House Science Member: Evolution a “Lie Straight from the Pit of Hell”

In a speech delivered to the congregation of Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, GA, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA,) a member of the Tea Party Caucus who sits on the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, described evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory as “lies straight from the pit of hell.”

In an article in the Athens Banner-Herald, Broun spokeswoman Meredith Griffanti attempted to downplay Broun’s comments, stating that Broun was speaking off the record about his personal religious beliefs. However, video of Broun’s speech tells a different story. Broun tells the congregation that the Bible offers direction on how to run public policy and directs him in how he votes as a congressman:

, , , ,

  • Nunzio X

    OK.

    Whatever you say, Jethro.

  • Nunzio X

    OK.

    Whatever you say, Jethro.

  • TennesseeCyberian

    Jesus, man, with fucking deer heads in the background?

    The contact embarassment is overwhelming.  Every word he says makes me cringe that much harder, and I just want to beg him to stop.  Just please stop talking!

  • TennesseeCyberian

    Jesus, man, with fucking deer heads in the background?

    The contact embarassment is overwhelming.  Every word he says makes me cringe that much harder, and I just want to beg him to stop.  Just please stop talking!

    • Calypso_1

      He’s got the Power of a Buck.

      • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

        Is that a picture of Jesus Christ, King of Cuckolds?

        • Calypso_1

          No, it’s Stag Lord Cernunnos-Christ: a trans-mythic homology of potent transubstantiation.

        • Calypso_1

          No, it’s Stag Lord Cernunnos-Christ: a trans-mythic homology of potent transubstantiation.

  • Anarchy Pony

    It really is too bad he didn’t trip, stumble backward, and be impaled to death under an avalanche of falling deer heads.

    • Calypso_1

      It also rather made me think of the Order of Cuckoldry bowing before Infidelity.

    • Calypso_1

      It also rather made me think of the Order of Cuckoldry bowing before Infidelity.

  • “Big” Richard Johnson

    Thats some mighty pandering. He’s got some major guts too, having “science” anywhere in his job description when speaking to a crowd of baggers. One slip of the tongue, they decide he’s some wild liberal scientist and he’ll be ripped apart and devoured in seconds.

  • “Big” Richard Johnson

    Thats some mighty pandering. He’s got some major guts too, having “science” anywhere in his job description when speaking to a crowd of baggers. One slip of the tongue, they decide he’s some wild liberal scientist and he’ll be ripped apart and devoured in seconds.

    • Liam_McGonagle

      I get you.  But he wasn’t appointed by a professional civil-servant.  He was nominated by his party’s congressional caucus. 

      I think the real lesson to take home here is how little importance Congress places on the science committee that they would recommend a sawed-off runt of a buffoon like Broun.

    • Liam_McGonagle

      I get you.  But he wasn’t appointed by a professional civil-servant.  He was nominated by his party’s congressional caucus. 

      I think the real lesson to take home here is how little importance Congress places on the science committee that they would recommend a sawed-off runt of a buffoon like Broun.

  • Nw15062

    Some day politics will be nothing more then stating facts looking at data and addressing real problems. Currently our leads have become nothing more then actors parading around dramatizing non issues and exploiting our labor. Real issues are disaster prevention, infrastructure, education, transportation, living conditions, health and well being. They have dumb us down so much with their performance and policy that nobody knows right from wrong, fact from fiction, reality from illusion, and as this continues we will continue to collapse.

    Society is the Phoenix and will be reborn from the fires of or prior selves.

  • Liam_McGonagle

    I’m waiting for this guy to submit a project proposal to the DoD for a superweapon consisting of a faithful reconstruction of the Ark of the Covenant.

  • Liam_McGonagle

    I’m waiting for this guy to submit a project proposal to the DoD for a superweapon consisting of a faithful reconstruction of the Ark of the Covenant.

    • Andrew

       http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/07/17/ethiopian-regime-crumbles-enter-cia/

    • Andrew

       http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/07/17/ethiopian-regime-crumbles-enter-cia/

      • Liam_McGonagle

        Thanks.  Counterpunch is good stuff.

