And the funny thing is that these morons don't even have to dig that deeply into the Bill of Rights to see that they're WRONG!!! IT'S THE FIRST F*@%ING ONE!!!! ...Or, if they actually wanna read that pesky Constitution, they can find more specifics in Article 6, Section 3! But we all know that's waaaay too much reading for the people saying we need to return to our Christian roots!

It boggles me that this claim is made so often, yet in no way, shape, or form is there ANY evidence that we are a "Christian Nation"! Heck, Jefferson wrote a version of the Bible REMOVING Christ's miracles. It seems to me that a deist like him sure like he didn't want to base a country around Jesus!

Jefferson = "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

Franklin (Also an openly-proclaimed deist) = "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
-in Poor Richard's Almanac

Madison = "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
-letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

Adams = "The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."

Or ... "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

I Could go on (and on and on), but I won't. Point is, only people who are illiterate of the words and writings of the "Founding Fathers" think we are a Christian nation, founded by Christians, and based upon "Christian values."

This is the "Conservative" Fundy principle of "Truths" in action: Lie or misrepresent, rinse, repeat ad infinitum.

Apparently, some people do not admire Thomas Jefferson, the person that wrote there should be a wall of separation between church and state. They do not understand the first amendment says the SHALL BE NO establishment of religion verbatim, unlike the "Church of England" and other nations.

<

http: //www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/cofe/cofe_1.shtml

It doesn't mean people are attacking their religion

Thomas Jefferson on the Wall of Separation

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

"We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."

culturekitchendotcom

Yes, there does seem to be people that abhor learning the truth and prefer to say, intelligence is so elitist, but I know in my heart what is true.

Sadly, we use the culture of "elitism in education" as a crutch to maintain underachievement as pride. saying that just means people should try harder to learn ore from variety of sources, rather than refuse to listen.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, Connecticut, January 1, 1802

<

http: //www.marksquotes.com/Founding-Fathers/Jefferson/

The USA is governed by The People, not The Church. The people of various religions, and the people of no particular religion are welcome here. Our common bond is humanity, not religion.

Those same folks who love to quote TJ about watering the roots of the Tree of Liberty with blood every so often are the ones who would much rather he hadn't written that Wall of Separation stuff.

Even the devil can qote scripture, as all y'all know very well. Thomas Jefferson was an extremely complex and conflicted person - well educated, thoughtful, imaginative, creative and a secular humanist par excellence. He was absolutely everything our latter-day dominionists abhor. I love the man, myself.

coopa... ah, thank you. Breath of fresh air.

Sandy... ya know, there's always revisionist history! Or, selective history! As in, say, just leaving names out. I mean, was Thomas Jefferson really that important?!!

Can anyone give me an "amen" to a separation of church and state in the Middle East?

@coopatroopa, that's an impressive list of quotations, but unfortunately you're engaging in proof-texting. Or, whoever made the list I think you may have just copied was. Either way. There's a problem of context.

Wingers like to moan that they're words are taken out of context whenever they face any criticism for the rubbish that they say, but in this case, there really is a problem of words being taken out of context. I'm going to confine myself to the Adams no-religion quote, since it is the most egregious example and the most common.

John Adams really did write that sentence. He wrote in a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated 19 April 1817. He wrote about some religious pamphlets he had been reading and how they reminded him negatively of his childhood minister and schoolmaster. "Twenty times, " Adams writes in the part contained the no-religion line, "in the course of my late reading, have I been on the point of breaking out, 'this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!!' But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly [the minister and schoolmaster]. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in public company--I mean hell."

So, in context, Adams wasn't wishing for a world without religion. He was expressing exasperation with a particular type of religiosity. There is criticism, but not an expression of eliminationism. That goes for any of the founders who were heterodox in their religion, except maybe Thomas Paine (and maybe a few others). It's very important to go to the full text in order to properly understand any portion of it.

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
— John Adams

"But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
— John Adams

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world."
— John Adams

"If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, "that this would be the best of worlds if there were no religion in it."
— Thomas Jefferson

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

"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."

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom.

"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

"If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

"I know that Gouverneur Morris, who claimed to be in his secrets, and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in that system [Christianity] than he did."
-- Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal, February, 1800, quoted from Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572 ("Gouverneur Morris was the principal drafter of the Constitution of the United States; he was a member of the Continental Congress, a United States senator from New York, and minister to France. He accepted, to a considerable extent, the skeptical views of French Freethinkers." -- John E Remsberg, Six Historic Americans.)

More prooftexting. Leave that to the other side. Piling up short quotations, particularly when you're just copying from a list, doesn't really help make a case.

Salvation is achieved through good works, thus personal righteousness must outweigh personal sin.

This violates Sola Fide (or however you spell it, too lazy to check my Latin today). Bill Donahue and Catholic League would like it, though. The others would all work for the evangelical right.

@MechTrek

Thank you for that: no wonder all of the John Ensign 'family values' Republicans are not Catholic...

Comments like this should definitely disqualify a person from being selected by the voters as their elected representative to the US Senate.

Comments like this should disqualify a person from sitting at the grown-ups table.

I heard an 'everyday' Christian theological student/preacher question in front of a vulnerable population the qualification, competence and fitness of Supreme Court justices who are *not* Christian. Huh??? Argh... Keep in mind, these people receiving help and praising the Lord go hand in hand, and it appears that leaving one addiction--an all or nothing proposition--behind can lead to adopting Christ as an all-consuming replacement.

Dutchie6;

Comments like this should definitely disqualify a person from being selected by the voters as their elected representative to the US Senate.

Severson lost the Secretary of State election to Mark Ritchie in 2010 by about 5 points. Mark Ritchie is nowhere near as popular as Senator Amy Klobuchar. Add in the fact that 2012 is going to have a much higher voter turnout and he has no chance.

