A Proposal

In light of the weapons grade stupidity shown by Delaware Republican candidate for Senate, Christine O'Donnell, concerning what is actually in the Constitution, I propose that the opening prayer in both houses of Congress (and the Supreme Court) be replaced with a reading of the United States Constitution and the Amendments.

Imagine the sonorous tones of James Earl Jones ringing throughout the hall “We the People of the United States…” and “Congress shall make no law…”

How about BOTH? Or how about requiring "continuing ed' for politicians when they leave DC and go home...you know...lifelong learners!

For once I kinda like one of your posts!

I'm not a fan of both. Let's leave religion out of government, unless you want me petitioning to say a prayer in Congress for my religion, which features the handsome baby Jesus and his pet cow.

It just astounds me that both candidates for Senate from Delaware had trouble with the 1st Amendment. But her bat sh** blind ignorance concerning the establishment of religion concerns me a lot more than Coons failure to remember the other protections cited in that Amendment.

They should have to do at least 25 hours of continuing education per year from an accredited school dealing with the constitution and DOI

That's why it's important for all of us to have a basic understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights so we can keep a close eye on politicians.

travelingirl wrote: That's why it's important for all of us to have a basic understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights so we can keep a close eye on politicians.

Good post TG

I think we all have a basic understanding, usually from a civics class in high school. But I want our elected representatives to have more than a basic understanding. I want them to be waaaay smarter than me in all things constitutional. Probably other things, too.

Scruffy wrote: I think we all have a basic understanding, usually from a civics class in high school. But I want our elected representatives to have more than a basic understanding. I want them to be waaaay smarter than me in all things constitutional. Probably other things, too.

They would probably just spin whatever you had read them. For example the religion issue. Goverment shall not support one religion over another. So would that include teaching about the world religions in grade school? Or would not teaching about religion in grade school constitute support for secular humanism.

Since "support for secular humanism" is an adult concept, and the absence of teaching religion does not equal "secular humanism", No.

Teaching about world religions hardly seems appropriate for a grade-school audience. If they wish to learn about it at Sunday School, or in their parents home, have at it. And it's hardly on the same level as a nut-job Senate candidate who is obviously ignorant of the contents of the First Amendment, after lying on her resume about "attending" Claremont University, when it was actually a few days of a course on "The Constitution"??? She must have been absent the day they covered the First Amendment. Not only is she ignorant, she's a liar.

I have always felt it was a parent's decision to teach their children about religion, if they so choose. The constitution, that should fall to the schools, and parents should encourage their schools to include it in more than one grade.