        I get the Ethiopa/ark connection implied, but was there a more direct reference that I missed?

        • Andrew

          No, I was just making an obscure joke.

        • Andrew

          No, I was just making an obscure joke.

          • Liam_McGonagle

            I most likely didn’t get it.

            But that’s the human experience all around, idn’t it?  They say that one of the necessary conditions for comedy is paradox, which by definition is inpenetrable to ordinary, pragmatic ways of thinking.  So the joke must eventually be on us.

          • Andrew

            You wrote about the DoD trying to reconstruct the Ark, so I played along, posting that article to suggest that getting the original Ark was the real reason the CIA was going into Ethiopia.  Why try to make a copy when you can get the real thing?

            You know what they say about jokes one has to explain.

          • Andrew

            You wrote about the DoD trying to reconstruct the Ark, so I played along, posting that article to suggest that getting the original Ark was the real reason the CIA was going into Ethiopia.  Why try to make a copy when you can get the real thing?

            You know what they say about jokes one has to explain.

          • Calypso_1

            If the Ark is placed in the Center of the Pentagon does that bind Cthulhu to the Will of the Joint Chiefs?

          • Calypso_1

            If the Ark is placed in the Center of the Pentagon does that bind Cthulhu to the Will of the Joint Chiefs?

          • Anarchy Pony

            “The CIA, I hate these guys.”

          • Anarchy Pony

            “The CIA, I hate these guys.”

          • Liam_McGonagle

            Hey, but do they know how to party on a budget, or what?!

            Oh, I was thinking of the Secret Service.  Wrong spooks.

          • Liam_McGonagle

            Hey, but do they know how to party on a budget, or what?!

            Oh, I was thinking of the Secret Service.  Wrong spooks.

          • Liam_McGonagle

            I think I mostly got you then.  But I doubted myself.

          • Liam_McGonagle

            I think I mostly got you then.  But I doubted myself.

          • Liam_McGonagle

            I think I mostly got you then.  But I doubted myself.

    • alizardx

      I read some years back that if one actually builds a box according to that description, what one winds up with is a fairly large capacitor harvesting local electrostatic charge for discharge into … impious intruders. Which would be amazing to someone who’d never seen anyone zapped before. So successful completion of the project would result in a device capable of zapping a single person every once in a long while. I

    • alizardx

      I read some years back that if one actually builds a box according to that description, what one winds up with is a fairly large capacitor harvesting local electrostatic charge for discharge into … impious intruders. Which would be amazing to someone who’d never seen anyone zapped before. So successful completion of the project would result in a device capable of zapping a single person every once in a long while. I

      • Liam_McGonagle

        That repminds me of that episode of Mythbusters where they mocked up a copy, linked up the angels to a cattle prod, and nearly electrocuted Adam Savage.

      • Liam_McGonagle

        That repminds me of that episode of Mythbusters where they mocked up a copy, linked up the angels to a cattle prod, and nearly electrocuted Adam Savage.

  • http://twitter.com/jasonpaulhayes jasonpaulhayes

    I don’t even know what to say when I see things like this anymore and we all know what their end game is here. The rabbit has long been pulled from the hat, we’ve bit the apple, seen the men behind the curtains and thrown the rotten core at their feet.

    Are we really going to allow these men to undermine all of human progress, infiltrate our governments, hijack our future as a species, put their hands upon the levers and set in motion the ground work to establish church rule?

  • http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

    well of course he’s gonna say that stuff
    he’s talking to a bunch of dead deers
    what do they know about evolution
    except they lost their lives to some Neanderthals

  • Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness

    God help us.

  • Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness

    God help us.

  • Beejay898

    He is totally fucked in the head – like ALL religionists!

  • Beejay898

    He is totally fucked in the head – like ALL religionists!

