Congresswoman: Govt Should Only Support Christianity

Rep. Vicky Hartzler of Missouri, one of the wingnuttiest of all the Republicans in Congress, was on Tony Perkins’ radio show last week and openly declared her preference for Christian hegemony on government endorsement. Discussing the fact that the Air Force Academy had worship spaces for multiple religions, including Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and pagan, the two of them said:

Perkins: Do you see this as a part of a growing trend that we see that there is really kind of a marginalization of Christianity and almost a promotion of other forms of, I would have to say, fringe religions?

Hartzler: I agree, I think so. Christianity is the main religion in our country and as a policy for the Department of Defense we need to defend the practice of religion but we do not have to obligate taxpayer funds to facilitate or accommodate it or pay for it.

Perkins: Is it the government’s role to try to put all religions on the same plane?

Hartzler: No, it’s not their role at all. Their role is to facilitate basic policy for our country and to not to try to lift up one religion over the other, they should be defending the basic rights that we have, that freedom of religion here, and certainly not facilitating or accommodating fringe religions, it’s crazy.

Imagine the perversity of the question “Is it the government’s role to try to put all religions on the same plane?” In Perkins’ mind, of course, it is the government’s job to promote Christianity and Christianity alone and the notion that the government should treat all religious views equally is anathema. The Christian chapel at the Academy, by the way, cost $3.5 million to build; the pagan worship space cost $80,000. And even that inequality isn’t enough to satisfy them.

"RuthAnn Coultar is one of these people - who tells the TRUTH. Hope, more people ..."

Coulter Wants ‘Death Squads’ if DACA ..."
"Great analogy. May I use it?"

Trump’s Third Law of Motion
"“Do a million dollars worth of food, I’m serious,” Bakker said. “If they’re rich, their ..."

Jim Bakker’s Magically Refillable Food Buckets

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • d cwilson

    Their role is to facilitate basic policy for our country and to not to try to lift up one religion over the other,

    Except, of course, for my religion. Amazingly, she doesn’t even see the contradiction between this statement and her belief that the government should be actively promoting Christianity.

    Once again, my irony meter is screaming like Scotty saying the warp engines “cannae take the pressure!”.

  • abb3w

    It might almost sound reasonable, if she made the logical connection that if it’s not the government’s role “to try to lift up one religion over the other”, and that the government should not be “facilitating or accommodating fringe religions”, then not trying to lift up one religion over the other means the government should not be facilitating or accommodating mainstrean religions, either.

    Hard to square that with a “need to defend the practice of religion”, however. It seems more likely she meant that it’s not the government’s role to try and lift mainstream religion over fringe ones, but instead to push down fringe religions under mainstream ones.

    Color me cynical.

  • http://cheapsignals.blogspot.com Gretchen

    we need to defend the practice of religion but we do not have to obligate taxpayer funds to facilitate or accommodate it or pay for it.

    Doesn’t sound like the promotion of Christian hegemony to me. Sounds to me like she is opposed to the military providing facilities for any religious practice, but that the ones for minority religions bother her the most. So she’s advocating for throwing out the bathwater in order to avoid having to wash Hindu and pagan babies as well as the Christian ones.

  • Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

    they should be defending the basic rights that we have, that freedom of religion here, and certainly not facilitating or accommodating fringe religions, it’s crazy.

    How exactly does she think the government can defend freedom of religion without “accommodating fringe religions”?

    I know, the question assumes that she has actually put any thought into this. Silly of me.

  • Sastra

    Yeah, I saw the same thing as abb3w. If I had been told that Rep. Hartzler was a spokesperson for Americans United and read the transcript here I would be able to interpret her words very differently. The statement about “defending the practice of religion” could have cashed out as the government insuring that hoards of maddened atheists don’t storm the churches and rip down the holy shrines or something. You’re allowed to read the Bible in public. That sort of thing.

    Even the question about “putting religions on the same plane” could be interpreted as the State stepping in and trying to make sure there is an even distribution of people in every religion (“Not enough Hindus, let’s try to move over that overflow in Assembly of God by building more statues of Ganesh over by the schoolhouse…”)

    And frankly I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if that’s exactly what the religious wingnuts on the right think the government wants to do.