Mn Man, I can only hope you are correct.

Dutchie6;

If Severson is nominated, I'll bet any amount of money that he will lose to Amy, and I'm not a betting man. She is the most popular US Senator, she won by 20 points in 2006 and polls have her beating Bachmann (should she run) by almost that margin. Severson has no chance.

The silly paranoia of the Oklahoma state legislature notwithstanding, although there currently is no threat of Sharia Law anywhere in the country, right wingers and their stupid obsession with making America a religious theocracy are going to make it genuinely possible for something like Sharia to get a foothold here. They are trying like crazy to kick open the door to letting the nation be ruled by whichever group of religious fanatics have the most money available to rent Congresscritters. And if there is nothing to bar Christian fanatics from forcing their religious beliefs on everybody else, it is difficult to imagine why Jewish, Hindu or Muslim fanatics wouldn't be able to do the same thing, once the door is open.

The Christian Fundamentalists of Oklahoma and elsewhere all advocate a form of Christian Sharia. They all aspire to violate the non-establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. However, if Sharia law is to be outlawed then ALL forms of religious law must be verboten, not just Islam. But that is not what the Sharia alarmists have in mind. Nor do any of those who claim that "freedom OF religion is not freedom FROM." These people are a far more massive threat to American freedom and liberty than any Muslim.

Even if right-wing so-called Christians (the who are all communion chalice but no wine) want to argue that the First Amendment doesn't establish a separation of church and state (because the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't in there), there's always the very pointed no-religious-test clause in Article VI paragraph 3: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

It would a little hard to argue about the meaning of that clause, which is maybe one reason why the pseudo-religious right seem ignorant of it. And it is impossible to claim that America is constitutionally a Christian nation, and that office-holders must be Christians, when the Constitution expressly forbids 'testing' for any religion or lack thereof.

I would prefer if the no-religious-test clause were cited in cases like this instead of the establishment clause. Partly because it is so explicit, but mostly because it isn't in the right's script. Whenever possible, use an argument they don't have a glib, prefab answer to.

There is an interesting point regarding folks who think like this guy. Beck's sucking of David Barton's ass in believing his historical revisionism. Someone who hosts Barton should ask what the context of the bible is, as in, what else was going on in the world besides what is written in the bible? The bible was written between 1657 BC and 98 AD. During those times, what else was happening during the Bronze Age? Certainly more than just the authoring of the bible. How many people could read and write? Was Paganism more widespread than monotheism? Is the reason that Christianity took off and survived based merely on the convenience of one god versus many gods?

And why, even today, do people give any credibility to a book for which nothing new has been added to date for 1900 years? Surely there have been inspired people since the period from 1657 BC to 98 AD. And these books in the bible, how is it that the editors found the commonality for each book one to the other that someone thought they belonged in the same album? Was the compilation of these books simply a matter of taking everything that was written at the time and combining them? Maybe these chapters of the bible was all that had ever been written at the time.

Just like our Library of Congress, except this day and age has seen a prolific period in which new knowledge is amassed in the same location as old knowledge creating the amassing of an enormous compilation. Maybe that is why there is contradictory stuff in the bible. Different people's writings over time in the ancient world.

Human knowledge has grown by leaps and bounds, and has left behind, any relevant knowledge found in the bible. There is no science in the bible, yet people like Congressional lawmaker Shimkus who can cite verses in Genesis that determine present day policies regarding climate change. He read from the Christian bible that god says he will not destroy the world by floods again, and Shimkus says that that is good enough evidence for him that nothing needs to be done about all the CO2 being emitted into the air by the burning of fossil fuels in which the atmosphere temperature is rising, and that the implications are not significant, at least to him. He thinks god will not allow humans to destroy the planet through their actions, that god is supreme and just would not do that to us or allow us to do it to our selves. A pointed question: What if he is wrong and this god he gives so much credibility to does not, in fact, exist? Basing important and consequential decisions on a supernatural being who exists in one's imagination can have have unseen negative ramifications.

"The system filters out the thoughtful and replaces them with the faithful."

Has anyone considered that the the authors of the Constitution were very good lawyers? Gouverneur Morris, the editor and one of the authors of the Constitution, who served on the Constitutional Convention's Committee of Style, while James Madison was the chief architect of the Constitution. Morris's task was to shape the verbiage of committees into ringing prose. He commented on his work years later: "Having rejected redundant and equivocal terms, I believed it to be as clear as our language would permit."

That is an important statement, the notion being that the document of the Constitution of which "clarity" is what he admitted was his goal. There are many points with regard to clarity in what is written in the Constitution. If this was indeed meant to be a "Christian Nation," then these authors would have surely made it clearly explicit in no uncertain terms, they would have written perhaps something like this, "this newly established country, is to be based on the tenets of Christianity and is therefore a Christian Nation." I mean, really, these guys were wordsmiths and lawyers whose business was words and concepts and the usages and clarity of meaning that they put into the Constitution. As people have interpreted the second amendment to mean that every household and citizen should have a gun, or is allowed to have a gun under any and all circumstances, and no one can infinge upon their right to a gun; but the 2nd Amendment was written in the context of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ........" So, most gun owners throw out an important point about the 2nd Amendment, which if the authors had meant for every citizen to be armed with a gun, they would have said in no uncertain terms every citizen is to be armed with a loaded gun for which there are no restrictions on the ownership of the gun, as in being able to not be required to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Why would the authors put in this nonsense about "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," unless they meant for having a gun was given a context for which present day NRA members and gunowners simply edit out and never use the full amendment addressing their gun rights. But they didn't, and when the 2nd Amendment was written there were no automatic weapons, no assault rifles, no 30 round pistols, no grenade launchers, what they had at that time was one shot muskets, yet these present day gun rights fanatics want no restrictions on their so called rights. They are completely unreasonable and selective in their reading of the 2nd Amendment. And people like Barton have to delve into, twist and turn and squeeze, and look into their esoteric grasp of what the"original intent," of the original documents meanings might be ever searching and trying to milk any hidden meanings that they can to show how this is a Christian Nation, and that there is no separation of church and state. Anything they can do to backlog the history to show that the Constitution is a document written by and for the conservative ideology, and shows how, even in the bible there are correlations of the tenets of conservativism proving that the white evangelical, religious right Christian viewpoint has been handed down from time immemorial and that only shows that they and their ideology are the chosen ones for which society must bow down to, for they are morally superior and correct in every way.

