First... thanks to Jaime for finding the actual link to this statement – I only found reference to it in an article from the Post Chronicle.

Here is the actual statement of principle (as opposed to bikerdad's baiting "adaptation").

House Democrats Release Historic Catholic Statement of Principles

1) Are these statements acceptable – considering these individuals' roles in Congress?

2) Do members of Congress violate their oaths of office when they legislate based on their religious beliefs?


Now we can have an honest and upfront debate on this topic.

1) Are these statements acceptable – considering these individuals' roles in Congress?

Yes. Many leaders in this country have made similar statements of principle. I see nothing wrong with a group of Congressional leaders making a public statment about their religious principles and how they relate to decision making. They claim to allow the values instilled by their faith to guide their decisions. But – and their statement regarding abortion is a clear example of this – they are also recognizing the fact that the Constitution allows for moral beliefs outside those professed by the Catholic Church.

2) Do members of Congress violate their oaths of office when they legislate based on their religious beliefs?

This, I believe, depends on the manner in which they legislate based on their religious beliefs. I believe that all members of Congress, regardless of their religious conviction, need to temper that conviction with the equal conviction for maintaining a secular government. I find nothing in this particular statement of religious principle that would make me believe that these members of Congress would do otherwise.

1) Are these statements acceptable – considering these individuals' roles in Congress?

Of course it is. In fact, we should demand such statements from all of our representatives. What do you stand for? Why do you vote the way you do? From what viewpoint are you coming from?

2) Do members of Congress violate their oaths of office when they legislate based on their religious beliefs?

Of course not. Everyone has beliefs. Everyone makes decisions based upon their beliefs. Where they come from is irrelevant. What they ARE is important and it's important to know what your elected officials believe in.

Are we really prepared to say that the origin of one's beliefs disqualify a legislator when the 1st amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Are we prepared to re-define what Article VI of the Constitution says? "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

I for one certainly hope not.

Look ma, I'za caught me a live one!



House Democrats Release Historic Catholic Statement of Principles
Uh oh, ever since Kennedy was elected, those Papists have been trying to take over. Soon they'll be installing that Kraut Ratziger as Imperator.

1) Are these statements acceptable – considering these individuals' roles in Congress?


2) Do members of Congress violate their oaths of office when they legislate based on their religious beliefs?
In the interests of accuracy, I'll leave VDem's reference to Baptists intact, and I'll leave it to him, if he cares, to clarify whether or not his sentiments apply equally to Catholics.

Can we now?

In 1993, the Americans for Separation of Church and State gave the following ratings to selected (random, except for DeLauro and Pelosi) signatories of this statement:

Rosa DeLauro - 100
Nancy Pelosi - 100
Grace Napolitano - 100
James McGovern - 100
Xavier Bacerra - 100
Dale Kildee - 100

So, can we honestly discuss something when the folks in question have been so universally hostile to faith in regards to government, without pointing out their past hostility?

What are you on about? Of course we can have an honest discussion about it. Go ahead and point out their past hostility. I don't believe that your "ranking" link provides any proof of hostility towards faith.

This appears to be an attempt to inject a bogus emotional element into this debate.

Barry W. Lynn is Executive Director of Americans United.

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=aboutau

Lynn is himself has a degree from Boston University School of Theology and is an ordained minister of the United Church of Christ.

http://ome.ksu.edu/lectures/dorothy/bio/lynn.html

Historically, there have been any number of Christian churches that have opposed perceived breeches in the separation of church and state. From the time of Roger Williams until recently, for example, Baptists taught the virtues of separating church and state.

Until recently, Southern Baptists, fit into this category. A change in doctrine, brought about Jimmy Carter’s resignation from the denomination. Please see Jimmy Carter, Our Endangered Values: Americas Moral Crisis, 2005, from which I’ve previously provided direct quotes on these pages.

Whatever else may be going on, AU is not necessarily an assault on Christianity from without.

BTW: The much maligned Nancy Pelosi is Catholic.

http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Nancy_Pelosi...es_+_Values.htm

Let me just repeat what I said about this statement when it was disguised as coming from a group of moderate Baptists:



I see no reason to change my opinion, now that it has been revealed as coming from a group of moderate Catholics.

Bikerdad, may I ask why you found it necessary to deliberately mislead us about the true source of this statement? I can only assume that your intention was an attempt to demonstrate hypocrisy on the part of those of us on the left side of the aisle who are adamantly opposed to mixing religion and government. I cannot speak for others, but my opinion remains the same, regardless of whether the religious belief in question is associated with liberalism or conservatism.

The individual religious beliefs of human beings is to be defended as strongly as possible. This includes people involved in government at all levels. It is only natural that their faith will have an important influence on their philosophy of government.

No level of government must ever take any official position of any kind for or against any religious opinion.

These priniciples are not contradictory in any way.

If this is being "hostile to faith in regards to government," so be it.

1) Are these statements acceptable – considering these individuals' roles in Congress?
Of course it is. Religious freedom doesn't end when someone enters public office.

2) Do members of Congress violate their oaths of office when they legislate based on their religious beliefs?
No, I think Amlord answered it pretty effectively regarding the religious test. I'm not concerned with the intellectual or spiritual means by which a congressional representative arrives at a decision, I'm concerned with the ends (the law). If I feel they supported something I'm opposed to, regardless of their inspiration for supporting it, I hold them accountatble in November.

I'm beginning to think some liberals are forgetting the fundamental core of their ideology, freedom. It means everyone has it, not just the people you agree with.

Regarding Barry Lynn:

At first I went "huh, what's Barry Lynn got to do with this? He didn't sign the document." Then I remembered his appearances as a talking head, and had a good chuckle. Ja, Barry is a hoot. Here's a simple little vignette that demonstrates the mindset that did the scoring I've already referenced.

AU Website - Florida Reading Promotion
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, in conjunction with the release of a major motion picture, has launched a contest to encourage students to read C.S. Lewis’ Christian allegory, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.
...
Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told the Post that the state should not promote religion.

“This whole contest is totally inappropriate,” Lynn told the newspaper, because of the religious theme of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. “This would be like asking children to watch the movie ‘The Passion of the Christ’ and to write an essay with the winner getting a trip to Rome.”

Of course you can ask, and I'll even deign to answer. I didn't find it necessary, I found it useful. As I've already noted, multiple times, I identified it as an adaption, and therefore I did not "deliberately mislead." At no time was I asked "adaption of what?" You may assume whatever you wish, and you may rest secure that yes, you have passed the test you assume occurred. Feel better? In doing so, you've simply demonstrated something that almost everybody here at AD knows. Some people are consistent, some of the time. Of course, I could adopt quite an uncharitable perspective and assume that, in confronting what you assume to be a test, you deliberately game the test, and thus one, or both, of your responses may not be honest.

That would be an awful lot of assuming though, wouldn't it?

Yeah, he's the head of the organization whose rankings you quoted. I guess you aren't really interested in the questions and prefer baiting to debating.



Get over yourself. "Deign to answer". Yeah, your little stunt was certainly dignified.



Yet again with the making no sense whatsoever. I suppose you think you're being clever. But the ineptitude is mindboggling. You stated in the opening post of that thread:



And yet you claim that nobody ever asked "adaptation of what?" Of course they didn't. You gave them the answer to that. You provided no link to the original document and the alterations done to create the "adaptation" made it difficult to do a search for the original source. The posters to the thread trusted that the topic found in "Current Events and Headline News" was accurate. It obviously wasn't. It was misleading.

Edited to remove personal attack