Anti-Christian Activists Claim Marco Rubio’s Tweets are ‘Constitutional Violation’

Christian Politicians by Definition Must Act on their Christian Beliefs

By William M Briggs Published on August 30, 2017

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is so upset that Senator Marco Rubio has been tweeting quotations from the Bible, they wrote him a hot letter about it.

Professing themselves to be wise, the group became fools and say Senators quoting the Bible is a “constitutional violation.”

We understand that you have been tweeting bible verses from @MarcoRubio to nearly three million followers. It appears that you began tweeting the bible in mid-May and have been doing so regularly ever since. This is not an errant bible verse or two, but more than 60 bible verses in three months. That’s enough verses to tweet the entire Book of Jude. Twice.

That’s a Lot of Tweets!

The comic image of a group of spotty, oh-so-rational, atheists tallying Rubio’s tweets with word counts of Biblical books is something we can all appreciate.

Jude comes in at a mere 460 or so words, depending on the translation. Anybody can tweet that much. If Rubio wants to match Jeremiah, which runs around 33,000 words, he’s got his work cut out for him. It’d take over two thousand tweets!

Why do the Freedom From folks say quoting the Bible is a “constitutional violation”? Because Rubio has “intimately entwined” his Senatorial position with Twitter, “creating the appearance of official endorsement” of Christianity.

This is bad because, they say, the bitter clingers out there “cannot be expected to discern the difference between an official government statement and a private statement when the source of those statements has not itself bothered to make the distinction clear.”

That’s Absurd!

I know what you’re thinking. But there is no point in dismissing these idiocies because they’re absurd. They are absurd, but absurdity is no longer a bar to government action.

Just think: We have a Supreme (note the adjective) Court that says two men can claim to be married to each other and that you too must agree with that claim. That’s absurd. We have virtue-signalling pencil-necks like NBA commissioner Adam Silver threatening to withdraw his little orange balls unless the cities in which his teams play agree to allow grown men to use the girl’s showers. That’s absurd.

We have lawmakers in Governor Moonbeam’s land of fruits and nuts threatening to pass a law that would makes it illegal for citizens to speak the truth. That’s absurd. We have masked zealots running around bashing people on the head while screeching “No hate!”, and saying we’ll be free when there is no free speech. That’s absurd.

Clearly, absurdity no longer counts as a counter argument. We have to find another path.

That’s Religious!

Rubio’s obsessed tweet counters are part of a definite trend of Enlightened people who say political figures should not let their religion influence their public actions.

That plea is also absurd. If a man takes his religious beliefs seriously, then he has no choice but to let those beliefs influence all his actions, public and private. It’s impossible for the truly religious man to excise those parts of him that are not religious, and let only those show in public, because the whole of him is religious. Whoever is in Christ is a new creation.

Saying that a politician should not let Christianity affect his votes is thus saying there should be no Christian politicians. That, of course, is the true goal of  the Freedom from Religion people, and of many others.

Take Esquire, the magazine of celebrity tittle-tattle and sock-color matching. Its writer Charles P. Pierce found Rubio’s tweets “oddly terrifying.” Worse was the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin, who said that Rubio must have been hacked or that he “totally lost it.”

Later, Rubin painted Rubio’s actions as immature and naive. “Totally tone deaf. Like the high school prom king got swapped with the real senator from an important state.”

This is worse because Rubin labels herself the “conservative blogger” at Jeff Bezos’s printed plaything.

That’s No Conservative!

When “conservatives” are shocked or dismayed at hearing “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid” something has gone very wrong.

And, in truth, everywhere we see “conservatives” retreating from Christianity, or from traditional Christian positions. Just do a search for “The conservative case for,” and up will pop arguments for “conservatives” to embrace whatever is the latest anti-Christian novelty. 

It’s unlikely the Supreme Court will claim that Senators quoting the Bible equates to official government endorsement of Christianity. But the absurd is becoming the norm, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility that government employment may someday soon be denied to those who quote Jesus, who said, “Whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.”

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Hannah

    The double speak from the Left is nauseating. I can’t help but think of Zmirak’s “You Might Be a Victimist If…” article not that long ago.

  • Trilemma

    Government employees are allowed to express their religious beliefs in their personal space. Twitter is Mr Rubio’s personal space. Nobody is encountering his Twitter comments when dealing with him in his official capacity as a senator.

    • Jerome Horwitz

      And I have been told point blank by others if you work for the government in any capacity, you are to check your religious beliefs at the door. Of course, such thinking is unconstitutional and rather Marxist, but this is what I was told.

