God and the US of A

[Toad]

Originally posted by Skydancer
Sensible thinking people keep personal concience, religion etc out of politics.

Really? To my way of thinking, your "sensible" people are simply ball-less politicians that are afraid to actually show and tell the electorate what they think, what morals they espouse and what kind of person they are.

I respect someone who will tell me who he is, unafraid of what that might do to his election chances.

I like to know who/what I'm actually getting when I vote for a particular person.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

They are not afraid Toad. They know that they cannot get elected.

Regarding the Constitution, people that don't understand what is clearly written really understand it perfectly well, they just don't like it. So they call it a "living document"  or invent "eminations of the penumbra" or they seek enlightenment from the laws and courts of other nations:rolleyes: .

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

"We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount....The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants." --General Omar Bradley

[Skydancer]

Church and state are in some ways more closely linked here in the UK than in the US. Our head of state is crowned in Westminster Abbey and is the head of the Church too. ( coutesy of HenryVIII )

However the ceremonial function of the head of state and the personal belief of our politicians is seperated from the actual policy implentation and governance of the country as far as possible.

No one suggests that GW shouldn't pray etc. At least no one I know. What is problematic is if religious belief then determines state policy. Witness Fundamentalist states in the ME or for example the situation in the republic of Ireland where abortion is illegal yet performed at extreme risk by backstreet abortionists or where young women have to travel abroad to exercise the right to manage their own body as they see fit.

Religion is fine and I have no issue with Christianity. I become worried when Leaders particularly the leader of the most powerfull nation on the planet begin to let their religious belief determine their foreign and domestic policy.

Oh Yap yap wooof woof by the way

[Saintaw]

Toad, when you are President of the United States*... you don't speak for yourself.

*- Or any other non-banana nation.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Skydancer
However the ceremonial function of the head of state and the personal belief of our politicians is seperated from the actual policy implentation and governance of the country as far as possible.

[/b]

Then one would think you might understand that OURS is even more separated than YOURS. You see, we have a CONSTITUTION that says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

What does YOUR CONSTITUTION have that ensures the personal belief of your politicians is seperated from the actual policy implentation and governance of the country?

What is problematic is if religious belief then determines state policy.

[/b]

Since Nash appears to be unable, perhaps YOU can provide an example of such a situation here in the US? Please do, if you can.

 

I become worried when Leaders particularly the leader of the most powerfull nation on the planet begin to let their religious belief determine their foreign and domestic policy.

[/b]

Worry all you like. Your "worry" is in NO WAY related to "the wall of separation between the church and the state" that Nash would have us believe is in jeopady.

In fact, your worry could be BEST ADDRESSED by not electing politicians that people keep . You'd be far, far better off it they told you what their personal concience, religion etc  is and how it bears on their politics.

Then you might actually know who to vote for... or against.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

In order to have morals, beliefs, and values, you must base them on something. You must also have morals, beliefs, and values in order to make decisions and policies. From the very conception and birth of the United States of America, the morals, beliefs, and values the country was founded on are Judeo Christian, plain and simple. It worked real damned well for a long time. The slow but continual departure from that foundation has brought us no increase in quality of life, but rather the opposite. the return to that foundation may well be the only thing that holds any hope.

[GtoRA2]

Well Sky, you are now atleast participating in the conversation instead of posting drivel, lol.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Skydancer

 Witness Fundamentalist states in the ME or for example the situation in the republic of Ireland where abortion is illegal yet performed at extreme risk by backstreet abortionists or where young women have to travel abroad to exercise the right to manage their own body as they see fit.

 

........And that relates how to God and the U.S. ?

[Skydancer]

Here we go again:rolleyes:

Do I realy need to explain it to you? Just read for chrisakes.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Saintaw
Toad, when you are President of the United States*... you don't speak for yourself.

*- Or any other non-banana nation.

No, but you can certainly speak OF yourself. That's what Bush does.

He speaks HIS views.

He is also President of the US but HIS views are not necessarily the policy of the US as Sky would like to have us believe.

Take the abortion issue. Bush's view is CLEARLY NOT the law of the land here.

That's just one example that blows the Nash/Sky argument clear out of the water.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Skydancer
Do I realy need to explain it to you? Just read for chrisakes.

No, you don't need to explain your opinion, you need to support it with fact. Something I don't think I've ever seen you do on this BBS.

I repeat:

What is problematic is if religious belief then determines state policy.

[/b]

Since Nash appears to be unable, perhaps YOU can provide an example of such a situation here in the US? Please do, if you can.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Skydancer
Here we go again:rolleyes:

Do I realy need to explain it to you? Just read for chrisakes.

All I can read is what you put down and see no relation to God and the U.S.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Toad
Since Nash appears to be unable, perhaps YOU can provide an example of such a situation here in the US? Please do, if you can.

How about...lesse...dry states in Texas and the fact that marital aids cannot be sold in phalic shapes in that same state?  This is a morality stepped in religious angst.

Of course it doesn't exactly get people's heads chopped off and the like....but you wanted an example.

[Toad]

Alas, Curval... you fall into the same category as the Euros.

You just don't really understand our Constitution.

Allow me to repost a quote from Jefferson:

consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.

This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States.

Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority (letter to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808).

Clearly, NONE of your examples are rooted in actions by the government of the United States.

dry states in Texas

Dry counties in Texas? You see the fault with that example now, correct? That is a "States Rights" issue and the State of Texas allows the counties to vote dry/wet for themselves. Yet you somehow have a problem with a relatively small community (county) having self-determination in the matter of alcohol?

Is alcohol such a boon to mankind that it's free availability must be mandated by the Federal Government? Hardly.  As Jefferson and the rest of the Founders put it:

reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States

.

I'm certain the Constitution has no passage on the mandatory availability of alcohol throughout all States in the Union. Unless you found something I missed?

marital aids cannot be sold in phalic shapes in that same state

[/b]

Again, this is an area where the Federal Government, by intentional Constitutional design has no authority. This is a "States rights" issue as well.