  • DrDavidKelly

    I’m interested. But first I want to see some repeatable experiments (with a significantly large sample population) that are peer reviewed, testing the hypothesis that evolution is a “lie straight from the pit of hell.” If the results are more convincing than the current (rather substantial) supporting data for evolution I’m switching to Brounism!

    • Calypso_1

      What is particularly amusing to me is that Xtian Scripture explicitly states that
       1) Satan is not at this time bound to the ‘Pits of Hell’.   He wanders freely over the Earth & has access to God.

      2)  Satan has been given power over all the Kingdoms of the World and it is His to give Dominion over these to whomever He will.   (Edit: In fact he offered them to Jesus. Jesus declined.)

      3)  Render under to Caesar what is Caesar’s.
       
      Sooo…perhaps the Xtians ought to consider a little more carefully what the political implementation of their little book is actually calling for when they cheer slavishly for government officials.

    • Calypso_1

      What is particularly amusing to me is that Xtian Scripture explicitly states that
       1) Satan is not at this time bound to the ‘Pits of Hell’.   He wanders freely over the Earth & has access to God.

      2)  Satan has been given power over all the Kingdoms of the World and it is His to give Dominion over these to whomever He will.   (Edit: In fact he offered them to Jesus. Jesus declined.)

      3)  Render under to Caesar what is Caesar’s.
       
      Sooo…perhaps the Xtians ought to consider a little more carefully what the political implementation of their little book is actually calling for when they cheer slavishly for government officials.

      • Liam_McGonagle

        It goes without saying, of course, that in the eyes of anyone who needs to hear that message that you are the False Prophet referred to in Revelation.  The non-falsifiable hypothesis is the most wonderful aspect of pragmatic religion.

        The indispensible elements of any con job are:
         
        1.) Greed–the whole incentive for a mark to enter such an outrageous transaction is to achieve a result too implausibly generous by the rules of any reciprocally bounded universe

        2.) Stake–front money to prove the conman’s bona fides and ability to deliver

        3.) Perceived vulnerability–said conman must convince the mark that the mark is actually much smarter than the conman himself

        None of these ingredients is particularly hard to come by. 

        The mark, in theory, if he is a person of at least minimal self-consciousness and commitment to mental hygene, should be able to overcome Greed by an effort of will.  Thankfully, from the perspective of the conman, very few will even bother to resist.

        Nothing is easier to come by than Stake, if you have a minimum of moral inhibitions and can supress your gag reflex.

        Perceived Vulnerability is the field where the genius conman really proves his mettle.  He doesn’t need to be academically or intellectually gifted, only to have a very intimate understanding of the mark’s primal desires.  It’s really a special instance of animal cunning where it is actually beneficial for the conman to be regarded as a total ignoramus–especially by the mark.

        Occassionally even the dumbest, most cross-eyed and inbred conman can catch a sophisticated operator off guard by making a very simple and uncomplicated but only marginally relevant observation whose fundamental truth nonetheless has totally eluded his prey.  Broun might claim that he is in fact an elected representative of the people, rather than a professionally appointed administrative functionary.

      • Liam_McGonagle

        It goes without saying, of course, that in the eyes of anyone who needs to hear that message that you are the False Prophet referred to in Revelation.  The non-falsifiable hypothesis is the most wonderful aspect of pragmatic religion.

        The indispensible elements of any con job are:
         
        1.) Greed–the whole incentive for a mark to enter such an outrageous transaction is to achieve a result too implausibly generous by the rules of any reciprocally bounded universe

        2.) Stake–front money to prove the conman’s bona fides and ability to deliver

        3.) Perceived vulnerability–said conman must convince the mark that the mark is actually much smarter than the conman himself

        None of these ingredients is particularly hard to come by. 

        The mark, in theory, if he is a person of at least minimal self-consciousness and commitment to mental hygene, should be able to overcome Greed by an effort of will.  Thankfully, from the perspective of the conman, very few will even bother to resist.

        Nothing is easier to come by than Stake, if you have a minimum of moral inhibitions and can supress your gag reflex.

