Is there too much money in politics? The Center for Responsive Politics believes so. They estimate that the mid-term elections will cost incumbents and challengers, and sponsors and opponents of ballot questions, roughly $2.6 billion. That's a lot of money. But it's not as much as, say, the micro- and craft-brewing industry takes in domestically on an annual basis. It's about $500 million less than the television networks are paying the NFL to air their games this year. Pornographers, to cite another example, generate about $4 billion a year in business according to Forbes. There is no national legislation that proposes to limit the amount of money Americans spend on football, beer, or porn. Why do busybodies constrain, and seek to more tightly constrain, the amount of money Americans can spend on the candidate or cause of their choice?

I agree completely. Not too long ago a good friend of mine ran for city council. Why shouldn't I have been able to give him as much as I felt like giving? People who don't think contribution caps impinge on free speech are kidding themselves.

Well, liberals think there is a principled difference between abusing the government's power in the name of busybody Christian-Reich morality and using it to impose any type of morality they adhere to. Exactly what the principle is, I don't know.

Right the old potato chip argument.

Its not so much how much money that is in politics, but where it comes from and what strings are attatched to it.

I have no idea what Skeptic is talking about btw.

Skeptic,
I would suggest liberals often confuse, for political reasons, the establishment of religion with any influence of religious, particularly Christian, morality. If their politics were more in line with the Christian right they would not find religion's influence so odious.

No Webster I don't confuse the two.

We all no that the first amendment bars Congress from Establishing a religion. That was put there to prevent the US from going through the inter-religious warfare Europe was going through at the time.

The Seperation of Church in state is broader and deeper than just that. Its relected in the founders writings.

I don't think liberals would agree with any religions influence in politis. Many liberals are into Eastern religions like Bhuddism, Taoism and Janism. NO ONE EVER suggests that these religions should be incororated into US politics.

Church. State. Seperate. NO INFLUENCE.

That's the way the founders intended it.

"I have recently been examining al the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded upon fables and mythologies. The Christian God is a being of terrific character -- cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust..."

~THOMAS JEFFERSON

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/f0605as.jpg

A little education for ya.

HeHe, although the phraseology of the separation of church and state comes from Jefferson, Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution, and the Constitution had nothing to do with that phrase. Jefferson was neither a delegate nor in the United States at the time. That phrase comes from a letter that he wrote--long after the Constitution had been ratified--and is generally taken out of context. I don't really see what legal standing the verbiage of a private letter holds, even if written by an important man such as Jefferson. Most states had established religions at the time of the Founding. As you point out, the first amendment refers to Congress and not the lawmaking bodies of the thirteen states. In other words, the confederation of states as a whole could not legislate on religion because of the diversity within the states. The states themselves, however, could and did avail themselves of this prerogative. To state historical fact is not to endorse the choices made 220 years ago. One can debate the rectitude or lack of it in establishing state religions. There is no debate that many of the founding fathers did this in the states in which they lived.

Part of the dumbing down of America is when people use quotes and slogans interpreting them in ways that suit their causes.

Too much money in politics? Yes and Yes. Too much money to get elected and then too much money once attaining the much sought after positions of power.

We all know Jefferson was in Paris during the Consitutional Convention.

He did actually have an impact on it. He corresponded with the delegates, and offered his ideas.

But I'm not arguing that Jefferson directly wrote his idea into the Consitution, or that (absurdly) his letters somehow have the force of law. His Declaration of Independence dosen't even have the force of law.

Rather I am refuting, once again, the common factully inacurate argument that the founding fathers were pious men who wisely created a "Judeo-Christian nation."

Its just not the case. There was a wide diversity of opnions amongst the Founding Fathers in regards to the role of religion in society, ranging from the nearly athiest Jefferson to the relitively religious Hamilton (who greatly influenced the thoughts of Washington on the matter.) The place of religion in the society was as hotly deabated as it is today. Some claimed great advantages from the influeneof religion, but almost everyone (witnessing the religious cahos in Europe) agreed that it posed dangers.

The current influence of reliion in politics goes far beyond what the founders- even the most churchgoing among them- intended.

You are completly wrong in your assertion that the purpose of the establishment clause was to prohibit the federal government from establishing a state religion, but santion the state governments to do so.

I challenge your claim that the states have had official religions in thier post constitutional histories and ask you to produce any evidence whatsoever of the Founders intent in this regard.

Certainly the Consitution does not explicitly give the states the right to establish a religion.

And the only time it even mentions Religion is when it restrits the Congress's ability to interfere in it.

They could have written a document that said "We the people of the Amerian Christian Nation, compelled by our comman Judeo-Chrsitan hertitage to make a more perfect union..."

They didn't.

They were secularists.

You should be too.

"The Seperation of Church in state is broader and deeper than just that. Its relected in the founders writings." -HeHe

Actually Thomas Jefferson specifically believed it. Pointing out that A founder believed it is not an argument that THE founding fathers did.