  • Sastra

    Oh, I’m not suggesting that that’s what Rep. Hartzler really meant. I’m not familiar with her but I’m going to assume that Ed knows enough about her to rule out her being a member of AU — or FFRF.

    Though, again, I wouldn’t be surprised if the question about leveling truly was meant to indicate a real fear that the ‘liberals’ want to ensure even distribution of religions.

    They may also be concerned with atheists invading the churches or laws forbidding Bible reading ‘in public.’ After all, they usually don’t understand the damn difference between public-funded government forums and the public square.

  • peterh

    One more marcher in the Parade of Stupid.

  • raven

    Perkins: Do you see this as a part of a growing trend that we see that there is really kind of a marginalization of Christianity…

    US xianity is getting marginalized. By the fundies. It is choking on their hate, lies, and malevolence. Look in a mirror, Perkins.

    It is projected to fall below 50% by 2050. With evil toads like Perkins spouting off, it may fall even faster.

    In the last 5 years, 24% of Australian xians dropped out. In a few years, the US Catholics lost 30% of their members. These trends can change in a hurry depending on a lot of things.

  • http://festeringscabofrealityblogspot.com fifthdentist

    I’m betting she voted to have the Constitution read aloud in Congress because of the deep knowledge of and love she has for that document.

    Also, there are tens of thousands of “Christian” denominations, many of which have serious doctrinal conflicts with others. Is the Congressidiot’s church one of the “fringe religions?”

  • MikeMa

    Can’t wait for christianity to be truly fringe. Keep up the insanity Vicky and Tony. Your contributions to that goal are noted and appreciated.

  • d cwilson

    @raven:

    Ramen. The fundies have ruinned Christianity for sane people everywhere.

  • Strategically Shaved Monkey

    It’s the word “accomodating” that gives her away.

    Isn’t that the point of freedom of stupidity?

    I’m more interested in what exactly 80k buys in the name of pagan worship.I’m pretty sure I could plant a tree, erect a few boulders in a circle or build a juju shrine and still come out with 79k profit.

    Anyone got the contact details of the AF procurement office?

  • http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/ Bronze Dog

    US xianity is getting marginalized. By the fundies. It is choking on their hate, lies, and malevolence. Look in a mirror, Perkins.

    This ended up reminding me of a suspicion I have regarding fundie self-sabotage. A while back in Texas, a teacher gave out an assignment for students to write an essay about one of their heroes and why they consider that person to be a hero. One student wrote his essay about Jesus, but the teacher wouldn’t accept it because he or she misunderstood the separation of church and state and thought it meant the students weren’t allow to submit religious topics. (The ACLU and Texas Atheist Association openly supported the student.)

    Why did the teacher misunderstand? My guess is probably because the fundies created a prevalent straw man that the wall of separation applies to students acting on their own initiative, such as claiming that all prayer is banned from school, not just prayers led by government employees, such as school staff.

    Of course, the teacher bears most of the responsibility for not knowing the rules and relying on “common knowledge.” However, by creating and maintaining a climate of deceitful propaganda, I think the fundies bear a chunk of the blame for the civil rights violation in this case.

  • hunter

    The frightening thing is that there are people who listen to that kind of nonsense (and I mean that literally) and take it at face value.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002583021911 jamesgoswick

    The founding fathers did promote Christianity over all religions. They understood Christianity was the basic fundamental (quoting Montesquieu) by which society existed.

  • savoy47

    I agree with her as far as: “…but we do not have to obligate taxpayer funds to facilitate or accommodate it or pay for it.”

    She should be encouraged to introduce a bill that will eliminate ALL tax breaks and government spending for ALL religions.

    How can Christians live with themselves? Their tax dollars are going to support all these false religions including Pagans and Wicca. Why do they financially empower religions that preach the word of Satan that will only confuse the children and risk their eternal souls? And what about those churches that support gay marriage. Good Christian tax dollars are being used to support these friends of Sodom.

    We may be able to make headway on some issues by using that Christian bigotry to our advantage for a change.

