Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nash on April 18, 2005, 12:02:02 AM
-
Is this not getting a wee bit out of control?
Okay up front - I believe in a god... of some kind. I pray when I wake up, and i pray before I go to bed. Every day. And I love the USA.
But it's getting weird now. Aint it? Just a little?
It almost feels like the whole thing is getting hyjacked by people I just cannot relate to.
Yet, these folks are getting embraced... given a voice that I kinda don't think they deserve.
Seperation of church and state should be looked at as one of, if not the most important achievements in the creation of the modern democracy as we know it. It was, afterall, one of the main reasons why a break from England and its monarchy happened.
Yet...
Well... What's happening?
-
Silly... God needs our help. If we legislate it correctly, everyone will go to heaven.
-
Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
What examples do you see of a violation of his statement
"legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?
What laws? What prohibitions of free exercise?
-
Are you playin' dumb with me Toad?
-
Nash..
e-mail me
drone at airmageddon.com
-
No, are you?
This is just like the 2nd Amendment thing.
The words and intent are quite clear, particularly when you review the other writings of the Founders and Jefferson in particular.
There's no mystery here. You must be aware that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution.
The whole "separation" thing stems from this letter by Jefferson to Baptists in Danbury, CT.
Other comments by 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).
Interesting, no? He puts power in religious matters to the STATES.
Think on that a while.
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the power of the federal government.
I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies (Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address).
Now, tell me of the laws pending in Congress that either establish a national religion or prohibit the free exercise of any religion.
Argue what it says, not what you want it to say.
-
awwww come on Toad... this is a thread Nash started.... don't go messing it up with things like "facts" or any sort "rational thought". You'll end up confusin' the poor little tree hugger with stuff like that. Better to let him whine and ramble on in his canibus induced haze.
geeezz what were ya' thinkin'????
-
Originally posted by Toad
...that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions...
Hahaha. Does any politician believe this anymore?
-
Well, Furious, I ask you then what laws are pending that will cause the US government to act against you because of your opinions.
-
You would have to point me to what you and nash are talking about.
I was only commenting on the Jefferson quote.
-
Furious, you asked if any politician believed that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions.
I asked you what examples YOU can give of the government using its powers to regulate your opinions.
I suspect you will not be able to provide any. Therefore, I guess politicians either believe that or are sufficiently restrained.
Either way, you're free to hold and voice whatever opinions you like. I think you agree with that, too.
-
Well.. okay Toad.
Since I created the thread, I can't exactly do a drive-by, so I'll go fistacuffs-google-warz with you.
I know it's not going to be easy.
But despite not having the particulars at hand, I do know that what is happening now wrt politics and religion is an aberration in American politics. All too common in other places, in other times. But not in America.
And I know that there are people right now at this very minute generating text as to how and why the government and religion are inextricably coupled, and that church/state are supposed to be one and the same. I know that too.
Those folks, these text genererators, the revisionists, are smarter than me. By a long shot. But they don't fool me.
One thing I dig about the US constitution is.... at its core... it makes sense. It feels right. Fundamental truths. Human truths.
This religious bullchit? It feels like a splinter. It's off. I don't care how many scholars make the case for me believing that religion has a place in government... it will never feel right.
So okay... I'll google warz ya if need be.
Before I waste the time though, please tell me that you aint yankin' my chain about it.
-
No, I'm not yankin' yer chain.
Just like the Euros that so often misunderstand what "free speech" means in our Constitution, I think you totally misunderstand the 1st Amendment.
Amendment I
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.
I don't really expect you to be well-versed in our Constitution. Lord knows I'm not well-versed in Canada's political documents.
"Separation of church and state" doesn't mean what you want or wish it to mean.
That's all there is to it.
Another quote, this time from closing part of Jefferson's 2nd Inaugural Address:
I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with his providence, and our riper years with his wisdom and power; and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications, that he will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures, that whatsoever they do, shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.
He's asking his fellow citizens pray with him. At his inauguration. I suspect this is one of the things you currently find objectionable in a President?
Before you google yourself to death, please tell us all just what it is that bothers you so. What is happening now wrt politics and religion that is an aberration in American politics?
Specific example(s) please, with an explanation of why you feel these things would be unconstitutional.
Don't try to dodge around. Spit out examples of what's bothering you and why these things are not allowed by our Constitution.
And, for your sweet dreams, riddle me this:
Assume an American Cardinal is the next Pope. (US citizen, meets all "standard" requirements for the Presidency). Assume, for the sake of humor, this Cardinal runs for President of the US and wins. Is there ANY Constitutional reason why he shouldn't be allowed to take office? What in the Constitution prevents the head of the Catholic Church from holding the office of President?