        Perceived Vulnerability is the field where the genius conman really proves his mettle.  He doesn’t need to be academically or intellectually gifted, only to have a very intimate understanding of the mark’s primal desires.  It’s really a special instance of animal cunning where it is actually beneficial for the conman to be regarded as a total ignoramus–especially by the mark.

        Occassionally even the dumbest, most cross-eyed and inbred conman can catch a sophisticated operator off guard by making a very simple and uncomplicated but only marginally relevant observation whose fundamental truth nonetheless has totally eluded his prey.  Broun might claim that he is in fact an elected representative of the people, rather than a professionally appointed administrative functionary.

      • DrDavidKelly

        I wonder what Broun’s credentials ‘as a scientist’ actually are? I also wonder if he knows that more scientists named Steve are with evolution than the sum total of those scientists against evolution? http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

      • DrDavidKelly

        I wonder what Broun’s credentials ‘as a scientist’ actually are? I also wonder if he knows that more scientists named Steve are with evolution than the sum total of those scientists against evolution? http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

        • Calypso_1

          He has a BS Chem & an MD, general practice.

        • Calypso_1

          He has a BS Chem & an MD, general practice.

      • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

        Funny how quickly people like the Yazidis figured that shit out yet our poor inbred hicks still can’t quite grasp it…

      • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

        Funny how quickly people like the Yazidis figured that shit out yet our poor inbred hicks still can’t quite grasp it…

        • Calypso_1

          Ah, the Yazidis.  What a religion.  Couldn’t join them if you wanted to, you’ve got to be born in…and they won’t even let you marry in, no sir already have to be a tribesman.  No knocking on doors.  No Chick tracts.  No mass baptisms.  Beautiful. 
          Fascinating strain of demiurgic Gnosticism they have.  It really makes you wonder what the Mideast mytho-tribal landscape was like before the Abrahamic Big 3’s consolidation of power.

  • kowalityjesus

    At least the Vatican, though understandably recalcitrant to change the observance of scripture, has compromised about scientific evidence and metaphor in the Bible.  I remember meeting some creationists at the Value Voters Summit last October, it was like talking to a living fossil.  I tried to avoid showing wonderment, yet they blushed at my marveling.

    Something about the opening seconds has a distinct comical element to it….perhaps the droves of dead deer.  Who thought that was a reasonable backdrop, and why are all deer-hunters anti-eugenicists?  Take a hint from Robert DeNiro, and let yourself be inspired by nature instead of killing it.

  • kowalityjesus

    At least the Vatican, though understandably recalcitrant to change the observance of scripture, has compromised about scientific evidence and metaphor in the Bible.  I remember meeting some creationists at the Value Voters Summit last October, it was like talking to a living fossil.  I tried to avoid showing wonderment, yet they blushed at my marveling.

    Something about the opening seconds has a distinct comical element to it….perhaps the droves of dead deer.  Who thought that was a reasonable backdrop, and why are all deer-hunters anti-eugenicists?  Take a hint from Robert DeNiro, and let yourself be inspired by nature instead of killing it.

    • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

      “I tried to avoid showing wonderment, yet they blushed at my marveling.”

      That is an exceptional turn of phrase which I’m going to almost certainly steal for my own use. I literally did a search to see if you’d ripped that off of Twain or someone. Seems to be entirely yours though.

      Impressive.

    • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

      “I tried to avoid showing wonderment, yet they blushed at my marveling.”

      That is an exceptional turn of phrase which I’m going to almost certainly steal for my own use. I literally did a search to see if you’d ripped that off of Twain or someone. Seems to be entirely yours though.

      Impressive.

      • kowalityjesus

        *blush* Ive been reading Emerson.  And spending too much time on my posts. ;)

      • kowalityjesus

        *blush* Ive been reading Emerson.  And spending too much time on my posts. ;)

  • Phillipede

    >Broun tells the congregation that the Bible offers direction on how to
    run public policy and directs him in how he votes as a congressman.

    Don’t these people ever pick up an actual history book to see how things were for the majority of people every other time the bible was used to guide public policy? This is why church and state should be seperated by a really, really, really, really humorously large wall.