      • Trilemma

        Whoever told you that is obviously wrong. Government employees actually have more religious freedom in the workplace than employees in the private sector. On August 14, 1997, The Clinton administration released guidelines on religious expression in the federal workplace that say what forms of religious expression are protected. The guidelines have been used by every administration since Clinton and are used by state governments too. You can read the guidelines here. (Remove the spaces around the dots.)

        clintonwhitehouse2 . archives . gov/WH/New/html/19970819-3275.html

  • Bryan

    What I don’t get is why more people, the ones who the letters of FFRF are supposedly trying to protect from Christian’s, aren’t insulted by those letters? Each letter that I’ve seen basically says that somebody might take offense to something that was said or written, especially if they took it the wrong way or didn’t understand that the person saying it was doing so not in their official capacity but in their personal capacity and that it in no way was a mandate or the establishment of a specific religion. If the letter was directed towards me, I know I would be insulted at the assumption that I couldn’t figure that out on my own.

    • Alice Cheshire

      It is quite amazing that being reduced to a sniveling, helpless, frightened little baby is now something to be proud of. What a stupid, enslaving, and evil philosophy.

  • Aliquantillus

    The Freedom from Religion Foundation operates from a deep misunderstanding of the relations between religion and state. What the American constitution prohibits is just the establishment of a State Religion. What it permits is the free exercise of religion. This means that for example the President of the US, or any chosen official or representative, is permitted to invoke his religious beliefs if and when he finds these beliefs relevant or motivating to his political work. In fact, a person might be chosen to be President or Senator exactly for his religious beliefs about how America should be governed. In all these things democracy works as a free market system of ideas. And what is permitted for secular ideas is also permitted for religious ideas.

    The real critical point is that a President, or Congress, is not allowed to elevate Christianity — in one of its historical churches and denominations — or any other religion, to the position of the official religion of the United States of America. The counterweight to this is that it is not permitted to use the offices of government to outlaw religion or religious influence, for this would impede the free exercise clause of the constitution.

    The influence of religous ideas on the government is thus not problematic from a constitutional perspective. This influence simply follows the eb and flow of general opinion and the polls. If Americans want a President or members of Congress who are explicitly religious in one way or another, they can have them. However, if they want secular persons, they can have them too. No problem. The only extremes excluded are either the estblishment of a formal State Religion or the suppression of the free exercise of religious faith. There’s plenty of space for everyone in the American system.

    Ironically, the real problem is the Freedom from Religion Foundation itself. For the goal of this Foundation is nothing less but the eradication of all religion, at least in the public sphere. This goal is anti-constitutional, because it destroys the carefully balanced position of the Constitution. In fact, it completely destroys the free exercise clause.

    • Paul

      “The Freedom from Religion Foundation operates from a deep misunderstanding of the relations between religion and state.”

      A misunderstanding implies that truth will resolve their bad thinking. But as you later note:

      “..the real problem is the Freedom from Religion Foundation itself! For the goal of this Foundation is nothing else but the eradication of all religion, at least in the public sphere. This goal is anti-constitutional, because it destroys the carefully balanced position of the Constitution. In fact, it completely destroys its free exercise clause.”

      They don’t misunderstand, they know full well they oppose what the Constitution actually says and sell lies to those stupid enough to buy them.

      • meamsane

        “They don’t misunderstand, they know full well they oppose what the
        Constitution actually says and sell lies to those stupid enough to buy

        The Supreme Court could also be put into this category, since the SC is the government entity that itself redefined the historical meaning of what constitutes an “Establishment of Religion”.

        • Paul

          True, same bunch also have a comprehension problem with the phrase ‘shall not be infringed’ Well, they know exactly what it neans but ignore it.

    • Jerome Horwitz

      The Freedom from Religion Foundation operates from a deep misunderstanding of the relations between religion and state.

      False. They operate with a strong, obvious hatred for Christians and Christianity. Or are you not aware they publicly stated the Bible is “violent and racist?”

      Their aim is to silence Christian speech. Period.

      • Alice Cheshire

        I assume they know full well they are violating the first amendment by prohibiting religion, but don’t care about anyone but themselves.

  • tether

    I am proud that a congressman felt the need to post scriptures and was bold enough to do so. What a kind and loving man.

  • meamsane

    The Supremacy Clause of our Constitution:

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall
    be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
    made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law
    of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
    Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary

    Article VI

    So, no Supreme Court opinion as the “Law of the Land”! Hmmm?

  • tether

    It is unfortunate that so many would twist the constitution to try to fit their agenda. The constitution clearly protects our rights to exercise our religion and forbids the government from preventing it. It also clearly prevents the government from establishing a national religion or state sponsored religion which is in fact exactly what the Freedom From Religion group is all about. Forcing their religion onto the rest of the nation. A religion that excludes God.

  • Barbara Fenkner

    Carry on. You have every right to quote the Bible, Marco.

  • Garbanzo Bean

    Would it be ok if he were tweeting verses from the Koran?

Greater Purpose
Paula White-Cain
More from The Stream
Connect with Us