Without Religion Caucus Is Now In Congress

For the first time in U.S. history, a caucus has been established of those not affiliated with any religion. This caucus will promote legislation and Congressional practices which reduce the influence of religion.

Religion is present in Washington ad nauseam. We have legislation against gay marriage and abortion plus prayers and speeches with “God bless American and God bless you” in every Presidential speech. There has never been a inside dam holding back religious excesses.

One of the readily apparent currents in Washington is anti science. The caucus hopes to promote objective scientific evidence for decisions instead of religion and political bias. As we speak, the Department of Human Services is cutting back pregnancy prevention programs for teens. It wants an abstinence only program in spite of scientifically collected information that abstinence only does not delay sexual activity or teen pregnancy. At its core is the belief sex out of marriage is a sin.

Everyone who follows national politics knows the coming Supreme Court nomination fight will be about whether the next justice will use the religious definition of when a human being begins or use some definition not dictated by religion. I’m referring, of course, to the religious notion that one fertilized cell is a human being. It is not necessary for members of Congress and the large staff that supports it to spend our money on nonsense. Yet, promoting nonsense is what some members, the current majority, have done.

Here’s hoping for a little progress from the not religious caucus.

21 Responses

  1. Jinx II

    I am all for common sense, religious free law. I am all for separation of state and religion, the founding fathers had a good reason for setting this up and the insipid arguments of the christian shariah cult members are as worthless as teats on a boar. Go to it boys.

      1. Jinx II 8:15 BTW, excellent topic, Jon.

        Thanks, Jinx II. It’s a sign of hope to me that even four members of the house can out themselves as not religious, go home and apparently feel they can run successfully for re election. I’ll be watching to see if others come along eventually.

        1. Logic defies the man who describes 2 self-identified Roman Catholics as “not religious”. The caucus of 4 have 2 Catholics and 2 Humanists. Their caucus will be as relevant as galoshes in the Mojave. Now if you want to talk about the Freedom Caucus …

    1. Jinx II

      Much better than the treasonous, corrupt, cowardly pack of Repugnants that sit in the white house and in the halls of congress. BTW you voted for them and him fakechristianjuice.

  2. Mike

    It is interesting, Matt, that you pointed out there were 2 Catholics as members of this religion-hating “caucus”, but all Democrats. Nancy Pelosi & Ted Kennedy are just two of the more prominent Catholics of a Democratic party that long ago began governing without a religion core.

    Their allegiance in this “new” Democrat party is to the state, and that state is God-less. Karl Marx is the hero of many in this country for that very reason. He trashed religion as the “opiate of the people” and conned people into thinking he had their best interest at heart. What he really wanted was the state to be their god. History shows us the results of the Marx dream/con: Russia, China, Vietnam, N Korea, Cuba, etc.

    However, I don’t know what Jinx, Jon etal are complaining about. Our country is quickly becoming that god-less state they so desire. They should be happy! However, maybe like a lot of liberals that complain, they already know that freedom is much better than tyranny, and still choose to remain citizens of the United States of America. Sounds like hypocrisy to me!

    1. Mike 7:01 ..of a Democratic party that long ago began governing without a religious core…Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

      We can all have our views about hypocrisy and you are welcome to yours. To me, hypocrisy is a President who sleeps around, cannot tell the truth about most anything and is embraced by a party that calls itself “Christian.”

      And then there is abortion. The majority of women who get abortions are Christians.


      And, 98% of the anti birth control Catholic Church practice artificial birth control.

      1. Chuck Z

        In the eyes of the law, a fertilized human egg is not a viable life, a fertilized eagle egg is. Hypocrisy.

      2. Vince

        According to an article in Pew Research “A closer look at Catholic America” 49% of US Catholics are over the age of 49 and 20 percent of those are 65 and older. If you are referring to US Catholics I am not sure how that equates to 98% practicing birth control.

        Now if you are referring to Catholics who are capable of conceiving as practicing birth control, I am pretty sure that claim was debunked due to the questions used to ask if the respondents “had ever” used birth control and proposed 12 methods to choose from in order to get a positive response.

  3. Henry

    Jon, here is a tip on how to keep the “one cell” baby from screaming during the abortion procedure. You just snip the vocal cords. Less stress on the mother to not hear the wailing of their “one cell” baby during the procedure. The docker and nurses do not care. They have thick enough skin. It is for the benefit of the mother. Please pass this information onto your abortion practitioner friends. Thanks.


      1. Henry

        “The fetus has no access to air (as I understand it).”. Absolutely correct, until the “one cell” baby’s placenta is cleanly sliced open allowing air inside.

  4. Henry

    “We can all have our views about hypocrisy and you are welcome to yours. To me, hypocrisy is a President who sleeps around, cannot tell the truth about most anything and is embraced by a party that calls itself “Christian.” Jon, all of that would be Billy Clinton. He even carried his bible into his Methodist church.

    1. Henry 7:42 Jon, all of that would be Billy Clinton.

      You are referring to the hypocrites Mike wrote about, Democrats. I was talking about other hypocrites, Republicans.

      1. The trouble with your logic is that you focus on things you don’t care about but think the average voter thinks and cares about.

        Even if Trump was everything you stated, the vote was between Hillary and Trump. Each had their positives and negatives.

        As you state, Jon, “To me, hypocrisy is a President who sleeps around, cannot tell the truth about most anything and is embraced by a party that calls itself “Christian.”

        Please tell me where the Republican Party calls itself Christian. I’ve downloaded the Party Platform and the word “Christian” appears 8 times and nowhere does it refer to the Party as Christian. Most often it refers to the persecution of Christians and other religious people around the world. The Democrat platform mentions the word Christian once, in relation to persecution.

        By contrast, the Republican party platform mentions the word Muslim once, in terms of the persecution of Muslims and Christians. The Democrat party platform has 6 references to the word Muslim, with 4 co-referenced to Donald Trump and his persecution and intolerance of Muslims!

        Jon, it is you who have trouble telling the truth, on a daily basis.

        Assuming Donald Trump did as Stormy Daniels stated, had sex with her once in 2006, it is terrible considering he was married at the time. Do you know of any other sexual sins you want to disclose about Trump? Then there is Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan. What are the sexual sin history? Welll, Bill Clinton had extramarital sex about as often as he bit his lower lip but his antics and subsequent lying got him impeached.

        I would vote for Trump over Hillary again. I’m not voting for priest or bishop – never have and never will – haha. We all vote for the best of 2 bad choices, or so some portray it, in every election. We choose someone who we prefer to govern, write laws, enact orders, etc.

  5. Since when do liberals care about morals? Evangelicals don’t either, apparently. I don’t think its asking too much to have a President with some moral character. Ron Paul has been faithful to the same wife for over 60 years but evangelicals were not interested in him because he is not Israeli-centric warmonger.

    1. Henry

      Ron Paul is a sinner, too. If we try to find a political candidate based solely on perceived works righteousness, we are setting ourselves up for failure and in the end by that model, will get results like Bill or Barrack. Barrack knew Larry Sinclair. How about that works righteousness?

    1. Vince 8:25 Thanks for commenting.

      Jon what definition would you use to say when a human being begins?

      I answered this identical question yesterday–but OK, once more. After I answer you will claim I did not answer it:

      1.) One fertilized cell is not a human being.
      2.) The Supreme Court in Roe laid out rules under which abortions can be performed.
      3.) I trust women and doctors to make sound moral judgments.
      4.) Government and people now use the birth certificate as the start of a human’s life.

      So much valuable space has been used up here on this argument I’m reluctant to use more. I’d appreciate it if you would not post, “You didn’t answer my question.” I did.

Comments are closed.