Didn't we go into this in great detail in a previous post a couple/few weeks ago? Broken record man. And what does this have to do with too much money in politics?

"Certainly the Consitution does not explicitly give the states the right to establish a religion." -HeHe

(sorry for the double post)

The Constitution says absolutely nothing whatsoever about the establishment of religion, other than that congress cannot do it. This implicitly gives any other body, such as a state body, that authority, as long as they are not Congress.

Don't ask me Skeptic brought it up.

And yes the tenth amendment might be construed that way, but I don't think it has been historically and there must be a reason for that.

Hehe, that is the precise meaning of the Tenth Amendment. The states and the people keep all the powers not given to the federal government.

This is the essence of our limited national government. (or was, I guess one could say, before 14th amendment and the theory that it requires the incorporation of BoR protections to the state governments).

Dan is right that almost all the states had official religions at the time of the Constitution. The letter to the Danbury Baptists isn't going to help your argument in any way. What does help, if you're looking to put the formidable forces of Jefferson and Madison together, is the VA Statute for Religious Freedom, authored by TJ and steered through the VA legislature by James Madison (aka the Father of the Constitution.) It makes the clear assertion that to compel support of a church is a violation of natural rights of conscience.

The VA Statute, which is still part of VA law, led VA to become to the first state to disestablish its official church. Other states followed suit, the last in 1808 I believe.

Not sure what this has to do with too much money in politics either, but I thought it was interesting.

It is also interesting that the Mayflower Compact, all the colonial charters, the Massachussets Body of Liberties, and almost all the state constitutions did mention God as the source of just power and government. The Constitution sticks out like a sore thumb in this regard, with its lack of acknowledgement of God. But this must be understood in light of the fact that Constitution was written to limit only the actions of the national government, leaving things like religion in the province of the states. Which brings me back to the original point about the 10th Amendment.

NO actually I think the letter helps.

I'm not claiming it has the foce of law as you are absurdly insinuating.

I'm saying that the personal beliefs of the founding fathers were much more anit-religious than the modern Theocrats would have us believe.

The letter is not relevent to the Consitutional basis for the speration of church and state. It is meerly anectdotal evidence that gives a little view into the debate at the time.

All parts of the Constitution are equal. If the estalishment clause can be applied to state governments (which btw it has been) than the tenth doesn't apply.

Hehe,
Your response just leads me to believe you didn't really read my post to you....

As I referred to generally, yes, the theory of the doctrine of incorporation has led the Supreme Court to apply the Establishment Clause to state governments.

But I am sure you realize the 14th was ratified after the civil war, (and the doctrine of incorporation was invented decades after that). It therefore reveals nothing as to the Founders' intents.

And actually, Madison introduced an amendment in the House in 1789 that said something along the lines of, "No state shall pass any law that shall infringe"...the rights of conscience.

This amendment was not approved and was not sent to the states for ratification, and that's why you don't see something like it in the federal Bill of Rights.

The powers of the federal govnerment were limited and definite, the powers of the states were numerous and indefinite. Legislating on religion was one of them.

See how you like it when the Muslims take over Detroit and insitute Sharia law.

Well said, Veronica.

The interesting thing is that the Federalist letters actually talk about conscience, and "Publius" goes so far as to recognize that the fundamental "separation" is that nobody ought to be forced to fund what they morally oppose.

Thus, by the underlying principle of the "separation" tax payers should not have to fund schools that teach evolution. (Not that I advise they do.) If a schools says "That's what we are going to teach, and there's nothing to do if you don't like it." Then, under this--again more basic principle--I should be able to withhold funding for schools.

But at its most basic, the US government should be nowhere on the issue of providing abortions. Supporting a state which allowed legal abortions is only dimly related to this. Paying for abortions would be a closer match.

I could care less whether Jefferson found redeeming value in Christianity (as I do). I already know from history that atheists existed. As I am fond of repeating the PUBLIC did not ratify Jefferson's letters; Jefferson's letters are wholly his own. In fact, the public did not ratify anybody's letters, but a Constitution.

"All parts of the Constitution are equal. If the estalishment clause can be applied to state governments (which btw it has been) than the tenth doesn't apply."

Wha??? I can't even parse that cluster of non-sequiturs.

The tenth definitely does not apply to the specific areas where the 14th speaks. The ratification of the 14th, can be said to be explicit in states relinquishing some discretion to the federal. But to nullify the 10th in ripples beyond that is precisely treating one part of the Cons. over another.

The SCUSA once argued that a black man who had been running a business in Illinois for 5 years could never be anything but property of his owner. In that same decision was the doubt that blacks could ever inherit the benefits of democracy. That decision was made as well. (Incidentally, liberals find this decision quite useful to this day.) How does what the court decided go toward the discussion of whether they use things appropriately?

Sprechen zie sense?

Its SCOTUS not SCUSA.

Okay, I hastily typed an acronym and got it wrong. Nice rebuttal. Your point is still incoherent.