In the Constitution's Preamble, Morris's phrasing had substantive as well as stylistic consequences. The original draft of the Preamble referred to all thirteen states. But, in part because no one knew exactly which states would become the nine required to ratify the Constitution, Morris condensed the Preamble into the familiar words of today: "We the People of the United States." Even after the Constitution's ratification, the United States was still evolving from a loose confederation of states into a cohesive national union. Only the Civil War finally achieved the latter. As historian Shelby Foote noted: "Before the war, it was said, 'The United States are.'...............After the war, it was always 'the United States is.'.........And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an 'is.'"

So, when Barton says that the Constitution is based on Christian sermons in the Christian churches at the time prior to the writing of the Constitution just proves that this is a Chriatian Nation. I'm not sure how he resolves what many of the framers, the Founding Fathers' said against the notion of there being a theocracy ruling the government, and not making a habit of attending Christian church services. I guess he just does what he usually does, makes crap up, distort the facts, twists the meanings, misinterprets the Founders' quotes. Unfortunately, Barton is having an influence on a major political party which he and the Religious Right together have become the TprtyRethugnut rightwingnuttery nutjobs for which these two factions Barton and the Evangelical Religious Right have co-opted for their own agenda, usually cultural issues, abortion, LGBT rights, same-sex marriage, abstinence only sex education, removing the separation of church, vouchers for propping up private religious schools, undermining the environmentalists, instituting religious tests in government, putting signs that say "In God We Trust" in all public buildings, instituting a National Day of Prayer, bible reading in public schools, teaching creationism alongside evolution in science class rooms even though creationism is not science, the list goes on forever it seems.

Just sayin.'

Don' worry folks. Mr. Severson does not have a chance to defeat Senator Amy Klobuchar for the MN senate seat. He did represent Stearns county in the State Legislature. This county is ultra conservative in oh so many ways. Lost his last state wide election. By the way Stearns county is also part of Michelle Bachmann's district.

Amy's gonna rock his world in 2012, assuming repubs are goofy enough to nominate this guy in the first place.

On the other hand, they nominated Emmer for governor, and the current repub legislature is concentrating on union busting, banning gay marriage and denying women equal pay, so yes, they may just be goofy enough.

Whoa dude! That's pretty radical...and I find fault with nothing in it. No two ways about it. Christ was a Commie and that makes him good enough for me.

That's really odd. I was always tought that "render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's" was referring to "give Ceaser back what has Ceaser's picture on it" ( I seem to remember that's somwhere around where you took this quote) and "give unto God what is God's" as being your spirit.

Funny how preachers have been twisting that one....for ...since it was written, I guess.

For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. -Matthew 24:5

They are called Republicans.

Another good one is, "Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven. So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward.... And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward." (Matthew 6:1-2, 5)

Sorry for the longish quote, but I can't very well whack others for proof-texting and then provide just a snippet of something myself in the very same topic.

The public religiosity of the "religious" right is just a show, meant to attract praise, money and power. For these people, religion is no more real than a painted-on clown's smile. It's a calculated performance only, one that hides rather than reveals their true selves and intentions.

Monk....you are spot on. Excellent.....

Those who parade their faith mock God in their pride.

@Cyncerity, ah shucks.

Monk I'm far worse about Matthew 25. Its all good comrade. And thank you.

The Founding Fathers also didn't specifically say that you could own an AK-47, a machine gun, a sniper rifle or any of the other lethal toys that groups like the NRA say are protected by the Second Amendment. It seems the far right is perfectly willing to be non-specific and broadly interpret intent when it suits their purpose.

I was just talking about that with my wife last night! We figured that since we have to put up with religion dictating our legislation and judiciary system, the fact that there are so many "for profit" churches, and if we've already lost the battle of separation of church and state... shouldn't churches be required to pay taxes?

Specifically the "miracle-making" televangelists who wear $900 lizard-skin shoes and custom-made satin suits, or the Joel Osteens of the world who fill their "mega-churches" with more people than a Denver Broncos game EVERY Sunday?

Don't get me wrong, I really don't advocate this - as I DO believe in a separation of C&S - but as I said, I feel we've already lost the war and the words so clearly spelled out for us in the constitution are meaningless to more than half the country now.

Some of these churches make millions of dollars/year AND benefit from a religious political environment ... wouldn't that be one way the Republicans could solve our debt crisis WITHOUT taking my grandmother's Medicare?

There are rules under the IRS that prohibit political activities by religious institutions. These rules are rarely used to audit churches involved in politics. I do agree we need to do something about the people using religion to get rich and using tax exempt status. We have rules that are specific as to what constitutes a charity and how much money must be devoted to that activity. I am sure that we can come up with rules about religion and the tax exempt status. Also, I think we can also get the IRS to beef up enforcement of the "no political activity" rules for churches.