    • Calypso_1

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
      It seems to me that this should not only be interpreted in the aggregate sense of the final outcome of a completed law and in reference to the whole of Congress acting as a body, but on an individual basis referring to Congress as it’s constituent membership engaged in the process of making laws in general.
      If a member is explicitly declaring that they are making laws under a process that is respective of and under the guidance of an established religion, then it should be in violation of the First Amendment.

    • Calypso_1

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
      It seems to me that this should not only be interpreted in the aggregate sense of the final outcome of a completed law and in reference to the whole of Congress acting as a body, but on an individual basis referring to Congress as it’s constituent membership engaged in the process of making laws in general.
      If a member is explicitly declaring that they are making laws under a process that is respective of and under the guidance of an established religion, then it should be in violation of the First Amendment.

      • kowalityjesus

        I think your assertion is a violation of other people’s first amendment.

        • Calypso_1

          I must presume that among the possible rights enumerated by the 1st Amendment you are referring to the Free Exercise Clause.
          As you fail to give me any reason as to why the assertion would be a violation of this right, let me explain my own rational as to why it would not be. 

          The Courts have ruled repeatedly that the government has the power to interfere with religious practice but not with belief or opinion. 
          In addressing a broader interpretation of the Establishment Clause, I expressed that the act of law making under the express guidance or respect of a particular religion ought to be prohibited.  I therefore called for a limitation upon a practice of religion and made no demands on opinion or belief which may be freely held as long as they are not made to be implemented upon others.

          Implementation, whether through process or product, within civic law, the beliefs and opinions of a religion infringes on the rights of others by utilizing the mechanism of government to put into practice i.e. establish those beliefs. 

        • Calypso_1

          I must presume that among the possible rights enumerated by the 1st Amendment you are referring to the Free Exercise Clause.
          As you fail to give me any reason as to why the assertion would be a violation of this right, let me explain my own rational as to why it would not be. 

          The Courts have ruled repeatedly that the government has the power to interfere with religious practice but not with belief or opinion. 
          In addressing a broader interpretation of the Establishment Clause, I expressed that the act of law making under the express guidance or respect of a particular religion ought to be prohibited.  I therefore called for a limitation upon a practice of religion and made no demands on opinion or belief which may be freely held as long as they are not made to be implemented upon others.

          Implementation, whether through process or product, within civic law, the beliefs and opinions of a religion infringes on the rights of others by utilizing the mechanism of government to put into practice i.e. establish those beliefs. 

          • kowalityjesus

            The foremost problem with you suggestion is the witch-hunt aspect of it, because obviously if a person cannot legislate openly in light of their religion they are just going to hide it.  Then we get government panels trying to oust the religious.  If you can see the absurdity (and unconstitutionality) in that scenario, you will sympathize with my sentiment.

            Furthermore, the thought police would be another tax-burden on the American public.

          • kowalityjesus

            The foremost problem with you suggestion is the witch-hunt aspect of it, because obviously if a person cannot legislate openly in light of their religion they are just going to hide it.  Then we get government panels trying to oust the religious.  If you can see the absurdity (and unconstitutionality) in that scenario, you will sympathize with my sentiment.

            Furthermore, the thought police would be another tax-burden on the American public.

          • Calypso_1

            I proposed no witch hunt.  The intentions of those such as the Congressman in this video are clear and in the open.  A clarification of the law opposing such abuse of state power in service of a religion should be made openly as well.  There are many more like him.  Take  Dominionism as one of the more extensive examples.

             When you take oaths of office, are given various security clearances, or join organizations of all sorts, you are vetted.  You are required to divulge allegiences that you have, past or present, that may present a conflict of interest.  If religious organizations are going to put into practice opinions and beliefs that are intended to implement specific extensions of those beliefs or religious power structures into the civic and secular government then they should be considered as conflicts of interest to the separation of church and state. 
             
