![]()
Andrew Larochelle presents flag to grandfather Marcel as father Paul looks on. Credit: Skip Peterson/AP Photo.
by Matthew Hay Brown
Lesson learned: The next time a 17-year-old Eagle Scout wants a flag flown over the Capitol to honor his grandather’s dedication to God, country and family, it will be fine by Stephen T. Ayres.
Ayres is acting architect of the Capitol, the official responsible for maintaining the tradition of flying the Stars and Stripes for members of the public. Any American may ask, through his or her representatives in Congress, that the flag be flown in honor of a person or event. After the big day, it is mailed, slightly used, with a certificate of authenticity, to the person who requested it.
It was Ayres’ office that was responsible for the disappointment of Andrew Larochelle. The 17-year-old Eagle Scout from Dayton, Ohio, had asked that Old Glory be flown last Sept. 11 in honor of his grandfather, veteran Marcel Larochelle, and his dedication to and love of the aforementioned trinity.
But when the flag arrived, Larochelle found that his sentiments had been edited: The certificate issued by Ayres’ office read that the flag had flown in honor of his grandfather’s dedication and love of country and family only.
Ayres cited a four-year-old rule that barred political or religious statements from the certificates.
That drew protests from Rep. Michael Turner, Larochelle’s congressman. The Ohio Republican gathered the signatures of more than 160 members of Congress for a letter of complaint to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and introduced legislation to reverse the policy.
"They are attempting to take God from the Pledge of Allegiance and now the architect is attempting to remove God from the certificates that come with flags flown over the Capitol," Turner said. "The word ‘God’ is carved into the walls of both chambers of Congress. The architect is the custodian of the Capitol and currently maintains several religious symbols in the building. If permitted, removing ‘God’ from Capitol flag ceremonies will be the precedent for removing ‘God’ from the Capitol, and this cannot be permitted."
Today, Ayres reversed the policy. The acting architect since February, he said the decision followed a review of guidelines that were codified in 2003 but had been practiced since the 1970s.
"My review revealed that, in fact, these rules have been inconsistently applied and that it is inappropriate and beyond the scope of this Agency’s responsibilities to censor messages from Members," Ayres said. "The Architect’s role is to certify that flags are appropriately flown over the U.S. Capitol, and any messages on the flag certificates are personal and between a Member of Congress and his or her constituents."
That was fine with Pelosi.
"They came to their own conclusion, the architect of the Capitol," she told reporters today. "I don't think that the architect's office should be in the role of censoring what members want to say on those documents."
Rep. Robert A. Brady, the Pennsylvania Democrat who chairs the House Committee on Administration, added a helpful "point of information:"
"The current policy, which disallows political and religious statements, has been in place for several years, significantly predating acting Architect Stephen Ayers and the current Democratic majority."




Comments
There was only one original, genius idea in the US Constitution, as rendered by the founding fathers, IMO.
The Constitution of the United States was a brilliant achievement, of course, putting into one document the great ideas of the ages. It included the collective wisdom of Roman law, the French Enlightenment, and the English Common Law. It was a perfect example of Einstein's later comment; 'We stand on the shoulders of giants'.
What was the one great original idea in the US Constitution?
The separation of church and state, of course.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 11, 2007 7:01 PM
And so we now begin the annual "America is waging a war against god and christians" outrage extravaganza. Happens every year around this time, reaching a foaming, screeching crescendo about a week before the vatican manufactured celebration of the "birth" of jc. yawn.
Posted by: snitramc | October 11, 2007 7:40 PM
(Off subject)
Crazy John D[evola],
Here is the info per your request;
"And C Morris, when it comes to reasoning, please provide ONE example in which you have been reasonable. And if you're interested in seeing and learning more about folks who cannot be reasoned with, I suggest looking in the mirror as a start.
Posted by: John D | October 11, 2007 9:35 AM"
John D,
Sure. Here is a recent example of a perfectly reasoned post;
"Another Christian, Trying to reason with John D. is like,,,,like,,,um,,,,,,shouting into a flushing public toilet; The sounds cancel each other out. Posted by: C.Morris | October 10, 2007 4:52 PM"
Posted by: C.Morris | October 11, 2007 7:41 PM
Let's just hurry and and get God out of our lives so we can get this mess of a life over with.
Posted by: Fat Dancer | October 11, 2007 7:47 PM
There was no conflict with the concept of separation here.
And by the way some people fail to grasp that separation is a dichotomy. Of course it protects all of us from the establishment of a state religion, but it also means that the government shall not INFRINGE UPON the free practice of religion -- for example individual Representatives passing out these certificates to individual constiuents.