  • Aquaria

    The founding fathers did promote Christianity over all religions. They understood Christianity was the basic fundamental (quoting Montesquieu) by which society existed.

    Then show where they put it in the Constitution, dumbass.

    We’ll fucking wait.

  • abb3w

    jamesgoswick:

    The founding fathers did promote Christianity over all religions.

    NotSureIfSerious.jpg

    From TJ’s Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:

    Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

    At the other end of the spectrum, you might also care to look up John Jay’s attitudes towards Catholicism.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002583021911 jamesgoswick

    Aquaria wrote: Then show where they put it in the Constitution

    The Constitution implements the principles of the Declaration, which is a covenant with the Biblical God.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002583021911 jamesgoswick

    abb3w says: the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

    This only refers to religions other than Christianity were protected under free exercise.

  • MikeMa

    @jamesgoswick

    The Constitution implements the principles of the Declaration, which is a covenant with the Biblical God.

    This of course is David Barton Bullshit. There was no covenant and no way the constitution implements the declaration in any but the most superficial way. The declaration told the king to stick it and why. The constitution gave us the basis for law and governance. No mention of god or biblical crap anywhere. Peddle your insanity elsewhere.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002583021911 jamesgoswick

    MikeMa says:

    The Constitution implements the principles of the Declaration, which is a covenant with the Biblical God.

    This of course is David Barton Bullshit.

    I am not a blind David Barton fan. I got this from Samuel, John, and John Q. Adams. I doubt their words would satisfy you either.

  • hunter

    jamesgoswick says:

    I got this from Samuel, John, and John Q. Adams. I doubt their words would satisfy you either.

    You can cherry-pick quotes all you want to, but when you read the actual document, it’s relentlessly secular — no religious test for public office, and quite specifically, no establishment of religion, which means the government cannot favor one religion or denomination over another.

    You want originalism and strict construction? That’s it.

  • http://noadi.etsy.com Noadi

    Yet I see that you don’t provide any sources for your statements that they said anything of the sort. The Declaration of Independence was a big fuck off to the King of England and that is made abundantly clear by the words actually in the Declaration.

  • http://noadi.etsy.com Noadi
  • kermit.

    John Adams:

    ‘The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?’

    — John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815

    ‘The frightful engines of ecclesiastical councils, of diabolical malice, and Calvinistical good-nature never failed to terrify me exceedingly whenever I thought of preaching.’

    — John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, October 18, 1756, explaining why he rejected the ministry

    John Adams was religious, but he was distrustful of churches and did not consider our constitution in any way a “covenant with the biblical god”. To wit:

    ‘The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.’

    — John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88), from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, “Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church”

  • Chiroptera

    hunter, #23: …but when you read the actual document….

    Which is exactly what Aquaria challenged jamesgoswick to do. Which is exactly what he failed to do.

  • http://festeringscabofrealityblogspot.com fifthdentist

    “The Constitution implements the principles of the Declaration, which is a covenant with the Biblical God.”

    Then show where they put Bible-god in the Declaration, dumbass.

    We’ll fucking wait.

    (Beat Aquaria to it).

  • http://festeringscabofrealityblogspot.com fifthdentist

    Oh, and saying that “everybody knows” they meant Bible-monster won’t cut it.

    Those men were very well educated and knew how to use words to express what they intended them to. If they meant to refer to a specific deity in either document, everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows they would have made it absolutely plain.

  • billydee

    A covenant is an agreement between two parties that basically says “If we do this, you will do this.” That concept is nowhere to be found in the DoI.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002583021911 jamesgoswick

    hunter says:

    I got this from Samuel, John, and John Q. Adams. I doubt their words would satisfy you either.

    You can cherry-pick quotes all you want to, but when you read the actual document, it’s relentlessly secular — no religious test for public office, and quite specifically, no establishment of religion, which means the government cannot favor one religion or denomination over another.

    I didn’t cherry-pick anything. I claim given the States established Christianity as the religion of their States, logically, establishment can only mean what Justice Story said it established.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002583021911 jamesgoswick

    Noadi says:

    Yet I see that you don’t provide any sources for your statements that they said anything of the sort.