Give me those two things and then we can googlewarz if you like.
-
nash I agree with totally. But you will never get agreement from the cult members who think their religious values are something that should be legislated.
JeBush
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/242_1113805050_jebush.jpg)
-
Now, tell me of the laws pending in Congress that either establish a national religion or prohibit the free exercise of any religion.
-
Damn those fundamentalist religious zealots in the ME no wait I meant the USA oh hell now I'm confused. Which religious zealots are fighting which?
Nobody expects the Inquisition, god forbid you might even get the comfy chair!
:lol :lol
(http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/paulfitz/spanish/tt3.jpg)
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Now, tell me of the laws pending in Congress that either establish a national religion or prohibit the free exercise of any religion.
You just sound like a grade 2 girl quoting that. Some priss chick saying "I know you are but..."
Hey Funked - gag me with a rubber spoon oh my god.
-
Every american has the right to talk to invisible magic friends, even the most celebrated government employee.
-
Separation of Church and state originated in England when Queen Elizabeth came to power - it was called the Elizabethan Compromise.
-
Originally posted by Nash
You just sound like a grade 2 girl quoting that. Some priss chick saying "I know you are but..."
Hey Funked - gag me with a rubber spoon oh my god.
Nash I was thinking maybe you could possibly maybe kinda come up with maybe ohh one fact that backs up your alarmist post?
-
Alarmist post?
Gimme a break.
Alarmist?
Why do I suddenly feel like taking a nose-dive under a desk?
Alarmist?
Can you possibly use any weirder of a word? Where's Castro when you need him?
Yeah.... BOOH! <--- alarmist. Run for your life.
-
Nah you don't need Castro you need this guy
(http://www.cyfronet.krakow.pl/rowery/images/che/che.jpg)
More Familiar shot?
(http://www.nndb.com/people/946/000026868/che-guevara-sm.jpg)
-
Ernesto Guevara, his visage still graces cuban paper money. He was too foolish to realize that South American men were poured of mettle far less brittle than anything that would subscribe to the efluviant that he spewed.
-
Yes we need more communism. Hooray.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Alarmist post?
Gimme a break.
Alarmist?
Why do I suddenly feel like taking a nose-dive under a desk?
Alarmist?
Can you possibly use any weirder of a word? Where's Castro when you need him?
Yeah.... BOOH! <--- alarmist. Run for your life.
Typical attemted witty remark, then dodge. Truth is you were just rambling about something you "thought" you understood/knew about, and when it comes right down to it, don't have a clue. A much used tactic on this BBS that is really just getting "old" to me.
Originally posted by Nash
And I know that there are people right now at this very minute generating text as to how and why the government and religion are inextricably coupled, and that church/state are supposed to be one and the same. I know that too.
Those folks, these text genererators, the revisionists, are smarter than me. By a long shot. But they don't fool me.
One thing I dig about the US constitution is.... at its core... it makes sense. It feels right. Fundamental truths. Human truths.
This religious bullchit? It feels like a splinter. It's off. I don't care how many scholars make the case for me believing that religion has a place in government... it will never feel right.
Ok, this is an excellent example. I know that there are people right now at this very minute generating text as to how and monkeys could fly out of your butt. I know that there are people right now at this very minute generating text as to how and why Snausages and Bonny Tyler (turn around, bright eyes's....) are inextricable coupled.
Now what did you say there... you know that some people some where that are smarter than you (gasp!) are typing out how/why church and state should be together. AND that they are not fooling you. Woot! WTG Big Guy! Glad that fringe element nutbags are not able to pull the wool over your eyes.
They you say the bit 'bout the scholars trying to make you believe that religion has a place in the govt, and that it "feels" wrong.
Total blather. It's almost like you and Toad are having two differnet conversations. Toad is talking about Constitutional Law, and how the whole "seperation of church and state" came about, and you are talking about, well, I am not sure quite how to describe what you ar talking about. Hmmmm.... tough one there. Please, PLEASE produce something that resembles even kind of a fact on this issue, not spewing some disjoined drivel. Or...light up another one, toke away, and keep me entertained and laughing at all the intelligentsia wanna be's on this bbs and the hillarious junk they type.
I too am waiting for any so called "proof" that you might have on this subject.
-
I'm praying everyday to the Cylon God... but no number 6 in my head so far.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by Suave
Every american has the right to talk to invisible magic friends, even the most celebrated government employee.
Yes... but WHICH invisible magic friends? Too many different religions and too many different magical friends. Maybe everyone doesn't want to be constricted to JeBush's Friend.