It cuts both ways. The church doesn't meddle with the state, the state doesn't meddle with the church. The idea can only work when we keep that balance.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 11, 2007 7:52 PM
Shorter Republic viewpoint:
Screw the 1st Amendment! We don't need no stinkin' Bill of Rights!
Posted by: weinerdog43 | October 11, 2007 7:55 PM
With petitions for grievance redress ignored by King and Parliament, our Founders appealed to "unalienable rights" endowed by "the Creator", to entitlement by "the laws of nature and of nature's God", to a "firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence", and to "the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of" their intentions ,and to which they pledged their "sacred Honor."
By enabling acts (eg HI & AK) all States mutually required to uphold these foundational principles of the Declaration and the Constitution.
Ignorance of and breaching these foundational principles is the root cause most conflicts today.
Posted by: David Hagen | October 11, 2007 8:09 PM
No where does the Constitution mention the separation of church and state, however it does say that the state may not establish a religion.
Posted by: Karl C | October 11, 2007 8:14 PM
Jeebus, this is like fish in a barrel:
Hello MORON Karl C:
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."
Karl, please don't reproduce. You are an embarrassment.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | October 11, 2007 8:24 PM
"No where does the Constitution mention the separation of church and state, however it does say that the state may not establish a religion.
Posted by: Karl C | October 11, 2007 8:14 PM"
And that is the current argument from the right wing, aptly named 'movement' Christians for destroying the separation of church and state.
Fact is, the Supremes, in their wisdom, at least until now, have determined that separation is the only practical means of preserving a secular, non-theological state as well as insuring the right of all Americans to believe any crazy tripe they may devise.
But with the Supreme Court loaded with a majority of right wing ideologues, we may elect government after government of progressive, liberal, freedom loving people only to have them short circuited by The Court.
This is the tragedy of the last two elections. Americans couldn't be bothered to protect their hard won freedoms. They thought it didn't matter who was running the show.
Apathy always wins here.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 11, 2007 8:40 PM
But of course, when reichwingers (Mann Coulterman) disparage other religions, it's fine...
COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they —
DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?
COULTER: Yes.
DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?
COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?
COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.
DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?
COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners
DEUTSCH: Welcome back to "The Big Idea." During the break, Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment. So I'm going to give her a chance. So you don't think that was offensive?
COULTER: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews.
Posted by: RNCBS | October 11, 2007 9:15 PM
RNCBS.
Ann 'Cooter' Goebbels speaks.
What a sad sad human.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 11, 2007 9:33 PM
Duh, of course the congressman and his enablere architect are trying to establish a religion. It's called Deism, the religion of a singular God, Creator, or whatever you want to call it. Deism has many subcategories like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. So the effect is that these sorts of religions are moving toward establishment. Which what the protesters of this action are talking about.
Posted by: P. Adams | October 11, 2007 9:37 PM
attention ann coulter: so what are atheists, perfected christians?
Posted by: abb | October 11, 2007 9:39 PM
I don't care what the certificate does or doesn't say, but I'd be pretty embarrassed to claim my religion has to be validated by some government of human beings. People Unclear on the Concept....
Posted by: Tom J | October 11, 2007 9:48 PM
C Mo,
Well spoken, the founding fathers feared that the nutty Republican Evangelical types and others like them would stick their noses into US policy and impose their beliefs on everyone and they were right, thanks to the current Republican Fratboy in Chief.
Posted by: John E | October 11, 2007 10:18 PM
Actually I like the "God" in the Pledge & the Certificate. I just think we should change it to "Gods" - in plural - for all the Gods out there: The Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Gods!
Posted by: A Beleiver | October 11, 2007 10:30 PM
A note to the evangelist's on this upcoming election. Take care of the poor, the downtrodden and the sinner's, but STAY THE HELL OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT! I say if you endorse anyone then you should automatically lose your tax free status!
Posted by: Ray from Wisconsin | October 11, 2007 10:32 PM
Perhaps christians are perfected, but Jews are the Chosen People.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 11, 2007 11:22 PM
I knew the lefty loons would jump all over this on...my oh my....an Eagle Scout honoring his grandfather (a real vet) with the phrase God, country and family.
Hey!!! John E. How are things in Iraq?
I just love the phrase...Phony Soldier!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | October 11, 2007 11:33 PM
"It (the US Constitution) included the collective wisdom of Roman law, the French Enlightenment, and the English Common Law." Posted by: C.Morris | October 11, 2007 7:01 PM
Hmm, we must be brief, but this is a pretty slanted list... Other civilizations, especially the native Americans, had a big impact on the document in question, arguably less trivial than "Roman Law" which is not unique to the document...
Posted by: hello@sympatico.ca | October 12, 2007 12:22 AM
so ummmm when is god going to come up with an energy policy???