Hi, Mike, Before I speak to your point I want to point out to coopatroopa, whom you replied to. There is an article in the April 2011 issue of In These Times called The House of Reptile Lovers by Dawn Starin. She points out that no less than 14 reptile skin accessory designers are instigating the skinning and killing of snakes, crocodiles, and lizards, and not necessarily in that order. These reptiles are mistakenly thought to not experience pain as they are skinned alive in many cases. These designers like Marchesa's designer Georgina Chapman(married to Harvey Weinstein) told the WSJ that her most recent collection "follows Miss Haversham's eternal plight" by using python skin "to create 'Great Expectations' of classic opulence, both etheral and romantic." While Miuccia Prada, head designer of Prada, told the Daily Telegraph that she considers python skins "sexy," but the more "sexy" and chic these products become, the more killing of these innocent reptiles goes on. From 2000-2005, 3.4 million lizard, 2.9 million crocodile, and 3.4 million snake skins all species listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species were imported into the European Union. The United Nations Environmental Programme(UNEP) World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 1.2 million crocodile, caiman and alligator skins entered international trade in 2008. These numbers do not include snake and lizard skins. The WSJ says that exotic reptile skins are "increasingly common." If it continues more wild populations will be affected. Some of these fashions are made from farms, but too many come from the wild fragile ecosystems. In Asia 90% of all snakeskins come from the wild populations which has an impact on the rodent populations as well. In 2007, 69% of the reptile skins imported into the European Union cam efrom the wild. The depletion of an entire species from an ecosystem is devastating and can have a profound effect on others. In some of the worst areas that supply handbags, shoes and clothing and infestation of rats can spread disease and damage crops. These poor animals, these reptiles who should be protected are instead subjected to unimagineable cruelty and suffering. Thought to be "cold blooded" and therefore mistakenly incapable of feeling pain they are skinned alive. The truth is that they are ectothermic, meaning that they are very limited in their ability to regulate their temperature, so their body temperature is determined by the ambient outside temperature. They largely are similar to mammals in that they have nervous systems which respond similarly and mirrors painful stimuli just as mammals do. I am considering calling out these designers by initiating petitions through change.org and care2.com to get them to consider the option of letting the reptiles wear their own skin accessories and stopping this cruel tragedy of exploiting them for human vanity's sake.

Okay, Mike, in the February, 2011, issue of Church and State there is an article called, Grassley Withers Under the Religious Right Heat, put out by Americans United. In a move that shocked many observers, Grassley and the Senate Finance Committee staffers concluded their three year investigation into the financial irregularities of tax-exempt television ministries with a report that makes no recommendation for additional governmental oversight. And to compound the controversy, the staff report recommends repeal of the federal tax law ban on church electioneering.

There were six ministries that were looked into. Only two cooperated with the Committee, while the other four obstructed vehemently offering the least cooperation they could muster. There was documentation of a pattern of lavish lifestyles and dubious use of donated funds by several leaders. Some live in homes valued at $2.7 million to $3.5 million and getting a "tax free housing allowance" and often having two homes. Staffers, friends, and relatives are classified as ministers in order to protect their income from IRS taxation. Some of these pastors pocket what is known as "love offerings," huge sums of cash collected from supporters, it is unknown if this money is reported as income, and therefore subject to taxation. In spite of the stonewalling, employees of the ministries were threatened with retribution -divine and otherwise-if they cooperated with the investigation. Some ministries employ guerilla tactics to keep the emplyees quiet, threatened with notion that God will blight finances, strike down families, and inflict all sorts of evil and the unholy.

Despite these transgressions, Grassley and staff recommended no changes in federal law to rein in the apparent ministry abuses. But they dd create an independent commission led by an evangelical Chistian agency to study a variety of tax issues. One being the repeal of the ban on churches and other religious groupsthat are involved in campaign interventions.

The initial push for the probe was due to widespread allegations of high profile TV preachers who were abusing their church status by living large and raking in millions of tax free cash. The politicking issue was not a part of the investigation unitil Grassley brought it up. It really looks suspicious. Kinda like the Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission issue, in which a yes or no answer to a narrow question, became a precedent setting decision of a question that wasn't asked. The question was "is it Constitutional to air a political brodcast close to the election date on an on demand cable outlet," but instead became "are corporations entitled to free speech rights just as people are," and since money is free speech, then the rights of the corporation to spend unlimited amounts on electioneering using camapign ads attacking opponents is a valid concern. So corporations that are perpetual engines that will outlive humans, they have, in effect, trumped people and Democracy due to a conservative majority in SCOTUS we got screwed.

I guess my point is that the IRS may lose the ability to go after electioneering churches that are tax exempt, presently.

One example of hubris by a televangelist. Keneth Copeland and his wife live in a $6.2 million dollar parsonage on 25 acres of land. He has a private cattle ranch, a power plant, oil and gas wells, drives multiple Harley Davidsons, a Mercedes, a cadillac, and a Corvette convertible. His ministry has a private airport and a fleet of airplanes. He has bragged to associates that he is a billionire and his Pentacostal colleagues gave him and his wife Gloria, a $2.1 million dollar cash gift to celebrate his 70th birthday and their 40th anniversary. Copeland answers only to his Kenneth Copeland Ministries board that is stacked with family members and friends. If Grassley gets his way, the pot will be even sweeter for Copeland, for he will be able to sway and buy conservative ppoliticians to keep shining the light away feom him and his deceit. The Religious Right's legal team the Alliance Defense Fund advocates for churches and pastors to flaunt their tax exempt status and endorse candidates anyway daring the IRS to come after them. Grassley is a conservative Republican so he is essentially bought and paid for by the Religious Right and the corporations. He has a 100% "true blue"rating from the Family Research Council's lobbying arm for his votes in the 111th Congress. In 2008, Grassley was shunned because of his 2007 launch of the investigation into the TV preacher corruption. Though a five term Senator, he was denied a seat at the Iowa delegation at the Republican National Convention. Apparently he has gotten the message, and has changed his tune asking for the repeal of the ban on electioneering by churches. He has turned the matter over to the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability based in Virginia. One issue is the annual filing of a detailed report, of Form 990. Grassley found no wrong doing by Copeland, surprisingly. Copeland sent out a letter to donors celebrating that Grassley had finished his reporting calling the Grassley investigation as a victory of biblical proportions. So, Copeland, just pounded the drum for not getting caught for his arrogance greed. Why do people give this man money.