I like worshipping the sun. At least I know where to find it. :p
Woof
-
Originally posted by SkyWolf
Maybe everyone doesn't want to be constricted [sic] to JeBush's Friend.
That's the point - we aren't restricted at all.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Where's Castro when you need him?
He`s in Havana having a tea party with Zulu. :D
-
The way I've always read the constitution is that Government can have a religion. They just can't give any benefits or punish you for use of lack of use of that religion.
nash I agree with totally. But you will never get agreement from the cult members who think their religious values are something that should be legislated.
Take a look around Silat. Christian values are already legislated.
-
Of course, Funked.
But that is so inconvenient for some people in this thread, isn't it?
So, I guess it's best to let the straw men win the day.
It was a fishing trip in a boat with no bottom and I think the Skipper just realized that. No matter how many Gilligans chime in, that isn't going to change.
-
This is almost as bad as Nash's Libertarian troll.
Formula "I would like to make a blanket generalization but I will present no evidence to support my claim. I am so obviously correct that no evidence is required. Attempt to refute my generalization."
-
what is going on that you are so worried about nash? You even got skyprancer and his girfriend to reactivate their cell tho..
lazs
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
:aok
-
I always find it humourous when a Canadians express concern about seperation of church and state in the US...
"SCHEDULE B
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982(79)
PART I
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#I
...because they don't have anything on us.
-
Oddly enough, for about 180 years, in the United States, it was fine to have children pray in school, the Ten Comandments were found in most government buildings and courthouses (laws here were based on the Judeo Christian values found in the Ten Commandments), the Pledge of Allegiance had God in it for 30 years, the phrase "In God WE Trust" was on our currency, and referrences to God were on most all of the documents authored by the "Founding Fathers".
Then we had Madelyne Murray O'Hare decide that prayer was offensive to the huge masses of athiests we had. Suddenly, after this, it became the "IN" thing to try to remove every reference to God and Judeo Christian values from everything the government was associated with.
But Nash thinks it's the "fundamentalist wackos" who are trying to change everything.:rolleyes:
The truth is, the silent majority has grown sick of the direction the country has taken since the fringe on the far left has become fashionable and seen fit to attempt to remove God from everything, and is now seeking to protect the Judeo Christian principles on which the country was founded.
-
guess i know what i'll be doing later when i get home.
:aok
-
"Hallelujiah Hallelujiah"
The Crusades have started. Just that the Crusaders come from a bit further away than they did in the 12th century.
"Gott Mit Uns" huh?
-
Again you show you haven't the least idea of the heart of the discussion.
Like a little boy, you just jump on the bandwagon shouting something that sounds good to you but has no relation to the topic at hand.
-
Typical zulu, nothing worth saying, but it is still said.
Your remind me of a little poodle that jumps around his master barking and nipping at his hand.
-
I am with Toad and Funked on this, this is all just a troll or alarmist post without something to point to as part of the argument.
As for you bananas that think you have to be a religous to want Nash to show us to proof of laws on the way.... well I am far from it. I am not a Christian, and though I think I believe in something it is not the Christian god.
But I have no problems with most of what christianty pushes.
-
Praise The Lord! (and pass the ammunition). ;)
-
Toad, I don't think Skydancer was the 1st to mention the word "Crusade" ... I beleive I heard that word from your boss a while back.
-
There ya go.
As regards the issue. Take Abortion as an example.
Over here Various clerics clergy etc are asking for it to be an election issue. Quite rightly the major parties are not making it an election issue as it is a matter of personal concience.
Bit different to the GW Bush stance during your election huh?
Sensible thinking people keep personal concience, religion etc out of politics.
Unless of course you are GW Bush and the rightwing Christian fundamentalist church in which case your ideolgy becomes the one which all people have to live by.
In essence I believe faith is a personal thing not a governmental issue.
-
For all of you who apparently don't understand the US constitution, including Nash, Sky, Silat, Saw, lasersailor.....
I again ask you to point out ANY laws that establish an "official" religion for the US or prohibit the free exercise of any religion in the US.
The President is free to pray publicly, declare "Crusades" against anyone, go to church with the TV cameras watching...whatever.
See, it's this really cool concept.... even our President gets to enjoy the FREE EXERCISE OF ANY RELIGION he personally subscribes to.
Now this may or may not impact his "approval rating" or his reelection chances or whatever... but like Jefferson in his inaugural address, any President can ask his fellow citizens to pray for/with him.
And it absolutely would not violate the "wall of separation between church and state."
If you think it does, then you're only showing your ignorance of the topic.
-
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.
-
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" :rolleyes: or invent "eminations of the penumbra":rolleyes: or they seek enlightenment from the laws and courts of other nations:rolleyes: .