Posted by: michael atnip | October 12, 2007 12:36 AM
Interesting how this subject always brings out the crackpots and ignoramuses from both ends of the political spectrum. 90% of this thread is just inane sputtering.
To anonymous @11:22 PM,
Yeah, and Jesus saves but Moses invests!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2007 7:32 AM
"Any American may ask, through his or her representatives in Congress, that the flag be flown in honor of a person or event. After the big day, it is mailed, slightly used, with a certificate of authenticity, to the person who requested it."
I was not aware of that. What a nice idea.
As for this story, I do not have a problem with a simple religious phrase or word like "God". If a muslim wants to dedicate a flag to someone for his dedication to "country, family and Allah". What's wrong with that?
Same with Yahweh, or Buddha, or whoever.
These requests are made by individual citizens. Simply making the certfiicates per the individual requests would NOT be an "endorsement of any particular religion". So it is perfectly acceptable under the constiitution.
So long as each individual request is honored and respected equally.
Posted by: Steve34 | October 12, 2007 8:11 AM
Good for Andrew, the Eagle Scout and Ayers the architect with his ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State wanted to please the liberals. Contrary to posts on this site America was founded by our forefathers as a Judeo-Christian nation. Cardinal Bellarmine and John Locke are responsible for the Bill of Rights now it's been taken over by pagans and Barry Lynn and trial lawyers for ACLU picking on Christmas and Easter for parasite legaal fees to serve their purpose hopefully the Roberts court will correct these abuses. May God Bless America. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | October 12, 2007 9:32 AM
This country should'nt infringe on anyone's right to pratice thier religion of choice. That being said, THIS country was formed by Christians. For the purpose of religeous freedom. If you subscribe to another religion, fine, you have institutions here for you. Whether you like it or not, our forefathers were Christian. The consitution was founded on that premise. If you are Jewish, and dont like it, go to Isreal. If you are Muslim, and don't like it, go to the middle east. The same goes for anyone else. If you are so digusted by seeing Chritian symbols on our buildings, this country isn't for you, go home.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2007 10:16 AM
I agree with Jerry White,(Posted by: Jerry White | October 12, 2007 9:32 AM ) and I am amazed at how liberal the readers of the Tribune are. I guess I know why I live in Cincinnati. The anti-Christian, anti-gun, anti-freedom, high taxing city of Chicago truly amazes me.
May God have mercy on your souls.
Posted by: A Roberts | October 12, 2007 10:20 AM
America was NOT founded as a Christian nation. If you think otherwise, you are mistaken and should research the consitiution and the views of the founding fathers.
If you bother with this, you will have a better understanding of what our nation should be. But it will require an open mind and application of reason, but blind obeyance to faith.
Posted by: David N Herd | October 12, 2007 10:24 AM
This country WAS founded on Christian values! But, it also allows for anyone to pratice as they please. Why don't you go over to Iran and tell them to take the Koran and Muhammed out of thier public buildings! Was George Washington or Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson, or ANY of our founding fathers Muslim, of Jews, or Buddists? NO (there were a couple Athiests) but they sitll believed in the moral values that the Christians held.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2007 10:37 AM
"George Washington or Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson, or ANY of our founding fathers Muslim, of Jews, or Buddists?"
Does that make Muslims, Jews and Buddists less American than Christians?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2007 10:48 AM
Why do some of you HATE God so much? I think that it's because you hate anyone who does'nt have the same ideals as you. Clinton is your new God! Sorry, I'll stick the original. You should be angry that your presidential candidates go to churches to recruit voters!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2007 10:49 AM
thiscontry was biled on godly standers i am also a vet i love and the resen we ar still free in case GOD HAS HIS HAND ON IT wert to stated when you think back to 1962 when your ass tooout the bible from a crulem of praying in school yoiu r petcacers sten this conty down the tubes gase we have to god out of all thins we say and yousay thank you god and thay send you to jail for all you have given tome thay went to sue you i have lived by the 10 camandmentes all of my life you took out of ak captal case is affenes to to bad this is what we set this contnt y on over 200 years ago onjuly 4 17776 ithank god every day for keeping me alive and free GOD IS MY WAY MY TRUTH AND THE WAY I TRY TO LIVE EVERY DAY THANK YOU GOD FOR BEEING MY GROUNDS TO LIVE BY
Posted by: donald shepard | October 12, 2007 10:55 AM
None of the principal founders were Atheists. It is a common misconception that Franklin and Jefferson (perhaps the two most influential) were atheists. Those who believe that would do well to crack a history book or encyclopedia.
Franklin was an agnostic -- not the same thing at all -- and Jefferson was a Humanist Theist, typical of the enlightenment.