Sorry for the long post.

Erik, Thank you for explaining what a christian nation would actually look like and operate in today's world.

wow...

Marriage is not solely a religious ceremony. The state has an interest in marriage because it confers legal duties and rights. Religion should not have a monopoly on marriage.

Since we all know marriage is a religious institution,

No it's not. Marriage has always been a civil and legal institution. religion didn't become involved in marriage until the 1500's. Besides, in this country, the religous aspect of marriage is merely ceremonial and carries no legal weight.

Since we all know marriage is a religious institution...

I'm gonna convert to Islam and have four wives.

Yippee!

So if you're not a religious person, does that mean your marriage isn't really valid?

@gordy...too right...I was hoping someone would make that point. Altho, I had read that religion got involved in marriage somewhere around the 11th century. Either way, the point is vallid. Marriage was a social and legal contract.. a business proposition, if you will. It was not a religious one. And my memory fails me at the moment on current theory as to why religions jumped on the band-wagon.

@Uffda....religiosity has absolutely no bearing on whether a marriage is valid or not. I'm certain you must know that, so I'm afraid I might be missing your point and for that I apologize.

I'm just wondering, if marriage is a religious institution, and you supposedly are having that marriage blessed by an earthly representative of a god that you don't even believe in, is the marriage itself a fraud?

There still remains the legal and purely social aspects of the act. Courthouse and ship capt marriages for example, civil unions are as much for heterosexuals as gay folks. It is as much about tax status and spousal benefits as it is about declaring monogamous intent.

I like a concept that I think someone on here mentioned a few months ago, where all unions are civil. If you want an additional religious ceremony from a church, you are welcome to have the traditional church wedding, but it would have no legal standing. Only the civil union would have any kind of legal standing, which would eliminate the whole marriage hullabaloo.

Here in MN, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage will appear on the ballot next year. Apparently the far right is still more interested in social engineering to suit a tiny minority of Americans than dealing with actual problems, like the $5 billion budget deficit that has to be addressed before the legislature is slated to adjourn in 3 days.

Social issues get people to vote against themselves. The issues most people really care about most, the R's won't say what they really want to do. Cutting Medicare and Social Security.

The voters should be well aware of that and try to understand the true nature of R's is dominance and getting control, power and money for those with control, power and money, taking it from those that have less money, but lots of power if they vote according to the aforementioned truth about R's and not something they spout about big bad government, gays, minorities are taking away from you.

@Uffda on 12.6: Yes, now I get you. Agreed. By the same token on marriage being a religious or civil union...I have been to commitment ceremonies for my gay folk :) that WERE presided over by an ordained minister. They (my friends) are believers in God...so why isn't THAT marriage sanctified? Legal? Recognized?

It only proves that marriage is a civil and social contract like you posted in 12.8, NOT a religious one.

So how come the religious right is trying to claim a monopoly on marriage? Where is THEIR right to do that? Who died and left them God?

I am hardly an expert on the subject of marriage. But I think the notion of marriage as a religious thing really goes back to the Roman Catholic idea that marriage is a sacrament. Which makes it kind of odd, since the Protestants of the Reformation era dropped that idea, that the largely Protestant religious right of today is essentially going back to that Roman Catholic idea.

The idea that a marriage is established by a religious service really has no biblical support at all. You have the whole 'God made them male and female' thing, but that doesn't really get you where the religious right would like to go.

Worse, from their point of view, are passages such as Genesis 24, in which Abraham's eldest servant is sent to get a wife for Isaac from among Abraham's relatives in Syria. Rebekah is persuaded to go to Palestine, and when she arrives, "the servant told Isaac all the things that he had done. Then Isaac brought [Rebekah] into his mother Sarah's tent [who was dead and buried by now, just you don't get any wrong ideas]. He took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her." (vv. 66-7)

It's pretty obvious that there's no ceremony of any kind at all. Isaac takes Rebekah into a very empty tent and she becomes his wife. Implicitly, the marriage is made by the man taking the woman into his dwelling and the two having sex. That's it. At the time this was written, or at least redacted into its final form, a 'wedding' consisted simply of two people acting married; or, put more bluntly, engaging in sex with the intention of occupying the same domestic space.

And, another thing, while there is a lot said of wedding feasts in the Synoptics, and an actual wedding feast in the gospel of John, there is never any mention of wedding ceremonies at all. It is as if the party is the thing, as far as the culture is concerned. I think the sequence of events for that time was: the engagement period, then the party, and then the sex. Again, it seems to be the entering into an intimate relationship that establishes the marriage, not any religious ceremony. In fact, the temple priesthood certainly had no role to play in making marriages. Again, that seems to be a Roman Catholic innovation.

There are lots of married people in biblical texts, but I can't seem to recall the narration of a single wedding ceremony.

i agree, meddling. marriage was like 'common law marriage' - but instead of waiting for so many years before it's recognized - it was the courting and then having the u-haul sex. no papers to sign or permission of the community to hold.

if you were a couple living together and sleeping together - then you're married.