-
"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
-
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
;)
-
Toad, when you are President of the United States*... you don't speak for yourself.
*- Or any other non-banana nation.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Well Sky, you are now atleast participating in the conversation instead of posting drivel, lol.
:D
-
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. ?
-
Here we go again:rolleyes:
Do I realy need to explain it to you? Just read for chrisakes.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
;)
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Toad
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.
One of the first things Bush did as President was reinstate the Mexico City Policy, which says that the anyone that recieves US international family planning funds can't have anything to do with abortion.
-
Originally posted by Curval
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.
I`m assuming you meant dry counties within the state. I don`t get the connection. These are usualy voted on as far as I know.
As far as the phalic shaped devices :), they can be sold and are sold, but must be sold as "novelty". There was a big to do over this on the news recently.
-
The Mexico City Plan was a
ban on U.S. government financial support for certain U.S. and foreign family planning agencies -- those that were involved in any way with the provision of abortion in foreign countries. 1 He did this by way of an executive order.
1. To which country does the US Constitution apply?
2. Does the Mexico City Plan apply to abortion in the US or in foreign countries?
3. Does this executive order violate the US Constitution in any way?
4. Does this executive order in anyway prohibit abortions either in the US or foreign countries?
5. Does this executive order in anyway violate the First Amendment stipulation that
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
?
Answers:
1. The US.
2. Foreign.
3. No.
4. No.
5. No.
Does this Executive Order upset some people? Obviously.
What they should have done is vote against Bush. It's not like he hid his view on abortion before either election. Unlike some other politicians that Skydancer would probably applaud for not declaring their positions on abortion.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
One of the first things Bush did as President was reinstate the Mexico City Policy, which says that the anyone that recieves US international family planning funds can't have anything to do with abortion.
Well, there are TWO sides to that coin. What about my right as a taxpayer NOT to have taxes I pay used to support something I do not wish to support? It is no more fair or correct to take my taxes and spend them on abortion when I do not support abortion than it is to take someone else's taxes and not spend them on abortion when they DO support abortion.
-
Yea...I'm a Euro. :)
I'm a Euro, he's a Euro, we're all Euros...wouldn't you like to be a Euro too?
-
LOL
-
You might wish to be a Euro, but you're a Bermudan.
However, you are similar to many Euros in that your understanding of the US Constitution is very much in error in many different areas. I'd say you fall into the "Euro category" in that respect alone.
Certainly not in the pink shorts category, however. They rarely wear pink shorts in Europe.
-
I suppose that is a fair comment...but, surprisingly I'm not actually offended by being called a Euro. ;)
Just don't call me an Amerihater....boy does that ever TICK ME OFF.:D
Still too cold for the pink shorts here right now though. I tried to wear a blue pair on Friday but half-way home I stopped and put my rain suit on...the wind up the legs of the shorts was causing massive shrinkage issues.:rofl
-
Originally posted by Curval
surprisingly I'm not actually offended by being called a Euro. ;)
Oh, man... sorry to hear that. That is usually the first symptom of Amerihater syndrome. You might want to see a specialist.
;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Silly... God needs our help. If we legislate it correctly, everyone will go to heaven.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm
-
Sorry Toad, but ... I dissagree :)
When in such a position, you are not allowed to speak your mind in public (certainly not on national TV). In your kitchen with your wife, yes... but that's about it. You are elected by the people, and you are supposed to be "their voice".
The point I brought up (crusade) was the point I heard the most during the last "little-cold-war" regarding some european's view of the war at the time. It made Bush's speech sound as void as OBL's cronies.
If I were to be CEO of Phillip Morris tomorow, how long would you think I'd keep my job if I said something like "Cigars R TEH best" or "I like pu**y!" on an official TV interview?
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
When in such a position, you are not allowed to speak your mind in public (certainly not on national TV).
Not allowed?
Please post a link to laws that prohibit that in the US. In fact, I'd like to see the laws that prohibit it in your country.
Or are you just saying that this is in your opinion?
how long would you think I'd keep my job if I said something like
You'd keep it at least 4 years total if you were elected under as the President of the US. Then, if the people re-elected you, you'd be there another 4 years.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Well, there are TWO sides to that coin. What about my right as a taxpayer NOT to have taxes I pay used to support something I do not wish to support? It is no more fair or correct to take my taxes and spend them on abortion when I do not support abortion than it is to take someone else's taxes and not spend them on abortion when they DO support abortion.
That is a very slippery slope . I dont support many things this admin is doing. So I guess my taxes shouldnt go towards any of those programs? I vote my reps to do what is right for all of us not any specific religious group.
