Monday, January 09, 2006


Rep. Matthew Hill is THE ENEMY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION (and ethics reform)

The following (except for the last paragraph) came from some comments on an earlier post. It is just too good to leave in the comments section.
Rep. Hill recently put forth the idea that public school systems should give rebate checks back to citizens that don't have children in the public school. HELLO????!!!

Would this not then make the PUBLIC SCHOOLS by DEFINITTION PRIVATE SCHOOLS?? That's because under the Hilly boy's anti-public education plan, the only people that would be paying for the school system would be the people with children in that school system. That's called a private school. Right??

Using the same logic, I want a rebate check back from the federal government because I never have attended any events funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. Of course the Hilly Boy's Cameo theatre took NEA money recently for an event that was held there. Remember everyone?? The CONSERVATIVE Hilly boy doesn't mind taking money from an organization that funded someone to put an inverted cross in urine, that is as long as it feathers the Hilly boy's own nest. He'll take money from anybody. How disgusting is this hypocrisy. And he's a CONSERVATIVE????????

If anyone that attended a public school supports Hilly boy and his radical agenda, you need to have your head checked.

By the way, Hilly boy once admitted on the air that he was in a special education class for Math in the public school system. I guess it's ok for us to pay for the Hilly boy's education, but he doesn't want to reciprocate. And this talk coming from a publicly financed East Tennessee State University graduate. Hilly boy is all about feathering his own nest and to heck with everyone else.

No wonder he's a Republican. Birds of the same feather flock together.
And in other news, no comment from Rep. Matthew Hill about the special session on ethics that Bredesen called. I guess he is just continuing his pattern of resisting ethics reform in Tennessee.

Hilly Boy's not the astute business man that he led everyone to believe. After this carpetbagger picked up and moved to Washington County from Sullivan County so he could run against Patton, he started up a coffee shop called "Hill of Beans". Well, that's been sold and Hilly Boy's business career is over. While there's nothing wrong with selling a business, the lovely hilly boy obviously wasn't in the Starbucks coffee league now was he? Again, there's nothing wrong with selling your business, but I bet the lovely Hilly boy found out that selling coffee is somewhat harder than selling JESUS to everyone. Or should I say begging money in the name of Jesus is a heck of alot easier way to make a living, especially when the JESUS money ends up in the Hilly Boy's own bank account. Come on people. If you've ever listened to WHCB, it's nothing more than a begfest in the name of JESUS. The problem is, and the way I see it, all of this begging for JESUS and the $$ that you send in, primarily ends up in the Hill's bank account. Public records show that Hilly boy's daddy lives in one of the richest subdivisions in Sullivan County. Now if JESUS were born in a manger, and what I've read, he didn't exactly hang out in the upper class part of town, How JESUS-like is it to beg for $$ in HIS name and then move to ultra-rich subdivisions?? I might see it moving to the rich part of town if you made it selling coffee, food, and auto parts or whatever. But to live the rich lifestyle from people who gave you money in the name of JESUS. That would scare the pants off of me. Maybe Mark Twain said it best. He once said, "If Jesus Christ were here today, he wouldn't be a Christian." Thanks Mark. Your pen is much more adept at expaining this than me. If Hilly boy had his way, we'd probably be required to give to Christian radio stations under mandate of state law. After all, he has said on his radio talk show when he hosted it that there was no separation of church and state. Scares me to death. Someone needs to ask the Hilly boy if it's his church that's one with the STATE. Or someone elses. Frightening. Absolutely frightening..............
Whoever wrote this hit the nail right on the head. I guess real ethics reform for Matthew Hill should include him getting a job other than that of "simony" as talked about in this post. I bet JESUS wouldn't appreciate it either. After all, even Jesus had a real job. I wonder if Matthew could swing a carpenter's hammer?? Don't bet on it. The only hammer he's swinging is the one over your pocketbook. I bet when the sales tax comes up again, he'll vote to raise it just like he supported those legislator's like Ramsey, etc., that voted to raise it in the past. Go figure. And he's a CONSERVATIVE. Go and tell the troops in Kosovo that........
Remember?? He protested that war. I found the proof on this website.................
There you go agreeing with yourself again Bob.
I have no idea if Bob wrote any of those comments.
As a history Professor and keeping all politics out of this post, one thing that drives me nuts if when people cite the "separation of church and state" as guaranteed within the constitution. The First Amendment reads as follows;
"Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now remember from a STRICTLY HISTORICAL perspective. The constitution states that the government will not establish a religion, such as the King of England did with The Church of England. Historically speaking in England one had to be a member of the church to have rights, privileges, etc., this is what our founding fathers were trying to prevent. Last time I checked, no Congressman, Senator, or President had decreed that the official religion of the US was Catholicism, or Islam, or Christianity. So please, know your history prior to attempting to quote history.
Whoever said that a President, Senator, or Congressman said that the official religion of the US is Catholicism, Christianity, Islam, etc???? However, with the so called CONSERVATIVE religious freaks that have infiltrated the Republican party, if they had their way, they would do this. And sometimes, their actions support this. Even big Hilly Boy has said numberous times on the radio that there is no separation of church and state. I'll defer to James Madison if anybody wants an education on this matter. I don't care if you have a PHD in history or whatever. Big deal. I get my education direct from the horses mouth. From the men that wrote the document. Quotes follow below for reference. Direct references to separation: And notice oh educated Great One. James Madison talks about the "total separation of the church from the state." Dang....
I guess the man that wrote a large portion of the Constitution didn't know what he was talking about, huh?? And I'm just a dumb hillbilly. Go figure......

