HOUSE REPUBLICANS ATTEMPT TO LAY GROUNDWORK FOR FIRST STATE RELIGION

Do you ever hear or read something that seems so unlikely that you think to  yourself, "It must be my medication?"  And then you realize that you're not on medication?  And then once you actually sort through the data, you conclude that it's likely time to go on medication?

House Republicans are quietly attempting to take a first legislative step to make Evangelical Christianity our first state religion.

The critical $500 billion defense budget has stalled in the House because the Republicans managed to slip in a "mischievous" little amendment that they thought no one would notice.

In direct violation of the Constitution, House Republicans drafted legislative language that would elevate Christian Evangelical Preachers to the status of official government chaplains above all other religions, including non-Evangelical Christians.

This obscure little amendment is intended to give Evangelical chaplains the exclusive right to preside over all secular military ceremonies.

The New York Times reports that the Pentagon and ecumenical chaplain groups objected to this amendment, but the controlling Republicans nonetheless wrote it into the budget and have been stubbornly defending it.  Their view is that our troops should be led by the one true faith at the exclusion of all others.

Theocracy in action.

The Times says it is "unlikely" that the Senate would ever allow such a travesty to go through, but the very fact that the Republican-controlled House has attempted such a thing, and with very little media attention, suggests that we are closer to a terrible political crisis in this country than anyone of us has yet imagined.

Clearly, large numbers of elected officials in Congress are determined to overturn our constitution.

Is the Republican party staging a silent and subtle coup that would end democracy and create a Christian Taliban theocracy?  While that question seems extreme, what were they thinking?  And how much longer can we go on pretending that things aren't as dire as the evidence clearly shows them to be?

Every elected official in this nation swears an oath to defend the constitution.  How could such language have been drafted? How could it have made its way into such an important document?  How could it even be a subject for debate in the United States House of Representatives?

My prayer, if I were to pray to some deity, would be that each and every one of these Republicans and George W. Bush himself end their careers in shame and disgrace and go down in history as the insidious and seditious villains that they have clearly shown themselves to be.

These people have betrayed this nation in no uncertain terms and how so many of us can go on--including the media, or particularly the media--pretending otherwise is mind-boggling.

Comments

[Bluestocking]

I can't say that I'm surprised...Bush and his cronies have already successfully chipped away at a couple of the other Amendments -- most notably the Fourth, the Fifth, and the Sixth -- and not only have many of the American people not batted an eye, they've praised him for it. The First has been under attack for some time -- ask any member of the press. Some among us of the liberal persuasion talked about emigrating to Canada or points overseas following the 2004 election...seems to me that it's worth keeping that idea on the back burner.

[DFW]

I wonder what is the legal procedure for calling an elected official to task for deliberately violating their oath of office? Fraud? Breach of contract? Or is the oath of office so totally symbolic that one can violate it so brutally and thoroughly without any fear of consequences?

I am saddened that the role model of so many of our House Republicans seems to be the Iranian model that they so fervently claim to oppose. This Congress could be justifiably labeled the Alice-in-Wonderland Congress.

[wijg]

In the article, the "The New York Times" link goes to "CollegiateTimes.com" and doesn't reference anything in this article. Can you provide the correct link? Thanks.

[DavidD]

We've always had a state religion. It's not glaringly obvious to most Americans because it's not a specific religion. It's religiosity.

That's why politicians always assume a public pose of piety and no atheist can ever be elected to anything. That's why governmental celebrations of Christmas and prayers at public events are deemed acceptable as long as they don't explicitly mention, say, Jesus.

For that matter, it would cause public outrage if such ceremonies mentioned Vishnu. Our public religion is more specifically a general kind of Christianity, with the existence of Judaism reluctantly conceded and Islam not quite within the bounds of acceptability.

[RandyBastard]

I found this article at NYT but it doesn't seem to say what this blogger says it does. Perhaps this isn't the article this post was based on, but it seems to fit the timeline and topic pretty well.

If this is the article in question, then I'd have to say Proceed At Your Own Risk is a VERY apt title for the blog. Maybe Believe This At Your Own Risk would be even better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/washington/19chaplains.html

RICHARD COMMENTS: WHY DO READERS FEEL FREE TO BE SO RUDE? MYSTIFIES ME. ANYHOW, I HAD LINKED TO THE INCORRECT ARTICLE ON THIS BLOG ENTRY FOR WHICH I APOLOGIZE. IT IS NOW CORRECTED.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/opinion/21thu3.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials

[RandyBastard]

I'll try to follow this incomplete link, Richard.

However... Do you notice the word "OPINION" in the URL?

Hey, I'm as pissed off as the rest of you about this crappy administration. But let's not try to make it any worse than it is. It only makes us look bad.

RICHARD COMMENTS: EDITORIALS IN THE NEW YORK TIMES ARE FIRMLY BASED ON WELL-RESEARCHED FACTS BUT PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TIMES TO EXPRESS A POINT OF VIEW, A FACT-BASED POINT OF VIEW.

[RandyBastard]

I apologize for being rude in my first post. This was the second such disparity I found on the internet today (see HuffPo re: Army recruiting numbers) and I think we on the left have to be very cognizant of the facts. If for no other reason than the other side is so oblivious of them.

I've never visited your site before, and know nothing of it, so I shouldn't have disparaged the name.

So, now that I'm being nice... what are the chances of getting a couple pics of Jessica Alba on the site? ;-)

[Dreggas]

I for one have had enough. Yet another instance of our freedoms being perverted by this congress and administration.

It's time to actually do something about it...

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-.yTF0gw1aaP1.2nowZTk?p=74

[Desert Shamu]

If they do finally get with they want, its not just gays that are going to have big trouble. Every single person with a decent sex life is going to see what the next step in the grand evangelical strategy for control of your mind. The hets just don't realize yet what's in store. May be too late once they do.