And I support a womens right to have complete and absolute control of everything inside her skin.
-
It might not be a "law" but it would certainly make sense. Stop being obtuse.
-
Originally posted by Silat
I dont support many things this admin is doing. So I guess my taxes shouldnt go towards any of those programs?
No, do like everyone else does. Vote for the folks you think will represent you best and pay your taxes even if they do not win.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
It might not be a "law" but it would certainly make sense. Stop being obtuse.
well, try sticking to the topic at hand then. you merely stated an opinion, that has nothing to do with the U.S.'s seperation of Church and State.
So far nobody has come close to anything resembling a valid point. Several misguided, or off the mark opinions, but not one showing anything having to do with the U.S. Govt.
Keep trying. I'm being entertained.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
It might not be a "law" but it would certainly make sense. Stop being obtuse.
OK, so it IS just your opinion.
Here's the problem: The law is the law and opinions are not the law.
You, Skydancer, Nash... whoever... may think things are "not the way they should be" here in the US with respect to religion and politics.
You are all unable to find any documentation to support that position.
So, we just get.... "We'll it's not right. It doesn't make sense. Sensible people don't mention religion and politics."
Sorry. You may not like Bush or what he says. I don't support him in all things either.
HOWEVER, I prefer a guy like him to some "sensible" politician that is very careful to hide what he actually believes.
Further, he hasn't masked his religious beliefs AND he was lawfully elected. TWICE. So it's pretty clear as well that a significant number of American voters DO NOT share the collective concerns of Nash, Saw and Sky.
As far as "right", it's clear Jefferson would have no problem with Bush's open professions of his religion. Nor is there anything in the Constitution that prohibits Bush from expressing his religious beliefs and basing his decisions on his moral principles.
I think this entire thread just gets down to "we don't like Bush".
Gosh.......... what a revelation. Hasn't been anything like that on the BBS before.
-
Originally posted by Silat
That is a very slippery slope . I dont support many things this admin is doing. So I guess my taxes shouldnt go towards any of those programs? I vote my reps to do what is right for all of us not any specific religious group.
And I support a womens right to have complete and absolute control of everything inside her skin.
No slippery slope hotshot. First off, funding any such programs with federal taxes is unconstitutional. NOWHERE in the Constitution are such programs mandated nor provided for.
Funny, it is okay to starve an invalid, without certain proof of his or her wishes, it is okay to pull an infant from the womb and stab it in the back of the head with scissors and suck its brains out, but it is NOT okay to execute a convicted murderer.
It ain't about "women's rights", it is about what is or is not proper according to the Constitution. Abortion is an example, not an absolute. We could just as easily use "welfare".
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Church and state are in some ways more closely linked here in the UK than in the US.
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.
Care to cast some light on the role of Anglican Bishops and the house of Lords; Skydancer?
I've been away a while; and I'm probably out of date.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Oddly enough, for about 180 years, in the United States, it was fine to have children pray in school, the Ten Comandments were found in most government buildings and courthouses (laws here were based on the Judeo Christian values found in the Ten Commandments), the Pledge of Allegiance had God in it for 30 years, the phrase "In God WE Trust" was on our currency, and referrences to God were on most all of the documents authored by the "Founding Fathers".
Then we had Madelyne Murray O'Hare decide that prayer was offensive to the huge masses of athiests we had. Suddenly, after this, it became the "IN" thing to try to remove every reference to God and Judeo Christian values from everything the government was associated with.
But Nash thinks it's the "fundamentalist wackos" who are trying to change everything.:rolleyes:
The truth is, the silent majority has grown sick of the direction the country has taken since the fringe on the far left has become fashionable and seen fit to attempt to remove God from everything, and is now seeking to protect the Judeo Christian principles on which the country was founded.
Fundamentalist wackos? They mostly live in Montana and dont bother anyone until you try to arrest them for not paying taxes.
Seriously though, I have to admit I am a bit bothered by a movement that calls itself "Judeo-Christian" but doesnt involve any Jewish folks (slight attempt at humor, probably bad). It seems that members of the Right are more interested in making Christianity a rallying point for PACs than a church that reaches out to find and save lost souls. The very basis for our religion is love, peace, and understanding of our brothers. Yet I have seen some very hateful rhetoric coming out of those camps when it comes to certain issues (gay marriage for one). I'm not going to start an argument on that issue, but we as Christians should not be encouraging legislation that spells out who can and cannot be married. Extrapolating just a bit, thats just setting a precedent for govt. interference in all sorts of areas traditionally seen as the private arena of the Church. The Christian Coalition may encourage faith based legislation, but I think they have gone too far. Too much legislating, not enough soul saving.