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).
Madison's summary of the First Amendment:

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).
Against establishment of religion

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821).

Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it in some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government and Religion neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed, is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against. And in a Government of opinion like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law was right and necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was, which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects dissenting from the established sect was safe, and even useful. The example of the colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all sects might be safely and even advantageously put on a footing of equal and entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the Declaration of Independence has shown that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent country. if a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States which had abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virginia, where it is impossible to deny that religion prevails with more zeal and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronized by public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson: the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

If the Church of England had been the established and general religion and all the northern colonies as it has been among us here and uninterrupted tranquility had prevailed throughout the continent, it is clear to me that slavery and subjection might and would have been gradually insulated among us. Union of religious sentiments begets a surprising confidence and ecclesiastical establishments tend to grate ignorance and corruption all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects (Letter to William Bradford, Jan. 24, 1774).

[T]he prevailing opinion in Europe, England not excepted, has been that religion could not be preserved without the support of government nor government be supported without an established religion that there must be at least an alliance of some sort between them. It remained for North America to bring the great and interesting subject to a fair, and finally a decisive test.
It is true that the New England states have not discontinued establishments of religions formed under very peculiar circumstances; but they have by successive relaxations advanced toward the prevailing example; and without any evidence of disadvantage either to religion or good government.

But the existing character, distinguished as it is by its religious features, and the lapse of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of religion was withdrawn sufficiently proved that it does not need the support of government and it will scarcely be contended that government has suffered by the exemption of religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid. (Letter to Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or over-heated imaginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance, and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and with a toleration, is no security for and animosity; and, finally, that these opinions are supported by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between law and religion, from the partial example of Holland to the consummation in Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, &c., has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory. Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of Independence it was left, with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the change, and particularly in the sect which enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than that the law is not necessary to the support of religion (Letter to Edward Everett, Montpellier, March 18, 1823).
On Congressional chaplains and proclaimations of days of prayer:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the veil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution from each member of Cong wd suffice for the purpose! How just wd it be in its principle! How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience! Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Gov. (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on the private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation that the deviation from it took place in Congress, when they appointed chaplains, to be paid from the National Treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose a pittance from their own pockets. As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that can now be done may be to apply to the Constitution the maxim of the law, de minimis non curat [i.e., the law does not care about such trifles].
There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive proclamations of fasts and festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of INJUNCTION, or have lost sight of the equality of ALL religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the executive trust, I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere DESIGNATIONS of a day on which all who thought proper might UNITE in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith and forms. In this sense, I presume, you reserve to the Government a right to APPOINT particular days for religious worship. I know not what may be the way of thinking on this subject in Louisiana. I should suppose the Catholic portion of the people, at least, as a small and even unpopular sect in the U. States would rally as they did in Virginia when religious liberty was a Legislative topic to its broadest principle (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

Did Madison want the Bill of Rights to apply to the states?