    Would they change your mind if I posted them?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002583021911 jamesgoswick

    billydee says:

    A covenant is an agreement between two parties that basically says “If we do this, you will do this.” That concept is nowhere to be found in the DoI.

    Every prayer fast declaration during the Revolution pleads with God to protect them and to forgive our Sins that would withold His protection and blessing. The DOI employs the exact same principle:

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions..And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

    The reliance on protection is a covenant with God–obedience for protection–that, due to the Christian States, is the Biblical God:

    [W]ith their sincere acknowledgments and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance; that it may please him graciously to afford his blessings on the governments of these states respectively, and prosper the public council of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the providence of Almighty God.

    –Continental Congress, November 1, 1777. National Thanksgiving Day Proclamation; as printed in the Journals of Congress.

  • hunter

    jamesgostwick @31

    I claim given the States established Christianity as the religion of their States, logically, establishment can only mean what Justice Story said it established.

    Which the Establishment Clause explicitly prohibits.

  • d cwilson

    I claim given the States established Christianity as the religion of their States, logically, establishment can only mean what Justice Story said it established.

    Not all of the states had an official religion established and you still can’t get around the fact that the First Amendment explicitly forbids the federal government from establishing a state religion.

    As for your claim about the DOI, keep in mind that the Declaration of Independence was addressed to the king, not to God. While it contains references to God, none of them are legal statements or governing principles. They’re little more than rhetorical flourishes.

    The DOI is not a governing document. It is exactly what it claims to be: An official notification to the British crown that we were severing ties with the royal government. Nothing more, nothing less. To claim that it sets up some kind of principle that a government that wasn’t even created until a decade later was based on religion ignores the very meaning of the text itself.

  • raven

    I didn’t cherry-pick anything. I claim given the States established Christianity as the religion of their States, logically, establishment can only mean what Justice Story said it established.

    That is not a claim. It is a flat out lie.

    James is a liar.

    The usual. If their religion was true, they wouldn’t have to lie all the time.

    People like James provide strong evidence that xianity is a manmade myth.

  • raven

    James the liar:

    I got this from Samuel, John, and John Q. Adams. I doubt their words would satisfy you either.

    Since you are a liar, we wouldn’t believe anything without checking it. It’s the boy who cried wolf syndrome. And since David Barton and his fellow kooks have been making up fake quotes for decades, that tends to be time consuming.

    BTW, if we really were a xian nation and that was the intent, you wouldn’t have to lie all the time about it. When you down to making up fake quotes, you know they don’t have the evidence.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002583021911 jamesgoswick

    d cwilson says:

    Not all of the states had an official religion established and you still can’t get around the fact that the First Amendment explicitly forbids the federal government from establishing a state religion.

    Christianity was mandated as the religion in every State Constitution, including RI, given their God was the Christian God. As to the Constitution, because of the States establishing Christianity as their religion, the establishment clause refers only to a National Church, such as the Church of England, but Religion was left to the States.

  • raven

    Christianity was mandated as the religion in every State Constitution, including RI, given their God was the Christian God.

    This is a lie. Among others Virginia had no such mandate.

    James surprise us. Have you ever once in your life told the truth? Doesn’t look like it.

  • Chiroptera

    I notice that in trying to make his claims concerning the Constitution, jamesgoswick is quoting just about every source possible…except the Constitution itself.

    I think that’s kind of funny, but I’ll be the first to admit to having an odd sense of humor.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002583021911 jamesgoswick

    d cwilson says:

    ..none of them are legal statements or governing principles. They’re little more than rhetorical flourishes.

    The DOI is not a governing document. It is exactly what it claims to be: An official notification to the British crown that we were severing ties with the royal government. Nothing more, nothing less. To claim that it sets up some kind of principle that a government that wasn’t even created until a decade later was based on religion ignores the very meaning of the text itself.

    Their writings give us a different picture. The DOI is a legal document still in force:

    In the progress of forty years since the acknowledgment of our Independence, we have gone through many modifications of internal government, and through all the vicissitudes of peace and war, with other mighty nations. But never, never for a moment have the great principles, consecrated by the Declaration of this day, been renounced or abandoned.