Lets examine some of the issues currently being backed by these folks shall we? Many of them have religious implications, and they SHOULD stand up for their rights on those. Its allowing the govt. too much control either way if open displays are banned vs legislating morality.
Making permanent President Bush's 2001 federal tax cuts, including the marriage penalty tax cut and supporting President Bush's tax reform Helping the Congress make permanent the president's 2001 tax cuts, including all income tax cuts, the marriage penalty tax cut, child tax credit, etc. now set to expire in 2010. In addition, since the American people waste about $300 billion in tax preparation costs every year because of the hugely complicated Internal Revenue Service code and laws, Christian Coalition will support tax reform which could include abolition of the IRS and the federal income tax and replacing it with a flat tax or a national sales tax with people in lower income tax brackets getting refunds (possibly monthly refunds.)
This is great and all, but what does it have to do with Christianity, or even just religion in general? Someone at the office likes it (or more likely they just want to back the Prez.), so lets back this. BS.
Helping pass President Bush's Social Security reform (private accounts for young people and up to age 50). Christian Coalition will support Social Security reform which President Bush strongly supports and possibly the legislation to be introduced by Senator John Sununu or Senator Lindsey Graham and by Congressman Paul Ryan in the U.S. House of Representatives. President Bush wants Social Security reform to include turning President Roosevelt's New Deal-era retirement program into a self-financing private investment accounts system which workers could own and control. Right now those receiving Social Security cannot give the remainder of their benefits at their death to their children. The White House is considering letting workers put up to 4% of their payroll taxes into stock or bond funds. It will be similar to the hugely successful federal employee retirement system that now lets workers invest in several stock, bond, or fixed investment securities. In the beginning of the new Social Security private account system for younger people, there would be limited investment choices: three or more, all fully diversified, low-risk funds.
GREAT! I'm all for revamping the SS system. Only I'm not sure the proposed system is right. I dont appreciate my church telling me how to vote on issues I'm not sure I like. Which is what they are doing when you boil it down. But still, lets go on.
Getting a vote on the Marriage Protection (constitutional) amendment in the United States Senate (which was filibustered by Minority Leader Tom Daschle's left-wing Democrats earlier this year), and then getting a vote in the U.S. House again. Although there was a vote on the "Marriage Protection (constitutional) Amendment (MPA) sponsored by Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, R-CO, in the U.S. House of Representatives, left-wingers led by now-defeated Minority Leader Tom Daschle, prevented a vote on the MPA on the U.S. Senate floor. Christian Coalition was the only major organization supporting the Musgrave marriage amendment from the beginning when she introduced it in May 2003, and supported a similar constitutional amendment introduced by Senator Wayne Allard in late 2003. Although Congresswoman Musgrave got a 227-186 majority in the United States House of Representatives in 2004, a constitutional amendment needs 290 votes in the House and 67 Senate votes. Christian Coalition will work to grow the votes until it finally passes Congress and is sent to the state legislatures where 38 states are needed to ratify the marriage constitutional amendment allowing it to become the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. One Senator believes that after the huge support for the state constitutional amendments (an average of 71% have supported the 13 state constitutional amendments this year) and the infamous 4-3 Massachusetts Supreme Court decision allowing homosexual "marriages", the federal constitutional marriage amendment could even pass this year.
Touchy subject. Very controversial. And they are totally on the wrong side. Christians should be keeping the govt. totally OUT of the argument over marriage. Again my church is asking me to support something when I believe we are needlessly giving up some of our rights in this if it goes through. But I digress, and I've already made my views clear enough on this subject.
Passing Senator Shelby's/Congressman Aderholt's Constitutional Restora.Act.of 2004. Senator Richard Shelby's (S. 2082) and Congressman Roberta Aderholt's (H.R.3799) "Constitutional Restoration Act of 2004" will restrict the applellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court and all lower federal courts to that jurisdiction permitted to them by the U.S. Constitution.
Again, what does this have to do with being Christian in the US? Or just being Christian? Or even being religious? Now because the courts have made some decisions we dont like, they want to legislate away their power? Thats a serious issue, and requires more thought than anyone involved has seen fit to give it. Its a knee-jerk reaction to "I didnt get my way, now I'm going to push to legislate you into the ground". The judicial system, for all its flaws, is one of the 3 pillars of our society, and part of the check and balance system our founding fathers built into our govt. from the beginning. I get alarmed when people start talking about "Constitutional amendments" and "limiting the power of the courts" just because they dont like whats already there. I think its very dangerous if any one branch of the govt. gets too much power.