            There is no reason a Congressman should not go to a church.  There is no reason he should not be allowed to speak at a church doing nothing but representing himself and expressing personal belief.  But when you identify yourself as a member of government to a constituency that you represent under the auspices of a religious service and declare that the tenets of that religion are the primary motive and method behind your actions as a member of that government then you have crossed the line. 

            As to the tax burden involved – All of the organizations attempting to violate Establishment are very well sheltered from taxes.  That can be changed.  

          • Calypso_1

            I proposed no witch hunt.  The intentions of those such as the Congressman in this video are clear and in the open.  A clarification of the law opposing such abuse of state power in service of a religion should be made openly as well.  There are many more like him.  Take  Dominionism as one of the more extensive examples.

             When you take oaths of office, are given various security clearances, or join organizations of all sorts, you are vetted.  You are required to divulge allegiences that you have, past or present, that may present a conflict of interest.  If religious organizations are going to put into practice opinions and beliefs that are intended to implement specific extensions of those beliefs or religious power structures into the civic and secular government then they should be considered as conflicts of interest to the separation of church and state. 
             
            There is no reason a Congressman should not go to a church.  There is no reason he should not be allowed to speak at a church doing nothing but representing himself and expressing personal belief.  But when you identify yourself as a member of government to a constituency that you represent under the auspices of a religious service and declare that the tenets of that religion are the primary motive and method behind your actions as a member of that government then you have crossed the line. 

            As to the tax burden involved – All of the organizations attempting to violate Establishment are very well sheltered from taxes.  That can be changed.  

          • kowalityjesus

            “If religious organizations are going to put into practice opinions and beliefs that are intended to implement specific extensions of those beliefs or religious power structures into the civic and secular government then they should be considered as conflicts of interest to the separation of church and state.”

            I think at that point we would need to redefine a religious organization.  What would prevent an NGO from constituting a religion, like Greenpeace?  That is pretty damn close to a religion for some people.  

            Your idea smacks of religious persecution, and it is unamerican.  This idea should get buried under a pile of “what business is it of yours?”

          • Calypso_1

            It’s my business because there are people you are voting in lawmakers that are making it everyone’s business. If they kept to themselves individually, in their homes and in their churches instead of broaching “all of public policy and everything in society” then it would not be my business.
            As far as making it a government practice to engage in this level of separation of church and state, I see it only as a way to maintain freedoms within a plurality of beliefs and to eventually get to the fundamental right veiled within spiritual belief itself, which is freedom of consciousness.

          • Calypso_1

            It’s my business because there are people you are voting in lawmakers that are making it everyone’s business. If they kept to themselves individually, in their homes and in their churches instead of broaching “all of public policy and everything in society” then it would not be my business.
            As far as making it a government practice to engage in this level of separation of church and state, I see it only as a way to maintain freedoms within a plurality of beliefs and to eventually get to the fundamental right veiled within spiritual belief itself, which is freedom of consciousness.

          • kowalityjesus

            Everything can be looked at secularly.  Any moral assertion can be made for any reason.  The origin of the sentiment is a person’s conviction, and this should be the baseline from which we produce legislation.  

            Yes if the reason for legislation is religious rather than practical then I can see how I agree.  Yet to draw a line on a blurry scale is unjust.  There are moral AND religious reasons for an alcohol ban, abortion restrictions, changing teaching material in schools to reflect alternative explanations for the origins of life.  If you’re going to get all McCarthy on people’s asses then we will have serious and destructive conflicts occur.

            Mostly though, I would complain that you are proposing to implement this on a federal scale.  This is a local issue and a states issue at the highest.  I would avoid affording any more caviling power to the self-righteous and demonically beholden in DC.

          • kowalityjesus

            Everything can be looked at secularly.  Any moral assertion can be made for any reason.  The origin of the sentiment is a person’s conviction, and this should be the baseline from which we produce legislation.  

            Yes if the reason for legislation is religious rather than practical then I can see how I agree.  Yet to draw a line on a blurry scale is unjust.  There are moral AND religious reasons for an alcohol ban, abortion restrictions, changing teaching material in schools to reflect alternative explanations for the origins of life.  If you’re going to get all McCarthy on people’s asses then we will have serious and destructive conflicts occur.

