Idea - The No-Theocracy Amendment

[ck4829]

I had an idea. We need to start a campaign to tell our people in Congress that America will not support a Theocracy.

I think everybody will agree with me that the increase of participation in Government, the Armed Services, etc. by Bigoted Extremist Religious Bodies is downright frightening. Many religious bodies do great work. But, there is no doubt that Democracy is being compromised by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, D. James Kennedy, the Christian Reconstructionists, and more.

My proposal is quite complicated. Please suggest anything you want.

1. There will be no official religion anywhere in the United States.
2. While Separation of Church and State is quite a controversial subject. There is middle ground in this. No religion will be favored over the other religions that people may have and no religion will be excluded. Religious bodies should not be funded, and bigoted groups should not be included in the government in all (Should the KKK have a lobby to tell Congresspeople what to do?). (Pat Robertson received $500,000 from Bush's Faith Based Initiatives, this is one of the things this would stop)
3. Religious Discrimination - Not allowed
4. (Something I think is important, may not make sense at first, but bear with me) Religious bodies will never have the ability to prosecute anybody. (They don't have this ability now, nor will they ever if this Amendment becomes reality)
5. Atheists. Atheists will be enabled the full protections of everybody else, they will be able to run for office anywhere in the United States, and they can profit from #2 of this Amendment by making Atheistic groups.

This is just a draft, please make suggestions.

Please pay attention, the threat of Theocracy is real. We need to stop it.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

1. I was hanging with you until this part.

"Faith based bodies can be funded"

The faith based initiative is blatantly unconstitutional and cannot be tolerated.

[ck4829]

3. I am trying to look for leeway. But...

You are right, this is unconstitutional.

[Dave Sund]

2. Absolutely not...

We already have the first amendment.

[ck4829]

4. Tell that to the 'christian' Right

I think they think the 1st Amendment gives them the right to create a theocracy.

[Dave Sund]

5. The moment we start trying to pass laws forbidding it

Is the moment we give up our right to be protected from theocracy by the first amendment. I'd prefer not to give up that right.

[Bridget Burke]

6. No funding for faith based bodies....

Sorry. Who would judge which groups are bigoted? Isn't tax exemption enough.

Religious bodies have NEVER had the ability to prosecute anybody in the USA.

[sugapablo]

7. About to lose it

THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE HOW THE CONSTITUTION WORKS! YOU DON'T NEED TO AMMEND SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY WRITTEN AND INTENDED AS SUCH!!!

Ok, now that that's out of my system.

#2 on your list is unacceptable. Why should I be forced to fund (via my hard earned taxed income, etc.) religious groups (such as Christians) who every Sunday pray for my death?

"Christians don't pray for your death..."

Of course they do. In the Lord's prayer, the phrase "Thy Kingdom come" refers to the "end of times" where Christians (of which I am not) are removed from planet Earth (rapture) leaving behind all the rest of us to be slaughtered by four horsemen.

If one actually prays for this holocaust to occur to my entire family, why on earth should I be forced to support this financially?

Im sorry, but your proposal is unacceptable.

Edit: I'm glad you ammended your ammendment idea to remove the funding idea.

[ck4829]

8. Changed it

"...Religious bodies should not be funded..."

I think I have good intentions when it comes to this. I don't mean to shake things up or anything when it comes to this.

I'm asking for your suggestions, if you don't want to fund religious groups. Please say so, and that goes for the rest of DU too. And, I get the impression that religious groups should not be funded, and so they shouldn't receive any money from taxes.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. Is this really necessary?

Religion is mentioned twice in the Constitution. First, in article 6 of the main body:

(N)o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The better known clause is in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

What do your proposals do that these clauses don't?