There are also initiatives to sponsor bills from Anti-cloning to abortion pills to bills that give money to faith based charities, child custody, protecting Chritian holy sites in and around Israel, etc. All of those have an impact on our faith and should be supported I believe.
I belive however, that your "silent majority" has swung far to the opposite end of the spectrum, and are becoming the very thing they fought. Federal control of our lives. Legislating the Left out of existence isnt the answer. Two wrongs dont make a right. They just make two wrongs.
-
Originally posted by Silat
nash I agree with totally. But you will never get agreement from the cult members who think their religious values are something that should be legislated.
JeBush
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/242_1113805050_jebush.jpg)
Name one religious value that anyone wants to legislate as law?
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Now because the courts have made some decisions we dont like, they want to legislate away their power? Thats a serious issue, and requires more thought than anyone involved has seen fit to give it. Its a knee-jerk reaction to "I didnt get my way, now I'm going to push to legislate you into the ground". The judicial system, for all its flaws, is one of the 3 pillars of our society, and part of the check and balance system our founding fathers built into our govt. from the beginning. I get alarmed when people start talking about "Constitutional amendments" and "limiting the power of the courts" just because they dont like whats already there. I think its very dangerous if any one branch of the govt. gets too much power.
God help this country if congress somehow is able to weaken the power of the judicial branch. We must not loose the checks and balances our forefathers put down for us.
Excellent post Star. As a Christian I agree 100% that the Christian Coalition is out of controll and is a danger to this nation.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Name one religious value that anyone wants to legislate as law?
Anti Gay agenda
Abortion
Thats 2.
Your faith belongs in your heart not in my face.
-
Originally posted by Toad
No, do like everyone else does. Vote for the folks you think will represent you best and pay your taxes even if they do not win.
I was answering Hilts. And I do pay my taxes.
-
What specific laws are you talking about?
Did they ban being gay?
Did the murder of unborn children get banned?
I thought I would have seen it on Cnn or something.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No slippery slope hotshot. First off, funding any such programs with federal taxes is unconstitutional. NOWHERE in the Constitution are such programs mandated nor provided for.
Funny, it is okay to starve an invalid, without certain proof of his or her wishes, it is okay to pull an infant from the womb and stab it in the back of the head with scissors and suck its brains out, but it is NOT okay to execute a convicted murderer.
It ain't about "women's rights", it is about what is or is not proper according to the Constitution. Abortion is an example, not an absolute. We could just as easily use "welfare".
Hotshot? :)
Not sure what you are talking about. Teri? Well the facts and 14 years of legal briefs dont support your contention.
And since the almighty himself hasnt let me know what he thinks I prefer to err on the side of personal freedom. Your rights end at my daughters skin.
But you see I support your right to believe what you want. And Im not mad at you for it:)
-
I hate to steal the nut fom all you squirrels, but right/left politics has no correllation to religion.
-
Nash, the table man, the table. Bring it.
Dont slap a pretty picture of a turkey and dressing on the table and yell "suppers ready". Its not nice, wife and kids might find some other table to get food from.
Oh, no wife and kids? Sorry.
Oh, Nash bailed on page one? Sorry...
-
Oh yeah, and put something in the subject asking Toad to pleeease not read the thread. You'll look better in the end.
-
Jefferson was very concerned that all men had the right to worship freely or not, and express their religious views in public without censure. This bill has the founding concepts of the meaning from the first section of the 1st Amendmant.
Thomas Jefferson
on
Religious Freedom
Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in the
State of Virginia
"SECTION II. We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
You can read the whole bill here: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/rfindex.htm
Before you attempt to use one document out of context to support your "Feelings", or revise the history of one of our founders, it might do some good to research the man in some depth to see how he truely felt about the issue. You can see he had no problem with worshiping God or not, or expousing belief of in public and office, or religious doctrine in any context, private or civil.............The president of the United States is a member of We the People, and a citizen of the United States who's religious rights and views are protected by the 1st amendmant. Like we have the right here to discorce our religious views, so does he in the office of President or in the privacy of his home.
If you don't like a president who speaks his faith in office, then turn of the channel, start a constitutional convention, or get an athiest elected next time. But this presidents Freedom of Religion is protected by a document you don't seem to have found the time to read.......................
-
Is there something about religion in our Constitution? Huh?
-
Amendment I
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.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
The manner in which these parts are structured is to protect religion from the governemnt by the government establishing a one true religion. Then it protects all of the people to practice their religion, and then protects the right to free speech which protects the right to freely speak your religious feelings in public, private or civic office................
The constitution does not have an amendment that states when you take Federal office you give up your rights as a citizen as outlined by the constitution you have sworn to uphold and protect. You are still a constitutionaly protected citizen in office..