            Mostly though, I would complain that you are proposing to implement this on a federal scale.  This is a local issue and a states issue at the highest.  I would avoid affording any more caviling power to the self-righteous and demonically beholden in DC.

          • Calypso_1

            It is nothing but a Federal issue as I am speaking of it within the confines of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution which applies only to the actions of the Federal Congress. 

            This entire thread was in reference to the actions of a Federal Congressperson & their violation, in my opinion, of the separation of church and state in the process of federal legislation.

          • Calypso_1

            It is nothing but a Federal issue as I am speaking of it within the confines of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution which applies only to the actions of the Federal Congress. 

            This entire thread was in reference to the actions of a Federal Congressperson & their violation, in my opinion, of the separation of church and state in the process of federal legislation.

          • kowalityjesus

            thought police, thought police, thought police

            I do not find solace in giving more arbitrary power to Washington.

          • kowalityjesus

            thought police, thought police, thought police

            I do not find solace in giving more arbitrary power to Washington.

          • Calypso_1

            You mistake me entirely sir.   

            It is neither an extension of nor an arbitrary application of power.  The power is already inherent in the Constitution and is to be applied only to the actions of Congressmen.   
            I have stated clearly that I do not wish to oppress thought, on the contrary I wish to broaden the protection of thoughts and beliefs for the whole from those who would wish to impose their own religious beliefs upon others through the mechanism of federal legislation.
             
            Fundamentally, I would also wish to see a broadening of the Free Expression clause so as to restrict  the rights of the Federal government to interfere in the practice of sacred belief systems that are solely a method of non-interfering, self determined expansion of consciousness. 

          • Calypso_1

            You mistake me entirely sir.   

            It is neither an extension of nor an arbitrary application of power.  The power is already inherent in the Constitution and is to be applied only to the actions of Congressmen.   
            I have stated clearly that I do not wish to oppress thought, on the contrary I wish to broaden the protection of thoughts and beliefs for the whole from those who would wish to impose their own religious beliefs upon others through the mechanism of federal legislation.
             
            Fundamentally, I would also wish to see a broadening of the Free Expression clause so as to restrict  the rights of the Federal government to interfere in the practice of sacred belief systems that are solely a method of non-interfering, self determined expansion of consciousness. 

      • kowalityjesus

        I think your assertion is a violation of other people’s first amendment.

      • kowalityjesus

        I think the discrepancy between your idea and the previous interpretations of this constitutional clause lies in your notion that a person who obtains their values from a religion should not be able to force their values on other people through legislation.  Whereas I find that rulings on the clause mostly concern disallowing people from supporting or forcing others to practice the religion itself.  

        Perhaps a very radical Supreme Court could rule in favor of your idea, but that would be both a very long time from now and with a very different constituency.  Perhaps given trends in faith, as referenced in another recent disinfo article, it is not too far fetched within my lifetime.  The critical mass for that kind of decision is much, much higher than that of the political environment in which we currently reside.

        “No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs” one could feasibly use this statement to contradict the grounds for your assertion.

      • kowalityjesus

        I think the discrepancy between your idea and the previous interpretations of this constitutional clause lies in your notion that a person who obtains their values from a religion should not be able to force their values on other people through legislation.  Whereas I find that rulings on the clause mostly concern disallowing people from supporting or forcing others to practice the religion itself.  

        Perhaps a very radical Supreme Court could rule in favor of your idea, but that would be both a very long time from now and with a very different constituency.  Perhaps given trends in faith, as referenced in another recent disinfo article, it is not too far fetched within my lifetime.  The critical mass for that kind of decision is much, much higher than that of the political environment in which we currently reside.

        “No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs” one could feasibly use this statement to contradict the grounds for your assertion.

        • Calypso_1

          I have already clearly and repeatedly stated the difference between “entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs” and the practice of those beliefs. The Court records indicating the difference are also there for you to examine if you choose to.

