March 01, 2005
Silly Tom DeLay
By Byron LaMasters
Tom DeLay:
"I hope the Supreme Court will finally read the Constitution and see there's no such thing, or no mention, of separation of church and state in the Constitution," said DeLay, a Republican from Sugar Land.
The first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Silly Tom...
Posted by Byron LaMasters at March 1, 2005 08:44 PM
| TrackBack
I think he was trying to say that there is no separation clause, which there isn't. The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" but it doesn't say anything about not allowing religion into the public domain.
But, most Courts have found that allowing things like 2 ton monuments in the local courthouse do, in fact, promote one religion over others, and they have equated this sort of thing with Congress making a law that establishes a national religion.
There are obvious exceptions. God is referenced in our currency and in our pledge. All of these were enacted in the 1950s, when I think people were less free than they realized, but the Court has not seen fit to throw them out of the public domain because of the controversy that would entail.
My rule of thumb, since they claim it promotes moral behavior and not one religion, is would they allow me to raise money and put a giant, golden statue of Buddha overlooking it? Buddhism promotes good moral values, so if they balk at my giant Buddha statue, then these people do indeed seek to promote a religious ideology and not a general moral value.
I think we already know what the defendants would say in this case, they would argue that we don't need a statue of Buddha, so I would argue then that we don't need the Ten Commandments, either. So, it has to go.
