By "I wonder if we will be permitted public portion the next time
Congress meets in The Capitol," you were whining that your ("we?")
religious/conservative viewpoint isn't heard in Congress. Besides
being so utterly laughable, and yet, sad and ignorant of how Congress
works, my post quite on (your) topic. Religion is unconstitutionally
embedded in the workings of Congress. Otherwise, what's the "public
portion" you're seeking "the next time Congress"? Highway
legislation? Ethanol Corn? Legislating one religious belief as
superior over all others?
On Sep 3, 2007, at 7:46 PM, Kevin Brown wrote:
> --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Jersey Shore John
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "I wonder if we will be permitted public portion the next time
> > Congress meets in The Capitol."
> >
> > Ever since the First Continental Congress, it has opened with a
> > prayer, and then there is the appointment of Chaplains to the two
> > Houses of Congress however:
> >
> > Madison, however, thought that prayers in the legislature were
> > unconstitutional:
> >
> > "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 these
> > 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 of the
> > representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by
> > Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.
> >
> > The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable
> > violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional
> principles:
> > The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the
> door
> > of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a
> > participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other
> sects,
> > this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have
> > always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches.
> Could
> > a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say
> > that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is
> > small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked
> deformity
> > the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or
> that
> > the major sects have a right to govern the minor.
> >
> > If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or
> > voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public
> functionaries,
> > as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious
> duties,
> > let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence. How
> > small a contribution from each member of Congs wd suffice for the
> > purpose? How just wd it be in its principle? How noble in its
> > exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the
> divine
> > right of conscience? Why should the expence of a religious worship
> be
> > allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that
> > for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Govt
> >
> > Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the
> daily
> > devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already
> > degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality?
> >
> > Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the
> > effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it
> > the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex: or to class it cum
> > "maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura."
> >
> > From Madison's Detached Memoranda.
> >
> >
> > On Sep 3, 2007, at 6:06 PM, Kevin Brown wrote:
> >
> >
> > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, MarioAPNJ@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 9/3/2007 5:19:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> > > > jerseykev@ writes:
> > > >
> > > > I am calling upon all people to fights to see that civil union
> laws
> > > stop
> > > > discriminating against the majority of Americans.
> > > >
> > > > We need to challenge the New Jersey Act in Federal Court...
> > > >
> > > > Whose with me...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why not go to your own congregation?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Excuse me, I have an individual right to voice my opinion.
> > >
> > > Moreso now that Congressman Frank Pallone seems so comfortable
> > > crossing the great devide between Congress & Church, as he did so
> > > elloquently at todays Ocean Grove Association meeting.
> > >
> > > I wonder if we will be permitted public portion the next time
> > > Congress meets in The Capitol.
> > >
> > > Schneider has never been right, and the upcoming decisions in the
> > > Third Circuit will bear me out on this.
> > >
> > > KB
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> What does anything you said, have to do with my comment about public
> portion at US Congress?
>
> You need to get some new glasses there buddy!
>
> KB
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