No state shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech, or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal cases [Proposed amendment to make certain parts of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states].
The Congressional Record of August 17, 1789 made the following comment on Madison's proposal:

MR. MADISON Conceived this to be the most valuable amendment on the whole list; if there was any reason to restrain the government of the United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally necessary that they should be secured against the state governments; he thought that if they provided against the one, it was an necessary to provide against the other, and was satisfied that it would be equally grateful to the people (from Alley, James Madison on Religious Liberty, pp. 75-76).
Madision's definition of "establishment":

One can get some idea of Madison's defintion of establishment by looking at his veto messages for certain legislation presented to him by Congress during his presidency. Generally, Madision's definition was expansive; he vetoed legislation incorporating an Episcopal church in the District of Columbia, and reserving a parcel of land for a Baptist church. Read in context, these veto messages demolish the claim that Madison would have turned a blind eye to minor religious establishments.

Veto Message, Feb 21, 1811 By James Madison, to the House of Representatives of the United States: Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexander, in the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:
Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.' [Note: Madison quotes the Establishment Clause incorrectly; Constitutional scholar Leonard Levy comments on this misquoting as follows: "His [Madison's] use of "religious establishment" enstead of "establishment of religion" shows that he thought of the clause in the Frist Amendment as prohibiting Congress from making any law touching or "respecting" religious institutions or religions; The Establishment Clause, p. 119].

The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and policy of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor can it be considered that the articles thus established are to be taken as the descriptive criteria only of the corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics, as the regulations established are in general unessential and alterable according to the principles and canons by which churches of the denomination govern themselves, and as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to the violation of them according to the local law.

Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty [Note: both of the last paragraphs suggest that Madision did not think it was the role of government to aid even the charitable and educational aspects of religion, even non-preferentially].

Veto message, Feb 28, 1811, by James Madison. To the House of Representatives of the United States: Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act for the relief of Richard Trevin, William Coleman, Edwin Lewis, Samuel Mims, Joseph Wilson, and the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, in the Mississippi Territory," I now return the same to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objection:
Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land of the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares the 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment (note: Madison again misquotes the establishment clause).

Madison and religion at public universities:

I am not surprised at the dilemma produced at your University by making theological professorships an integral part of the system. The anticipation of such a one led to the omission in ours; the visitors being merely authorized to open a public hall for religious occasions, under impartial regulations; with the opportunity to the different sects to establish theological schools so near that the students of the University may respectively attend the religious exercises in them. The village of Charlottesville, also, where different religious worships will be held, is also so near, that resort may conveniently be had to them.
A University with sectarian professorships becomes, of course, a sectarian monopoly: with professorships of rival sects, it would be an arena of Theological Gladiators. Without any such professorships, it may incur, for a time at least, the imputation of irreligious tendencies, if not designs. The last difficulty was thought more manageable than either of the others.

On this view of the subject, there seems to be no alternative but between a public University without a theological professorship, and sectarian seminaries without a University.

...With such a public opinion, it may be expected that a University, with the feature peculiar to ours, will succeed here if any where. Some of the clergy did not fail to arraign the peculiarity; but it is not improbable that they had an eye to the chance of introducing their own creed into the professor's chair. A late resolution for establishing an Episcopal school within the College of William and Mary, though in a very guarded manner, drew immediate animadversions from the press, which, if they have not put an end to the project, are a proof of what would follow such an experiment in the University of the State, endowed and supported, as this will be altogether by the public authority and at the common expense (Letter to Edward Everett, Montpellier, March 18, 1823).

