Mr. Chairman, in a 1952 Supreme Court case, Zorach versus Clawson, in an opinion written, I think, by Justice Douglas, it said, there is ``No constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.'' Similar to that, a few years ago the great columnist for the Washington Post, William Raspberry, who I am sure most people would describe as being fairly liberal on most issues, when he was writing about an issue similar to this, he said ``Is it not just possible that anti-religious bias, masquerading as religious neutrality, has cost this Nation far more than we have been willing to acknowledge?''
Jeff Duncan: “Mr. Chairman, in a 1952 Supreme Court case, Zorach versus Clawson, in an opinion written, I think, by Justice Douglas…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the relationship between government and religion during a legislative debate.
Share
More from Jeff Duncan
I think we have to talk about spending in a way that says Donald Trump spent $8 trillion we didn't have and he's a fake Republican for doing that.
In World War II, we stopped the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge by running them out of fuel. We can influence the war in Ukraine by stopping the flow of money to Vladimir Putin through his sale of oil and gas by becoming an energy…
I have no additional Members on our side of the aisle, and I am ready to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
I am thankful, once again, for the bipartisan nature of this legislation. I thank Ranking Member DeGette on the subcommittee and Ranking Member Pallone and their staff for all they have done. Let's get this passed. Let's work with our…





