over what is little more than an election-year hometown newspaper stunt, let's look at what's actually going on:

• Twenty-one cosponsors; not even enough, if they all sat on the committee where it was referred, to report it out of committee without an assist from the chairman.
• Who's the chairman of the committee to which this piece of legislation was referred?  Henry Waxman.  As much as you may disagree with some aspects of his chairmanship (i.e., the subpoenas to White House staffers), not even a wild-eyed Sam Harris foaming over the control of "Christofascists" or "The G-d Delusion" would think that this resolution stood any chance of becoming anything remotely resembling law.
• Finally, if there's no chance to actually pass this resolution, why was it submitted?  I can think of two reasons:  First, the sponsors may actually believe in what the bill says.  Good for them, they get to think that, and since they're members of Congress, they even get to say so in Congress.  Second, they could NOT believe it, and think (rightly or wrongly) that getting re-elected in their districts require stunts like this.  This resolution is for nobody except small-circulation dailies and weeklies in the home district of the sponsor, to fill column-inches on a slow news day.

So do us all a favor and relax.  I promise, if this is something that, you know, mattered, we would be all over it.

I have a stomach thing so i am lazing around a bit.

Backus preached a few towns over from me. I have been interested in his writings for quite a while now.

Backus suggested also that America could never become in spirit a true Christian nation until complete separation between church and state had been secured. He was called a traitor and a call went up for him to be hanged when he stood against "patriotic" Christians while he himself was serving as a Baptist agent at the 1774 Continental Congress.

"Religious matters are to be separated from the jurisdiction of the state not because they are beneath the interests of the state, but, quite to the contrary, because they are too high and holy and thus are beyond the competence of the state"

"Now who can hear Christ declare that his kingdom is not of this world, and yet believe that this blending of church and state together can be pleasing to him?"

Backus soon realized that the measure of control that the official state church had over the civil government of the state abridged the freedoms of non-official religious groups. The legislature compelled every town to set up and maintain a state church and to hire and provide for a minister holding an academic degree, all funded by the taxes of citizens regardless of religious affiliation. Those who refused to pay the tax were subject to punishment by the state through its agent, the local state congregation, including the seizure of personal property and imprisonment.

Backus believed this blending of church and state denied each person the right to worship God in the way he or she saw fit, and equated the support of a state church with the British actions that the Massachusetts legislature condemned. He maintained that the freedom of conscience, including the freedom of religion, was a central theme not only in the Scriptures but also in the liberal tradition. In 1774 Backus instructed the delegates to the First Congress on the importance of religious freedom and also served as a delegate from Middleborough to the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution in 1788.

[When] church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued. -- Isaac Backus