In other words, what else is new?:
On Friday, former Congressman Barney Frank came forward with stunning new proclamations about his worldview. While it’s already known that the liberal politician from Massachusetts is gay, during an appearance on “Real Time With Bill Maher,” he also insinuated that he’s a “pot-smoking atheist.”
“I had asked my governor to appoint me to a vacant Senate seat and he decided not to — and I was looking forward to having my husband Jim hold the constitution, not the Bible, and affirm, not swear, that I was going to be a wonderful senator,” he added.
Frank’s full comments can be seen in the video below:
So it seems that Barney Frank the (thankfully) ex-representative from Massachusetts, has come out as the Liberal dream politician: a Gay Atheist who’s mind is “free enough” to smoke weed, and will hide big government economic failings until its too late, by claiming that nothing is wrong.
But you could get that analysis from most other political commentators, which is why I want to focus on something else Barney Frank said; “and I was looking forward to having my husband Jim hold the constitution, not the Bible, and affirm, not swear, that I was going to be a wonderful senator.”
Ex-Rep. Frank, if he had been appointed to be a Senator, would rather have his Office affirmed on the (I’m assuming) Massachusetts Constitution, instead of the Christian Holy Book (presumably because he is an Atheist); but it seems to me that Frank needs to take a better look at his States’ Constitution. Article II of the Massachusetts State Constitution declares:
It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship. [Emphasis Added)
So the Constitution that Frank would have liked to have been affirmed on, so as to avoid the Bible, actually states that it is the DUTY of all men to worship God, and to do so publicly. Section III of the Mass. Constitution continues to describe religious duty, and speaks about how Religion, along with Piety and Morality are what civil government, and the happiness of the people essentially depend on, and how the State has a role to play in the public diffusion of these supports.
The Constitution of Massachusetts (which was heavily written/influenced by some of our Founders) in contrast with present day Massachusetts, shows just how far away that State has gotten from its (and our) founding; but even with that being the case, if Mass. elected officials like Frank want to be sworn in or affirmed on a secularist document, they will have to look for something other than their Constitution, as it is anything but secular in nature.
*Note: If of course Frank was speaking of the U.S. Constitution and not the State Constitution, the argument still applies, but would be argued with different evidence; and if in fact he was talking about the National Constitution, let this post at the very least serve as a history lesson about the State of Massachusetts.