I am not even what one would call a religious man, and yes President Madison espoused the "Separation" of church in state in many of his private and personal writings, letters to friends, associates, etc., but the one place that he did not state this was the one place where it matters most, the Constitution. Since this "establishment" on behalf of the federal government has not been attempted, then I see that no violation of the constitution has occurred. As far as Chaplains in the military, and or Congress and the Senate, this is in no way an establishment of religion by the government. Now before anyone states that it is, take note that not all Chaplains have been Baptist, or Methodist (i.e. Protestant) but there have been Catholic Priests, and Jewish Rabbi that have served as Guest Chaplains. Historically a very liberal denomination (Unitarian) has been strongly represented. I can attest to the fact that there are religious leaders from EVERY religious faith. Now that being said, if the US government were interested in establishing an "official" religion, you would think that in 200 + years they could have settled on one faith. I served proudly for this country in order to preserve the rights of all people. But my question that I would like to hear some feedback on is why all the extreme liberal and extreme conservatives (note I said EXTREME) scream and shout for tolerance of their own views, but cannot even offer the same tolerance that they so desperately desire, those who disagree with their view. Is that not the very definition of hypocritical?
That comment was about the longest one I have seen on a blog, but it is welcome, and I am going to take some time to figure out what I think about those. I must agree that tolerance is not practiced by extreme people at all, even if they preach it. Those on the extremes seem to only be able to see their own views. When those people are in office it scares me, because they may make decisions about our state's or country's future that are not wise.
Sorry Mr. History Professor. I disagree. Chaplains in the government, military, Congress is an attempt at the establishment of religion. I agree with James Madison and disagree with you. I think his opinion carries more weight than yours. We'll just have to agree to disagree. One thing for sure. These extreme so-called Conservatives like Hilly boy would have our civil liberties if given the chance. The very statement that he's publicly made on the radio that he doesn't believe that there is a separation of church and state is chilling. I don't belong to Hilly boy's church, so I guess if he has his way, it will probably be against the law for me to worship the god or gods of my choice. I'm scared to death here in Jonesboro. Whatever happened to the Thomas Jefferson's of the world. He said, and I'll paraphrase, "What does it matter if my neighbor worships one god or twenty gods? It neither breaks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
The anonymous James Madison fan would further their case better if they calmed down. I don't like politicians pushing their religious beleifs so much, but I don't think we are that close to the end of all civil liberties because of it, as you seem to suggest. As a Christian, I prefer my legislators to be Christians too. I am sure those of another religion, or atheists, feel the same.

However, I don't want Christianity legislated only because it opens the door for any other kind of spiritual legislation later. All these hard core conservatives trying to get Christianity legislated would reverse course if those in office were Muslim or Communist.
Calm down salida?? Whoever said that I wasn't calm. Come on now. You can do better than attack the messenger arguments. Pure rhetoric which means nothing. I try to back up my statements with some historical evidence as in the Madison posting. Wanting me to "calm down" has nothing whatsover to do with the discussion at end. Go pick up a logic book and look up "ad hominem" attack. You might just get "yerself edumocated."
Matthew Hill: Tennessee State Representative


I've recently come across this web site and was shocked to see Rep. Matthew Hill engaged in a war protest about the war in Kosovo. As a veteran, I find this disgusting. And I recall he had some sort of troop send off or benefit a year or two ago. What is it Mr. Hill??? I'll support the troops as long as they serve underneath a Republican President and not underneath a Democratic President?? Where's the "I support the troops" sign in this disgusting war protest story. Mr. Hill is just what I expected. It depends on what audience he's talking to as to what he's saying.
Although I'm a Democrat, if there's a Republican running in the upcoming primary, I'm voting for him in order to get this war protesting hypocrite out of office.
Not to mention, and what I've heard, he's also a carpetbagger. Somebody who just moved into the district in order to run for office. If you look at his contributions on the Tennessee Election of Registry finance webpage, most of his financial support comes from outside the district. Go figure. Carpetbagging Yankee if you ask me. Let's get this Republican sycophant out of office NOW!! Vote EVEN for ANY Republican in the upcoming primary!!
Ha no one has to say you aren't calm...the tone of your rhetoric tells us all you are anything but calm.
Matthew Hill: Tennessee State Representative

Matthew Hill: Tennessee State War Protestor

Looks to me like Matthew Hill might be East Tennessee's answer to Timothy Leary!!!!!

Peace man peace!!!!
Wasn't Leary associated with advocating the use of know, like "drop out & tune-in" or whatever?

In all fairness to Matthew Hill: Tennessee State Representative --- and perhaps more so to Timothy Leary --- Rep. Hill is only addicted to the Gregory campaign money, the soft lifestyle provided to his family by the Gregory "charitable contributions" flowing into the 501 (c)(3) tax-exempt Appalachain Educational Communications Corporation, and the mind-altering intake of GOP.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Technorati Ping