"Religious Bill of Rights" Killed by Democrats on Party-line Vote

Imagine a world where religious ideals are not imposed by the State. Imagine a world where religion is not imposed upon the secular, nor secularism imposed upon the religious. These are the ideals America was and is based upon, the ideals held strongly by our Founding Fathers. Fast-forward to 2010 to a small room in the Colorado State Capitol. There in this room the Religious Bill of Rights, SB10-089 is attempting to uphold those ideals within the public school system.

However, with misconstrued facts and obvious anti-Christian ideology, the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to kill the bill, which would have created some clarity into what is and what is not legal in the expression of one’s religious rights within the public school setting. Our Founding Fathers would have been appalled.

At first, it seems understandable that the committee shot down the bill, many members believing that this bill was an attempt to establish Christian “imperialism” in our public schools (although it was obviously religion-neutral). It is also understandable that American history expresses the freedom, which we express in our religion, especially after escaping the Religiously-doctrined Imperial power of Britain. By all means we do not want a return to the days of forcing children into Christianity, Judaism or any other religion. But the Religious Bill of Rights proposed ideas far from these ancient ideas.

What the bill did propose was the allow children, parents, and teachers to understand what religious practice could be exhibited by children and conducted by children. It also allowed for parents to understand how “exposed” their children can be. To provide this information, the bill requested the Commissioner of Education to request clarification of the Attorney General of commonly asked questions by teachers, students and parents and to provide court citations for clarifying answers.

Opposition to the bill came from the usual crowd. The ACLU, the Anti-defamation League (ADL), the Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, Transgender activists, (GLBT) and a Jewish Rabbi…all appearing to be strongly opposed to Christian ideology, and all attempting to squelch religious freedoms from Christians (since there are more in numbers than all other faiths combined).

Click here to listen to some of the testimony from the ACLU's and GLBT's representatives.

These outside activist groups felt as if they were being alienated from this bill. One opponent that distinguished himself from the others was Rabbi Foster. Somehow, this Rabbi understood this bill to be establishing the dominance of Christianity over his religious view as well as that of Muslims, Buddhists, and Atheists. Rabbi Foster believed this bill conveyed a “sense that Judaism is pitted against Christianity” and continued to attack the bill with all of the opponents missing the point that this bill was only designed to inform citizens of laws already in effect. His strongest argument against establishing a document that clarified pre-established rights was that:

“Some peoples' religious traditions believe that it’s important for others to believe what they believe” It seemed obvious that this Rabbi's comments implied that my goal was to impose my religious beliefs upon all of Colorado's K-12 school children, teachers and administration.

Click here to listen to a portion of the Rabbi's testimony.

Democrat Senators, looking for any reason to kill the bill, then used this testimony to express concern that this bill might have some negative affect on students who may feel their religious beliefs were not being expressed as frequently. The apparent consequence of this thinking leads to minimizing the awareness of the 1st Amendment for the majority of Coloradans, thereby not "offending" those of minority faiths and the religiously-intolerant. To be expected, the Democrat-controlled committee conveniently overlooked the degree to which secular ideas infringe the rights of religious children and teachers of all faiths.

The Committee also used the tired argument that laws are already in place to “remedy” issues where students are denied their basic inherent rights. This bill was to make sure that these rights were known; "rights" without one's knowledge of them cannot be exercised. What societal benefit would there be if laws for driving motor vehicles were not known? This bill was designed to provide a preventive measure against the willful or uninformed violation of student’s First Amendment Rights.

Clearly, the Progressive Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee would rather maintain a public school system that refuses to acknowledge the Religious Freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution to its citizens, in the hopes that they will remain ignorant of this important freedom.

"A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin

"A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins."
- Benjamin Franklin

A good Federal jobs program that costs taxpayers nothing

January 24, 2010 6:50 PM

By Dave Schultheis

If we could wave a magic wand and add 100,000 new jobs to Colorado’s economy over the next three years, who wouldn’t go for it? We do not have a magic wand, but we have the next best thing: a program to reserve new jobs only for citizens and legal immigrants.

The internet-based federal E-Verify program allows employers to screen all new hires against a database that matches names to Social Security numbers and immigration records. More than 175,000 employers are now enrolled in the Department of Homeland Security program, and nationally, one in four new hires are processed by E-Verify.

Why doesn’t Colorado utilize this program? Actually, it does, but only timidly. Since 2006, any company doing business with a state government agency must participate in the federal E-Verify program.

So, why doesn’t Colorado require all employers to use it? Strangely, that proposal has been opposed mainly because… well, because it works. E-verify is effective in denying jobs to illegal aliens. Therefore business owners, who think they need illegal workers, oppose any measure to reserve jobs for legal workers.

Many employers end up avoiding the program because it works too well. Those opponents are joined by advocates for “migrant rights” who think a right to an illegal job should be guaranteed to anyone who succeeds in crossing our borders illegally. The people not represented in that odd coalition are the unfortunate American workers losing jobs to illegal workers.

Opponents blocked a proposal in the 2006 special session of the state legislature, and every year since, that would have mandated use of E-Verify across Colorado. In its place the legislature passed a toothless measure merely requiring employers to keep records that are then supposedly subject to audit. Three years later, not one employer has been fined and not one illegal worker has been dismissed under this meaningless law.

It is hard to make a serious argument that employers cannot find legal workers in an economy suffering from historically high unemployment. Farm laborers, you say?

The federal government already has a program for guest workers in agriculture, ski resorts, landscaping and similar seasonal businesses. Moreover, less than 5 percent of illegal aliens are employed in agriculture according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

It’s time to move forward to assure Colorado jobs for Colorado citizens and legal immigrants. E-Verify is not “anti-immigrant,” because real immigrants have green cards and can work legally.

Arguments against the program by the employer community rely mainly on myths and scare tactics. Here are a few facts opponents try to hide:

Based on a Government Accounting Office audit, the internet-based E-Verify program has an enviable error rate of only .004. More than 96 percent of new hire applicants are processed and approved within 24 hours.

Only 2.8 percent of applicants are rejected due to a mismatch between name and Social Security number, and 90 percent of those persons do not protest the rejection. More than 175,000 employers now participate nationally and an average 1,200 employers joined the program each week in 2009.

The cost to employers to set up the program is less than $100.

Employer participation in the program has grown 274 percent since 2007.

In September 2009, all federal agencies began requiring contractors to use the program.

Another argument sometimes used by opponents is that expansion of the E-verify program should await congressional action on immigration reform. In truth, the exact opposite is the case. Only when the public is convinced the nation is enforcing existing laws against illegal workers will it make any sense to consider a more ambitious reform.

In fact, that is the position of the Obama administration. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano declared in a November speech at the ultra-liberal Center for American Progress that “E-verify is an essential element of any comprehensive reform agenda.”

The federal E-Verify program is neither radical nor punitive.

Any employer participating in the program can use that participation as an affirmative defense against federal immigration enforcement if the company is ever audited by immigration authorities.

Adopting the E-Verify program will establish a level playing field for employers wanting to obey the law but are in competition against other employers using illegal labor to cut costs. This unfair competition will be reduced drastically if all employers would be required to hire only legal workers.

I plan to introduce legislation once more to adopt the E-Verify program in Colorado. If legislation fails, a ballot initiative will allow Colorado voters to make that decision on November 2.

---

State Sen. Schultheis is a Republican from Colorado Springs