Right. In the ancient Levant, apparently, sex = marriage. Which is probably, I suspect, the practical origin of why adultery is such a big deal. If it is sex alone, or sex primarily, that makes a marriage, then the original bond is damaged by any subsequent dalliances. The thing that makes the marriage is the weakest link. At a guess, anyway. Humans are very good at shrouding things in myth and metaphor, even today (or maybe especially today), so it's always hard to really know why people think and act as they do.

i hear that relationships can last a life time without papers and permissions. my mom, in fact, never got officially remarried - but most definitely after over 27 years together - he is undoubtedly my second father.

SHun me?? Christians will shun me?? Does this mean that they will quit trying to convert me?? PLEASE??

Oh... sorry... wishful thinking...

I don't get too many 'Thumpers' at the door lately...When they do try I just tell them about MY conversion!

The Lord appeared to me a few years ago...at a Bbq...She said..."Mac you have a better chance of getting Gold from a cat's arse than you have of getting into heaven!"

Needless to say when I heard of 'The First Church of the Twisted Kitty' I joined right up!

We meet once a week for 'Twisting' and everyone is welcome...Any gold we find is put into a fund to purchase outdated ICBMs from the gov't. Those nice folks over at the Home Depot are helping with the silos and have some good tips for guidance controll and targeting!

Then I ask if they would like to attend a service...the only requirement is ya gotta bring a cat!

For some reason they haven't been back.

No no no! The whole point of Christianity is to nail to the cross anyone you disagree with...EVERYONE knows that! [*snark alert*]

Is that quoted text from the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, Kaija?

My 'religion' is Quantum Physics. So far it's the closest system we have to understanding the spiritual realm of our Universe.

You rock!

I do have to put out here, though I rarely read anything with "Christ" or "Christian" in the title, I did find this intriguing book called The Christ Blueprint: 13 Keys to Christ Consciousness by Padma Aon Prakasha. Compelling enough, I may read his other books. Just looked at the web site today: ChristBlueprint *dot* com. Oh, also reading Dr. Fred Alan Wolf, The Spiritual Universe: One Physicist's Vision of Spirit, Soul, Matter, and Self. He's 'Dr. Quantum'. : )

Taoism and Zen Bhuddism and old school Buddhism are all supported by Quantum Physics.

Don Q - Your comment intrigued me, altho I actually don't understand it. I've always been interested in science, so your reference to Quantum Physics in relation to Taoism and Buddhism whets my curiosity.

Would you be able to refer me to some reading material or maybe you could explain it yourself. I look forward to your reply. Thanks in advance.

Tao te Ching by Lao Tzu for Taoism. Chaung Tzu was one of the forefathers of Zen. Zen is weird and fascinating stuff. It advocates self-improvement, and the Zen Koan...a piece of non-sequitor nonsense defined to defeat the rational mind to allow immediate apprehension of primal reality. I will give you a small poem I had written about it.

I had wondered if there was any zen that wasn't self-taught

Then I remembered that it is taught by mindf***ing people into consciousness

By masters who will hit you with sticks when you answer the question wrong

Unless you are masochist

Then they will hit you if you get it right

The Tao te Ching is hard to follow. But there is a serious political dimension to Taoist philosophy. "The tools of the state are unfit to show to the public, therefore the humane ruler keeps his subjects ignorant." And there is a value placed on the ineffable..."the name that can be named is not the Eternal Name." In short a recognition that symbols, while useful, can never actually be the things they represent and that everything is relative and what is real now is what was real and will be at the end of time. Attachment to names, symbols, relative conceptions can be blinding, misleading, enslaving. Therefore a nonverbal meditative state can be valuable. I recommend The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley and the Tao of Physics (can't remember the author.) I hope it helps.

energy can not be created, nor can it be destroyed - but transferred.

here's an interesting lecture from MIT :)

mitworld(dot)mit(dot)edu/video/500/

don, i love how both buddhism and taoism ...and if i'm not mistaken, also hinduism to an extent, are related to quantum physics.

Fritjof Capra wrote The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. I have the book right here on my cubicle bookshelf. Outstanding work.

Gracias. Jeez, I forgot about the most important text. The I Ching (pronouced EE Jean). The Book of Changes. It is the oldest book in human history. It is an oracle. A binary system that produces two set of trigrams to produce one hexagram which may include "moving lines" which results in a new hexagram entirely. Esoteric, yes. The Great Commentary that accompanies some editions is well worth reading. And some of the hexagrams themselve are worth knowing in their own right.

This is a sample and my personal favorite hexagram:

I-Ching Hexagram 29

I-Ching Hexagram 29 – K’an – The Abysmal (Water)

The trigram above K’AN – The Abysmal, Water [middle son]
The trigram below K’AN – The Abysmal, Water

from the Wilhelm-Baynes translation of “The I Ching or Book of Changes“

This hexagram consists of a doubling of the trigram K’an. It is one of the eight hexagrams in which doubling occurs. The trigram K’an means a plunging in. A yang line has plunged in between two yin lines and is closed in by the like water in a ravine. The trigram K’an is also the middle son. The Receptive has obtained the middle line of the Creative, and thus K’an develops. As an image it represents water, the water that comes from above and is in motion on earth in streams and rivers, giving rise to all life on earth.

In man’s world K’an represents the heart, the soul locked up within the body, the principle of light inclosed in the dark that is, reason. The name of the hexagram, because the trigram is doubled, has the additional meaning, “repetition of danger.” Thus the hexagram is intended to designate an objective situation to which one must become accustomed, not a subjective attitude. For danger due to a subjective attitude means either foolhardiness or guile. Hence too a ravine is used to symbolise danger; it is a situation in which a man is in the same pass as the water in a ravine, and, like the water, he can escape if he behaves correctly.