    –John Q. Adams, 6th President of the United States, The Hellhound of Slavery, Founder of our Foreign Policy, Our Greatest Diplomat. An address, delivered at the request of the committee of arrangements for celebrating the anniversary of Independence, at the City of Washington on the Fourth of July 1821 upon the occasion of reading The Declaration of Independence.

    and

    The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are parts of one consistent whole, founded upon one and the same theory of government.

    –John Quincy Adams, The Jubilee of the Constitution. A Discourse Delivered at the Request of the New York Historical Society, in the City of New York on Tuesday, the 30th of April 1839; Being the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington as President of the United States, on Thursday, the 30th of April, 1789 (New York: Samuel Colman, 1839), p. 53.

    The Father of the Revolution reiterated the same concept to the legislature of Massachusetts:

    Before the formation of this Constitution, it had been affirmed as a self evident truth, in the declaration of Independence, very deliberately made by the Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled that, “all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” This declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union, and has never been disannulled.

    –Samuel Adams, TO THE LEGISLATURE OF MASSACHUSETTS. JANUARY 17, 1794.

    [Independent Chronicle, January 20, 1794; the text is in W. V. Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, vol. iii., pp. 324-328, and in the Massachusetts Archives.]

    Plus, the pre-eminent authority–who believed God’s involvement was a given–among the framers on Law, reaffirmed the Covenant principle established at Plymouth:

    It is highly requisite, that these great truths should be stated, and supported, and illustrated in all their force and extent..Before they landed [Pilgrims], they entered into a political association, which, on many accounts, deserves to be noticed in the most particular manner. It is in these words. “In the name of God. Amen. We, whose names are hereunder written..solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and of one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof, do enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws and ordinances, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due subjection and obedience. In witness whereof, we have subscribed our names at Cape Cod, 11th November, 1620.”375

    In this manner was a civil society formed, by an original compact, to which every one consented, and, of consequence, by which every one was bound…In this plain and simple manner, from the principles, which we have traced and established as the foundation of the obligatory force of law..Principles, properly and surely laid, are eminently useful both for detecting and confuting errour, and for elucidating and confirming truth..The history as well as the principles of this momentous question ought to be fully developed and known.

    –Works of James Wilson.

  • http://festeringscabofrealityblogspot.com fifthdentist

    Again, no mention of Bible-monster by name, no reference to baby Jesus. It doesn’t matter how much shit you pull out of your ass. By the power vested in me by the court of strict constructionism, you fail.

    You do realize that there was a great clamor among the Southern religious zealots at the time of the ratification of the Constitution for that very thing — including Christian language in the document? That outcry was ignored and that language was intentionally left out.

  • Michael Heath

    jamesgoswick writes:

    The Constitution implements the principles of the Declaration, which is a covenant with the Biblical God.

    Re the latter assertion: Sure, exactly like the earth is actually shaped like a pink unicorn located in my left nostril.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002583021911 jamesgoswick

    fifthdentist:

    Believe it or not, by you condemning the framers from putting in specifics into the Constitution, you are attacking all the framers, and Thomas Jefferson:

    I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority..Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands..But I have ever believed, that..what might be a right in a State government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another

    –to Rev. Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808

  • raven

    The Constitution implements the principles of the Declaration, which is a covenant with the Biblical God.

    This is really stupid. Where did Yahweh sign this covenant? There are plenty of signers of the DOI. None of them are listed as “god”.

    If anyone can draw up a document and claim it is a covenant with the gods, then what good are they? My covenant with god would have him escorting James the liar to mandatory mental health treatment.

    I suspect James’ “evidence” is the usual, the voices in his head told him god has personally signed the DOI but it is invisible because god is invisible. All faith claims ultimately rest on this, “the voices in my head told me.”

  • Michael Heath

    Here’s a nice introduction to the history of the DofI, Pauline Maier’s American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence [my review]. It doesn’t merely cover the origin and development of the DofI, but also covers the origins of what influenced the final draft, e.g., the English Declaration of Rights, various colonies and even smaller units of government’ own contemporaneous declarations of independence.

  • Aquaria

    The Constitution implements the principles of the Declaration, which is a covenant with the Biblical God.