[ck4829]

11. Several things

1. It seals loopholes that those in the 'christian' Right are trying to exploit.

2. There are states in which Atheists can not run for office. This will say that they can.

3. It will stop legal discrimination.

4. It will stop Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc. from stealing from the government and from people that do not support them.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. Response

1. It seals loopholes that those in the 'christian' Right are trying to exploit.

There are no loopholes. Church and state are separate, period. The problem that we are experiencing at the moment is a right wing noise machine propagating the contrary; they are wrong and any school child should be able to tell them that.

ON EDIT

Noting your fourth point in post 10 (below), I would regared that as a self-evident truth.

2. There are states in which Atheists can not run for office. This will say that they can.

Living in California, I am unaware of this. We're a little more enlightened than some other places. I suppose there are some states that have such ordinances. Have they ever been challenged in federal court? I doubt they could stand up.

3. It will stop legal discrimination.

Any legal discrimination could be challenged under the First and Fourteenth Amendments in federal court.

4. It will stop Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc. from stealing from the government and from people that do not support them.

No, it won't. People like you and I have to do that. Even with the legal protections which I have cited (which, I believe, are sufficient) or even if those are reinforced with what you propose, it will not stop a demagogue or two from popping up from time to time and persuading a few people that popular will can trump Constitutional law. They will be ever with us, and we must be ever vigilant against them.

[ck4829]

16. I'm more than willing to take suggestions.

Maybe we shouldn't embody this in an Amendment. Maybe there is another way to do it.

If I go around doing what I want, and not listening to my fellow DU'ers, then nothing will ever be accomplished.

Perhaps instead of an amendment, maybe a group should be created that would seek to undo the damage that has been caused by the 'christian' Right.

These things that you have said, you said they can be challenged, and they can. That might be the way to go.

Thanks for your suggestions.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. You might also like to check out various federal civil rights acts

For example, the 1964 Civil Rights Act outlaws discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin" (Title II, section 201 (a)).

My point is that we have the tools to do what you desire now. We just need to maintain them.

[ck4829]

19. Yes

Perhaps it is time to form a group that can be compared to the ACLU with the specialty of forming a counter-attack on the 'christian' Right.

[ck4829]

10. Please ignore draft of original post

This is the new proposal. Thanks for your suggestions, please add more.

1. There will be no official religion anywhere in the United States.
2. While Separation of Church and State is quite a controversial subject. There is middle ground in this. No religion will be favored over the other religions that people may have and no religion will be excluded when it comes to Government. Religious bodies will not be funded by the government in all.
3. Religious Discrimination - Not allowed
4. Bills such as the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 are unconstitutional.
5. Atheists. Atheists will be enabled the full protections of everybody else, they will be able to run for office anywhere in the United States, and they can profit from #2 of this Amendment by making Atheistic groups.

[sugapablo]

12. How about this....

New proposal:

1) "In G-d We Trust" will not be permitted on US Currency.

2) Prayers will not be read allowed by House Chaplains to open sessions of legislative meetings.

3) The phrase "under G-d" will be removed from the Pledge of Alliegence.

4) The President and other elected officials will not be sworn in with their hands on religious texts, nor asked to say "so help me G-d".

5) The Ten Commandments will not be displayed on public (ie tax-payer funded rela estate) property.

6) Christmas trees and other religious displays will be forbidden on public property and there will be no longer an "Official Christmas Tree" lighting by the President.

7) Public prayer in courtrooms, schools, and other government institutions will be strictly forbidden.


Middle ground? You can do ANYTHING you want, pray ANYWHERE you want, build all the Churches you want in the private sector.

And you ARE allowed to pray in schools, courts, etc. right nw. You just can't INFLICT YOUR PRAYER ON OTHERS.

[ck4829]

13. Brilliant. Thanks for your suggestions.

I have no problem with religion, I'm religious (actually Spiritual), but I think it is better if Religion and State stay separate. It's one of the things that makes this country great.

[Jack Rabbit]

17. Misplaced post

See above.

[Bridget Burke]

14. Wonderful proganda for the Domininists....

Look at those religion hating DU'ers! We're being persecuted!

Why don't we just leave the Constitution as it is?