THE JUDGEMENT

The Abysmal repeated.
If you are sincere, you have success in your heart,
And whatever you do succeeds.

Through repetition of danger we grow accustomed to it. Water sets the example for the right conduct under such circumstances. It flows on and on, and merely fills up all the places through which it flows; it does not shrink from any dangerous spot nor from any plunge, and nothing can make it lose its own essential nature. It remains true to itself under all conditions. Thus likewise, if one is sincere when confronted with difficulties, the heart can penetrate the meaning of the situation. And once we have gained inner mastery of a problem, it will come about naturally that the action we take will succeed. In danger all that counts is really carrying out all that has to be done – thoroughness – and going forward, in order not to perish through tarrying in the danger.

Properly used, danger can have an important meaning as a protective measure. Thus heaven has its perilous height protecting it against every attempt at invasion, and earth has its mountains and bodies of water, separating countries by their dangers. Thus also rulers make use of danger to protect themselves against attacks from without and against turmoil within.

THE IMAGE

Water flows on uninterruptedly and reaches its goal:
The image of the Abysmal repeated.
Thus the superior man walks in lasting virtue
And carries on the business of teaching.

Water reaches its goal by flowing continually. It fills up every depression before it flows on. the superior man follows its example; he is concerned that goodness should be an established attributed of character rather than an accidental and isolated occurrence. So likewise in teaching others everything depends on consistency, for it is only through repetition that the pupil makes the material his own.

Oooh, this is hitting me where I live (not in the sense of being hit, but the energy of it is oh so much intrigue in the teaching of Jesus were very much rooted these truths.

Suffice it to say, my dealings with religion are summed up as I have studied some of it and find metaphysical is an apt word for how I perceive it for myself. I do not find there is any way to succeed in forcing one "kind" or another on anyone, but it just IS. The teaching of Jesus doesn't say Apostles (followers) must foist/force their views, but tell the "good news" to people over the world, so they may find for themselves.

To sum up: I dig Jesus for his compassion and the way he wanted us to be better people and treat eachother with kindness. Most Christians are Christians because his name is supposed the password to get into heaven. If that was all there was to be a Christian, I would not be one. Most Christians are not Christian. They lack the love and compassion. I would follow the Commie who said "easier for a camel..." and who overturned the tables of the moneychangers to hell and back. But I would not speak his name to save me from the fires of hell, if that is all there was to it.

There is a story about Conquistadors who gave a Native Caribbean chief the choice between slow painful torturous death and the promise of hell and damnation if he refused to accept Jesus, or a quick relatively painless death and the promise of heaven if he accepted Jesus. The chief asked if there were Spaniards in heaven, the Conquistador said yes. The chief said he's rather go to hell. Its like that.

That is very true, there is a lack of understanding what is required to be judged, The treatment of fellow men is only second to the "Love God" teaching of Jesus. If one believes in Jesus, there is some of the stuff he said that deserve more attention. I would say Christians would learn how difficult it is to treat everyone they encounter as Jesus, because he told them, whatever you do/for to the least of these, you do it to me. The "Golden Rule" is just something incomprehensible to some of these that claim to know Jesus. What if they DO hear Jesus deny knowing them because of the dismal adherence to the second one, after love God.

Not trying to preach here, but according to the book, it's much harder to "get to Heaven" than saying I love God and Jesus and that's all it takes.

Do people treat others with respect to "love others as yourself", for the act of compassion and empathy (treating others as themselves), or for a pass to get to heaven? That is a question only the person can answer. But the person must also be willing to examine their own faults before ranting about a speck. Seems to me, usually people have not achieved a lack of any faults, so... it's awfully hard to believe that a person is justified trying to sanitize someone else's house before they have their own swept.

"My 'religion' is Quantum Physics. So far it's the closest system we have to understanding the spiritual realm of our Universe."

I get it, and so god is like the space between the atoms. That would mean he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. I've just had a religious experience. It makes sense. How else could there be an entity that is everwhere at once, all powerful due to the fact that everything material happens occurs within the space for which it occupies, and how else could any entity know everything unless there widespread overall cognition by being there at once.

Just sayin.'

But how do you fit the long gray beard in the space between the atoms? And the angels, and cloud cities, aren't they kinda cramped in that little bitty space? Does this mean God is in me? Is that what causes that weird tickling sensation I get, or indigestion? So many deep questions, so little time, (or interest).

Interesting, these "gray beards" "angels" "cloud cities" are irrelevant entities that fall in the realm of traditional religion. I'm speaking of a universal concept that obliterates the traditional notions of patriarchical, matriarchical, or any such societies that project people's hopes and fears and efforts to engineer social activities. Traditionally religion controls, coerces, threatens, and holds out promises to people in an effort to appease people's psychology .

What I'm suggesting is that what we call god is in reality not a supernatural being, not an imaginary entity, nor a kindly old gentleman, or gentlewoman, but a reality that is truly close to everyone's heart, but not an individual saviour for individual souls for Chist. This is way beyond simple human desires and simple concepts, but it is a reality for which there is evidence for. We all know that matter and energy exists together and humans attempt to understand these relationships is ongoing. This desire to comprehend existence is a goal that will continue as long as the human species exists.

