Obviously it's Constitutionally illegal. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits government officials from advocating a particular religion while on the job.
Cooper made a fundraising video for an evangelical group, Christian Embassy, which carries out missionary work among the Washington elite. Cooper says of his Bible study, “it’s not really about carving out time, it really is a matter of saying what is important. And since that’s more important than doing the job — the job’s going to be there, whether I’m there or not.”
Veterans for Common Sense and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation believe Cooper violated the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits government officials from advocating a particular religion while on the job.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/06/3661/
What do you think??
2007-09-07 09:28:20 · 7 answers · asked by plenum222 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
To Davidmi - The article states that he currently holds the office of undersecretary for benefits at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
2007-09-07 10:01:36 · update #1
To Boots and Lola: The interpretation of the first amendment in various court cases includes government officials in either official or unofficial capacity to represent or advocate (among other activities) any particular religion. Cooper did just that.
2007-09-07 10:05:22 · update #2
Chris: "...establishment of religion..." can take many forms, including members of the administration speaking for or advocating religious organizations. Consider this: What if VPCheney began to Buddhist ceremonies and began to advocate the faith? What if he began to attend and speak for Wiccan rituals and the Earth Mother...then began to encourage members of Congress and his administrative staff to look into and discover the meaningful.... (blah-blah-blah). Is this what you voted for and how you want your national representatives to behave? No - of course not! And this is how the "separation of church and state" is generally interpreted.
Private advocacy is one thing - public advocacy is another....and illegal.
2007-09-07 10:19:12 · update #3
No, I don't think the government officials should promote religious organizations when the Constitution forbids it.
. . . congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. . .
that's been construed to be the separation of church and state -- independent from their legal duties, though, I don't know that the officials are barred from religious actions (wouldn't it be an infringement on their right to freedom of religion if we prevented them from action on their own time . . .)?
Should they be allowed to use their legal status to help promote their religion? No.
Is it illegal -- I don't think so -- as long as they're not acting in their legal status.
2007-09-07 09:37:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Does this mean if you are in the military you lose your freedom of speech? That is also in the first amendment.
The constitution does not say that it says"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."
It does not say a government employee can not talk about religion. It say they can not force you to be in one or prevent you from being in one. If they could not bring up religion then every President has broken the law when they are sworn in.
2007-09-07 09:45:57 · answer #2 · answered by Chris 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No part of the first amendment prohibits "government officials from advocating a particular religion while on the job". The first amendment simply states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
2007-09-07 09:40:18 · answer #3 · answered by bootedbylibsx2 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's not what the Constitution says regarding the first amendment and religion.
It says-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.
2007-09-07 09:42:18 · answer #4 · answered by Run Lola Run 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The US Congress is prohibited from interfering with Religious practices. Mr Cooper is NOT the US Congress, nor even a Member of Congress. Any Complaints against him should be for Dereliction of his Duties and for accepting public funds as
compensation for the performance of Duties that he is not performing. Converting public funds to your personal use(accepting payment for Services not rendered) may be Fraud!! FOIA requests take nearly forever. Use a Subpoena instead.
2007-09-07 10:03:36 · answer #5 · answered by Motie E 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The same first amendment also allows him free speech. No where in your claim did you say he made that statement in his official capacity. The story does not indicate so either.
2007-09-07 09:37:04 · answer #6 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
funny thing is doesnt it also so all men are "created"equal? is that in itself a religeous statement?on the doors of the supreme court the ten commandements are displayed,on our currency it says in god we trust..religeon is every where in our government and freedom of religeon ,not freedom from religeon ,is what this country was founded on so get over it.
the government takes christmas and easter off too is this not a promotion of religeon?
2007-09-07 09:45:15 · answer #7 · answered by #1 NFL FAN 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