    Then you can show the exact wording, dumbass.

    SHOW US WHERE IT SAYS CHRISTIANITY IS WHAT WE SUPPORT.

    Come on.

    Where is it?

    We’re still waiting.

  • dingojack

    Psst… Treaty of Tripoli. [Presented by the President and ratified by the US Senate using Barlow’s translation (including article 11), 7 June 1797]

    Dingo

  • Chiroptera

    Aquaria, #47: SHOW US WHERE IT SAYS CHRISTIANITY IS WHAT WE SUPPORT.

    It’s in the part written in invisible ink. I think it’ll show up if you hold the Constitution against a hot light bulb or something.

  • Aquaria

    The Constitution implements the principles of the Declaration, which is a covenant with the Biblical God.

    Let’s see what a constitution naming an official religion looks like, from Iran:

    The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur’anic justice, in the referendum of Farwardin 9 and 10 in the year 1358 of the solar Islamic calendar, corresponding to Jamadi al-‘Awwal 1 and 2 in the year 1399 of the lunar Islamic calendar (March 29 and 30, 1979], through the affirmative vote of a majority of 98.2% of eligible voters, held after the victorious Islamic Revolution led by the eminent marji’ al-taqlid, Ayatullah al-Uzma Imam Khumayni.

    Article 2

    The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:

    1. the One God (as stated in the phrase “There is no god except Allah”), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;

    2. Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;

    3. the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man’s ascent towards God;

    4. the justice of God in creation and legislation;

    5. continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam;

    6. the exalted dignity and value of man, and his freedom coupled with responsibility before God; in which equity, justice, political, economic, social, and cultural independence, and national solidarity are secured by recourse to:

    1. continuous ijtihad of the fuqaha’ possessing necessary qualifications, exercised on the basis off the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Ma’sumun, upon all of whom be peace;

    2. sciences and arts and the most advanced results of human experience, together with the effort to advance them further;

    3. negation of all forms of oppression, both the infliction of and the submission to it, and of dominance, both its imposition and its acceptance.

    Come on, deluded idiot: Show us anything remotely like this in the US Constitution. It should be easy to find such a thing. After all, the Constitution is a short document.

    So where the fuck is it in the Constitution, christer moron?

    Tick-tock, we’re still waiting.

  • gopiballava

    @jamesgoswick:

    Can you please clarify what you mean by a covenant with god? What did we say we would do, and what did we say we hoped god would do in return?

    What do you think the implications of this are?

  • martinc

    Chiroptera @ 49:

    It’s in the part written in invisible ink. I think it’ll show up if you hold the Constitution against a hot light bulb or something.

    Unfortunately the people who believe this sort of thing don’t have any hot bulbs. Only dim ones.

  • martinc

    So … no-one else saw anything funny about them being at the AIR FORCE ACADEMY and someone asking “Is it the government’s role to try to put all religions on the same plane?”

  • Modusoperandi

    martinc, were they at the Air Force Academy?

  • MikeMa

    @jamesgoswick

    I am not a blind David Barton fan.

    How about deaf, dumb and stupid? Couldn’t resist. Any fan of the Barton Bullshit machine, whether blind or not, is on the side of the room reserved for laughing and point and jeering.

    Your premise of a covenant has been shown as false. The rest of your conclusions are without merit. You are obviously in the wrong room.

  • ArtK

    @ jamesgoswick

    The DOI is a “legal document, still in force”? How does that work, exactly? Can you find one legal case where the argument “the DOI requires/forbids this” was applied? Why do we have the term “unconstitutional” while there’s no “un-declaration-of-independence-al”?

    Have you even read the DOI? As others have pointed out, it’s the denizens of the colonies telling old George that they were taking their ball and going home — and detailing why they were doing it. There’s nothing in there that’s a model for government. Not to mention the fact that any mention of a deity is pretty generic and very weak.

  • martinc

    Modusoperandi@54: Ed’s original piece said “Discussing the fact that the Air Force Academy had worship spaces for multiple religions”.

  • Pingback: GOP Debate Audience boos Birth Control Question | Somer's Place()