From what I can tell, the universe is made up of matter that is varying degrees of density. Air is less dense that your sofa and your apartment walls and the vacuum of space between the planets is even less dense. So space seems to be a determing factor in which all matter and energy is occupied within. If people want to connect to the world, why not be imbued with the universality of connecting to all things in the universe and in multiverses if they exist. How can something that fundamental and close to existence not endow people with a sense of awe and mystery, a feeling of connection to something higher, more important, and truly a moving experience? And for it there is evidence, there is no controversy about who's god is more just, more believable, or if there is a god or not. I'm pointing to something greater than petty human concerns. What people call god is reality only in that humans project an entity that they feel supercedes themselves, yet it is based on their own self reflection. I'm speaking of that which touches all of life, the experience of life felt by humans and even animals alike. The feeling of being connected to this world and the universe happens through our being in touch with what connects everything, the space that matter needs to exist within. The densities from one starting point of the universe to travelling to the other side is dependent the ratio of matter to space.

But space encompasses it all and everything material exists wihin space and that is the feeling, not the description by religion, of god.

DQ...liked the Conquistador story. ;) I feel the same way. With the way so-called "Christians" are today...when they work to convince me that they are right and everyone else is wrong....I tell them that if heaven is strictly for people like them...then they can keep it. I want no part of it.

Thank you, Cyn. I had gotten that from the Cartoon History of the Modern World book 1 by Larry Gonick. I do find it relevant though.

Everything is energy... some qualities, such as light, love, oneness and truth, are of such an extraordinary, refined, high vibratory quality as to inspire reverence, bliss, gratitude, humility, joy to tears and awe, at times to the point of feeling consumed or obliterated.

Take the anti-sharia law movement and cram it back down their throats...NO CHRISTIAN SHARIA LAW!

I wisely disengaged from further debate with a dude/tape recorder over abortion and divine law, how we live in a democracy unbeholden to any specific group's conception of 'divine law' and how if he wished to live by divine law he should transplant to the Middle East because "they love that sh*t." Of note, war is also the knowing taking of innocent lives, to which he believes Obama but not Bush is complicit. Yeah, one of those. I know better now.

Wow, Tomm, I read that article you mentioned in your post.........even tho the information contained within is something I already know.....just to see it in print somehow packed a big punch to my solar plexus!

It seems in every era throughout history there have been religious zealots who want to foist their ideologies on others - with wars and bloodshed and death as the end result. But never have their machinations ever changed anyone's mind.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. What benefit have these wild-eyed crazies ever reaped? It's so very, very sad and frustrating and maddening that these so-called good people have only been an obstruction in the evolution of the soul and spirit.

Rant over.

... never have their machinations ever changed anyone's mind. ... What benefit have these wild-eyed crazies ever reaped?

to that end, someone was sarcastically mentioning the whole "the end of the world is May 21! the bible says so!" deal, to which i posed the serious question, 'when has the church ever been right about anything, proven right?'

he did have one answer for me tho: he took about 1 second, maybe 2 if you stretched it, and said, 'when they said, 'we were wrong.'' lol!

Humanity is plugged into and driven by a matrix of fear (and shame and guilt), which religious institutions support, were designed to support, and thus has always been its primary function. Any enlightenment is secondary, and too much is a threat to their agenda. Evolution will come from outside these boxes.

I mentioned in an earlier post that the NRA and gun lovers/owners rarely mention the part of the 2nd amendment that says but it is worth bearing out again, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," yet this gives some context for the amendment. If these authors of the Constitution, these lawyers, wordsmiths wanted each citizen with no restrictions to have a gun, then why put in the "militia" part?It put into context the right of everyone having a gun.

These wordsmiths made it very clear. Much of the Constitution could have been much simpler, for example by saying explicitly "This is a Christian nation based on the tenets of Christianity, and no other religion counts, just Christianity," and "Every citizen is to have a gun with no restrictions for its ownership." But they didn't, one of the authors, the editor(Gouvernor Morris) , as opposed to the architect(James Madison), was quoted, "Having rejected redundant and equivocal terms, I believed it ot be as clear as our language would permit." So, it seems clarity was a main goal in the writing of the Constitution, and so it would behoove one to remember that what was in the Constitution was not in there to produce a document for which debate is necessary at every turn. The context is there for a purpose. In the book The Words We Live By, Your Annotated Guide To The Constitution, by Linda R Monk, on page 153, makes the case for what I have said about the context of the 2nd Amendment. Peter Hamill, in Msr Monk's book his comments entitled, The Right to Blow People Away, mentions that the National Guard(present day militia) does their training, but then when done their weapons are placed in the armory, hence "regulated." "A well regulated militia........." And then the guns of the time the 2nd amendment was written, there were no UZIs, assault rifles, and 31 bullet magazines and automatic pistols, they had one shot muskets. The NRA claim that citizens having guns will prevent a tyrannical government takeover, have they seen what the military has for weapons? And if given the right direction a government could initiate a takeover with very little opposition, and a citizen with his handgun would be no obstacle for a government takeover.

But really military takeovers are not the only means for government rule nor are they the best way to get into power. Hitler came into power at the behest of those in power and took over Germany, not with military force, but through his promises and his psychological narrative that swayed the citizens to admire the Nazi Party. To take over a government, if you take over the hearts and minds of the population then no shots need be fired. Look at the unfortunate success of the Tea Party, whose ideas at one time were on the fringe along with the John Birch Society and the 1930's corporate sponsored American Liberty League.

http://www.answers.com/topic/american-liberty-league

Its influence on conservative politics in the United States was large. In the aftermath of the 1938 elections, conservative Democrats and Republicans in Congress stalemated New Deal legislation, using Liberty League themes of opposition to government spending, taxation, and communist influence in the administration and the labor movement to gain support. The Liberty League supported the early activities of the House Un-American Activities Committee and the National Lawyers Committee. The league's attempt to recruit and fund conservative scholarship and university forums on public policy issues prefigured the creation of corporate-funded conservative "Think Tanks."

Wow, I guess history does repeat itself.

And unconstitutional!