigate and punish those responsible for this mess. The Capitol Beat has a good article on the need for investigation and prosecution.

It is time for the American people to make our elected officials understand that we will not have torture used in our names, we will not hide their skeletons in our closets and we have a need to know.

Brownback Must Have Been Jealous!

Senator Pat Roberts - Position Paper vs. Response

I have a couple posts I'm working on, but they really aren't ready to see the light of day yet - but I did want to touch base regarding the letter writing campaign.

As you know, I wrote to my Senators & to my Representative last week - regarding my feeling that they should forfeit their taxpayer funded healthcare, if they didn't support government funded healthcare for everyone. This is the response I got from Senator Roberts:

April 2, 2009

Dear Nicki:

Thank you for contacting me regarding health care reform in the 111th Congress. I appreciate your taking the time to get in touch.

I agree. The cost of health care is simply unbearable for many Kansas families. This is why I am working to provide access to quality, affordable health care for all Kansans. As a member of the Senate Health and Finance Committees, I have long supported efforts to give consumers better choices and more control over their health care. I support expanding tax incentives and health savings accounts to help individuals purchase health care. I am working to expand and improve health options for small businesses. I also support efforts to strengthen and improve the Medicare program for Kansas seniors.

We must also take steps to get at the heart of growing health care costs. One such improvement would be the adoption of Health Information Technology (HIT) by health care providers. Congress recently approved, and the President signed into law, P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which included $20 billion for HIT standards development and adoption incentives for providers and hospitals. Although I cosponsored HIT legislation in the 110th Congress, I have serious concerns about the HIT provisions in ARRA which were rushed through Congress so hastily that I fear the $20 billion for HIT will be wasted on initiatives that were not fully considered. In addition, many would argue that these funds, most of which will not be spent until 2011, are not sufficiently timely or targeted to stimulate the current economy.

Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) is another idea that many have advanced as a way to drive down health care costs. CER is the evaluation of the impact of different treatment options for a given medical condition and a particular set of patients. While I understand that CER holds promise for improving the quality of health care outcomes, I am concerned about the use of CER for the purpose of lowering costs. This strategy has led to the rationing of health care in countries that have adopted it. The ARRA included $1.1 billion for CER, with virtually no directions or restrictions on its intended use. I worry that such vague CER policies will ultimately result in fewer choices for patients and doctors. For these and other reasons, I could not support ARRA or the healthcare provisions contained within that bill.

Again thank you for taking the time to contact me. If you would like more information on issues before the Senate, please visit my website at http://roberts.senate.gov. You may also sign up on my home page for a monthly electronic newsletter that will provide additional updates on my work for Kansas.

With every best wish,

Sincerely,

Pat Roberts

PR:aa

Well, here's my problem Senator Roberts, I wrote to you with a real concern and a real request, I did not request your position paper on Healthcare, I can get that on your website.
Tax incentives don't help people that are choosing between medicine and food, electricity, rent. It is easy to worry about "rationing" when you have access. Most uninsured people do not. The average doctor will not see patients if they know they can't pay. Isn't that "rationing"? Do you really need this explained to you?
Thanks for avoiding my request for you to forfeit your gold plated health care...nice to know you read your letters.
Who exactly is this man representing? Freakin' pathetic. Now of course I have to call his office.

Please take this seriously readers! Write/Call/Harass your legislators - until you get an answer!

Senator Pat Roberts - Position Paper vs. Response

Be Careful.

This morning, in Pittsburgh, PA - a disgruntled man shot and killed three police officers after they responded to what they thought was a domestic disturbance. The man was wearing a "bulletproof vest and armed with an AK-47, a long rifle and a pistol, Poplawski fired about 100 rounds during the standoff". Friends have been reported as saying the suspect (who is in custody) was convinced of a coming gun ban. (For the record, the only "gun ban" that has been mentioned is a ban on assault weapons sales).

Now, where would he get such an idea?

Think Progress has an excellent post this evening dealing with the right-wing hysteria and how it has resulted in an excellent sales for gun shops. The rhetoric coming out of the right has been at a fevered pitch lately. With Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachmann claiming that the world as they know it is going to end at the hands of the evil "liberals". It's no wonder that people get upset, these type of blatant lies and the campaign of misinformation has led to an entire section of the population being convinced of their truth. There are still people fighting the "Obama is not a citizen" fight, for pity's sake.

This reminds me a little bit of the militia activities after the Waco incident in the early 90s. It's always the same, "the government is coming for your guns, they are coming for your jobs and they are coming for you and your family". Then Oklahoma City happens - and it's all denials "Well, that guy was just crazy, I never meant anything like that..."

If I were to write on this blog repeatedly that I thought people who wear blue socks are bad and will be taking over the country and turning us in to a blue socks only nation* - and some lone nutjob read it and went out to kill someone wearing blue socks, I would expect some reprecussions for my rhetoric. But I fear many of the talking heads and a few Congresspeople - do not get that idea.

*This blog in no way endorses violence against blue socks, in fact I have a couple pairs. LOL

Be Careful.