          If I were to have such a notion I could entertain and express my belief in human sacrifice as a religious exercise but I would be restricted from practicing it.
          As another example to my desire to place greater barriers between religion and government, what if the Congressperson had been a Muslim. What if had stated that Sharia law was the foundation for all society and that was how he based his policy decisions and voting choices. What if he was Amish, of the one suspender sect, and wanted all society to return to one suspender and horse and buggy because this is what his interpretation of the scriptures meant.

          Yes moral reasoning can extend from the base of religious convictions and that can be applied to the construction of a well ordered and just secular society, but their must be a clearly demarcated, inviolable boundary between church and state.

        • Calypso_1

          I have already clearly and repeatedly stated the difference between “entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs” and the practice of those beliefs. The Court records indicating the difference are also there for you to examine if you choose to.

          If I were to have such a notion I could entertain and express my belief in human sacrifice as a religious exercise but I would be restricted from practicing it.
          As another example to my desire to place greater barriers between religion and government, what if the Congressperson had been a Muslim. What if had stated that Sharia law was the foundation for all society and that was how he based his policy decisions and voting choices. What if he was Amish, of the one suspender sect, and wanted all society to return to one suspender and horse and buggy because this is what his interpretation of the scriptures meant.

          Yes moral reasoning can extend from the base of religious convictions and that can be applied to the construction of a well ordered and just secular society, but their must be a clearly demarcated, inviolable boundary between church and state.

          • kowalityjesus

            I will concede that your argument is light-years ahead of mine.  Thank you for all of your excellently-composed responses to help enlighten me to the idea in regards to constitutional law.  Sorry for letting my passion interrupt my objectivity.

            I can appreciate the constitutional and court-decision-based rationalization of your position, but I would not vote for any such law or support any such ruling.  I think perhaps your proposed bill is more porous to ambiguity and rights-limitations than you would let on, but I cannot oust any of those pores.  :)

          • kowalityjesus

            I will concede that your argument is light-years ahead of mine.  Thank you for all of your excellently-composed responses to help enlighten me to the idea in regards to constitutional law.  Sorry for letting my passion interrupt my objectivity.

            I can appreciate the constitutional and court-decision-based rationalization of your position, but I would not vote for any such law or support any such ruling.  I think perhaps your proposed bill is more porous to ambiguity and rights-limitations than you would let on, but I cannot oust any of those pores.  :)

          • kowalityjesus

            Hold up, hey.  I think I am grooving with your concept more.

            I would just LOVE for all the federal government to be vetted to oust the filthy, Satanic, pedophiles shamed into conforming who populate our highest legislative positions.  Christians would stand much more to gain than to lose, given our villainous legislative constituency.  I am now pro-anti-religion in govt under the auspices of your proposed bill.

          • kowalityjesus

            Hold up, hey.  I think I am grooving with your concept more.

            I would just LOVE for all the federal government to be vetted to oust the filthy, Satanic, pedophiles shamed into conforming who populate our highest legislative positions.  Christians would stand much more to gain than to lose, given our villainous legislative constituency.  I am now pro-anti-religion in govt under the auspices of your proposed bill.

          • Calypso_1

            Due to the nature of the separation of church and state, which does not seem entirely clear to you, the effects that you so desire could unfortunately not be extended to the papal priesthood in which the issue concerning you is regrettably one of the greater menaces to society of real import that arises from the continued ignorances perpetuated by religious indoctrination. Fortunately, these issues are beginning to receive mounting civil & criminal attention despite continued obfuscation by the vatican.

          • Calypso_1

            Due to the nature of the separation of church and state, which does not seem entirely clear to you, the effects that you so desire could unfortunately not be extended to the papal priesthood in which the issue concerning you is regrettably one of the greater menaces to society of real import that arises from the continued ignorances perpetuated by religious indoctrination. Fortunately, these issues are beginning to receive mounting civil & criminal attention despite continued obfuscation by the vatican.

21