And the matter of their personal beliefs is irrelevant because they founded a SECULAR STATE.
Posted by: Secular Anonymous | October 12, 2007 11:05 AM
Jerry White, not really sure where you are going with that.
The United States was founded by men who happened to be Christian, it was not founded on "Christianity". That would be contradictroy to the "no establichment of religion" clause.
John Locke's primary influence was regarding "property rights", which had nothing to do with religion.
As for Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. He was a typically more liberal Catholic (as are most Jesuits). One example is when he took up sides with Galilelo (and against the church), to help try to get the church to understand when science disproves a Biblical theory.
Please referrence something where his writings were used by the founding fathers.
I did many internet searches and came up with nothing.
The founders were protestants, not Catholics. Although, many protestants did admire Bellarmine's writings.
Posted by: Steve34 | October 12, 2007 11:20 AM
Government founded on Christian values? Are those the common sense values that say you cannot have an orderly society that murders and steals from each other? You think we needed religion to tell us that?
Posted by: jethro | October 12, 2007 11:53 AM
Let's see what a geovernment based on Chritian values would look like:
"34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 ‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me."
Doesn't sound much like the Republican Party platform to me.
Posted by: AJF | October 12, 2007 12:10 PM
Than why dont we all just tear down anything that even resembles Christ. We can take God out of every fabric of our lives. We should be tolerant of other religions by ignoring our own. Is anything sacred anymore?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2007 12:10 PM
To answer your question - they don't want anything to be sacred. That is the whole point of Secular Humanism. They want to take God and religion away from everyone. We might as well live in China. Liberals side so much with Communist Socialists that it scares the conservatives. The problem today is most Americans have too much (too many possessions - too much to give up) to sacrifice and fight for what is truly RIGHT in today's society.
The Liberals won't be happy until we're flying RED flags (how they ever got to be "Blue" states is beyond me) they really are the RED party of communists and wish to take away all of our freedoms. Tolerance, and separation of church and state and Politcal Correctness are very 1984'ish.
I hope that we as a nation do not fall to the ideas of radicals among us. Let us remember the founding fathers and what they fought for, and what they indeed founded.
Posted by: Not Anonymous | October 12, 2007 1:10 PM
So if I send in a nice request with my flag can I get it dedicated to the religion of the Invisible Pink Unicorn which has quite a following on the internet?
Posted by: Arrallen | October 12, 2007 1:30 PM
"Tolerance, and separation of church and state and Politcal Correctness are very 1984'ish"
We shouldn't tolerate other religions?
So to be free we must oppress others?
Posted by: AJF | October 12, 2007 1:55 PM
So if I send in a nice request with my flag can I get it dedicated to the religion of the Invisible Pink Unicorn which has quite a following on the internet?
Posted by: Arrallen | October 12, 2007 1:30 PM
No, you can send one in rememberance of a family member that served this country. Dumb*ss! did you have a family member that has made a sacrifice to our nation? if so, I'm sure they'd call you a douchebag and consider you a failure as a human being!
Posted by: GWB | October 12, 2007 4:07 PM
""Tolerance, and separation of church and state and Politcal Correctness are very 1984'ish"
AJF,
That's actually one of their talking points. Conservation or environmentalism are also tossed into the pot as anti-family values.
Also, we don't live in a democracy.
Also, 'willfully childless married couples' are sinful and must be stopped.
'Tolerance' is high on their list of no no's. It implies, well, tolerating sin.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 12, 2007 9:49 PM
Funny, how Pelosi is now suddenly condemning what Ayers did. Yet she was singing a different tune before Ayers realized that he'd made a mistake. She defended the censorship, claming that the Architect's policy was adopted because, "people were asking for statements that not only were religious, beyond using the word God, but political as well." She then went on to say, "It's not about being anti-religion. It is just about what the Architect thought was appropriate for him to proclaim in a certificate."
CMORRIS - The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution. Those words were taken from a letter President Jefferson sent to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The First Amendment is meant to prevent the government from establishing a nation-wide religion that all United States citizens must follow. It is not meant to keep God out of government affairs. Our founding fathers made it very clear that they believed that the government could not function without God's aid. The First Amendment is also intended to prevent the government from infringing upon our right to practice whatever religion we want.
Christians do not want to destroy the First Amendment. We want the government to obey it, which is exactly what it's failing to do.
RAY FROM WISCONSIN - As far as I know, people who are U.S. citizens and who are 18 years of age or older have the right to vote ... no matter what their religion is. If you want to live in an environment where everyone but Christians are allowed to vote, move to your very own island and give it a name that I think is very appropriate: BIGOT ISLE.
Posted by: Linda | October 15, 2007 7:22 PM