-
Specifically it states that the United States Congress may make no law. It is a local issue that the state constitution must address, not the Federal Government. If a state allows it, a school district can require prayer, if you believe in the actual intention and compass of the US Constitution.
-
Actually that was Jeffersons intent on religion that it should be an issue for each state. Not an issue overseen by the Federal umbrella. In submitting his Freedom of Religion Bill for Viginia he also expressed his beleif that all men have the right to express their beleilfs, anti, neutral, or pro religion without retrobution...........freedom of speech and moral conviction go hand in hand.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Specifically it states that the United States Congress may make no law. It is a local issue that the state constitution must address, not the Federal Government. If a state allows it, a school district can require prayer, if you believe in the actual intention and compass of the US Constitution.
Actually Jefferson addressed just that issue in the previously quoted letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, and he agreed that govt. (whether state or federal) had no place telling people what religion they should favor. Its not an issue for the state to decide. Its an issue for each individual American to decide in their own hearts and minds. There should never be legislation (as there was in that instance) that favors one branch of Christianity over another, or favors one religion over another. Period. Just as our freedom to express ourselves is protected, so is our freedom to worship how we choose. In any state.
-
Jefferson can wish in one hand and **** in the other-the law of the land is what was ratified by the people, not TJ.
-
Star, the basic human right, one which TJ and others agreed on was the right to self determination. The right for people to band together into political and social units and decide what was right for them. This is why Federalism was so limited when the judiciary was not allowed to create law.
-
One we gave power to the courts to create and enforce law, our form of government was fatally wounded. It is only a matter of time before the proper state and local powers are restored, or the United States as a political unit will fail.
-
Nash needs help....
James Madison said The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
James Madison also wrote Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
Now I could go on and on, but if we are gonna use contextual proof to show what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote the second amendment, we can certainly do the same with the first.
-
Cripes, you call that help?
First of all, Nash ran away. You're way late.
Second, once again it says what it says. The guys that wrote it were not 21st Century spin meisters.
What is says... and what you quote... are REAL simple.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
That's IT, that's ALL. Anyone with a half-decent education can read and understand it.
Now, what are you trying to spin it into?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
What specific laws are you talking about?
Did they ban being gay?
Did the murder of unborn children get banned?
I thought I would have seen it on Cnn or something.
Weaselsan said:"Name one religious value that anyone wants to legislate as law?"
I say:
Unborn children being murdered? You would think I would have seen that on CNN.
I was asked for 2 religious items that an attempt was being made to legislate. I mentioned them.
-
Being agaist abortion is not just a christian thing.
I was asking for links to these laws you say are trying to be passed.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Being agaist abortion is not just a christian thing.
I was asking for links to these laws you say are trying to be passed.
Ummm how about Sodomy then? :D
-
Is bush passing anti sodomy laws??
Old laws don't count in this one Vulky
-
I'd bet sodomy laws go clear back to the time of the Founders. ;)
-
Originally posted by Silat
Hotshot? :)
Not sure what you are talking about. Teri? Well the facts and 14 years of legal briefs dont support your contention.
And since the almighty himself hasnt let me know what he thinks I prefer to err on the side of personal freedom. Your rights end at my daughters skin.
But you see I support your right to believe what you want. And Im not mad at you for it:)
Who is mad?
Regarding Terri Schiavo, ONE judge (who it so happens accepted campaign contributions from both Michael Schiavo AND his attorney's office) ruled on the case, and none of the rest had the balls to address his multitude of errors. The biggest of which is the fact that he dismissed the testimony of Teri Schiavo's closest friend on facts that he THOUGHT he knew, but was in fact COMPLETELY WRONG about. Regarding medical exams, for every exam one side provided, there is another provided by the other side. Legal briefs often have so little to do with facts it would stun you. I spent my youth in courts, and my sister has been a lwayer for 20 years. But again, it was merely an example. Not just an example of morality and law, but also an example of the judiciary run amok.
If you're waiting for some object to speak to you in a deep booming voice to learn "what the almighty thinks" you'll be waiting a long time. If you really want to know what he thinks, seek it and you will find it.
Abortion is the termination of a life, since we can now try a person who kills a fetus when said person attacks the mother carrying it. I'm not sure terminating a life qualifies as a personal freedom. At any rate, the Supreme Court over stepped its authority in Roe v. Wade, according to the Constitution. I hardly think abortion is one of those inalienable rights the Founding Fathers spoke of.
If you want to argue the "slippery slope" theory, we're perched atop said slope right now. We've decided that individuals may judge whether a fetus is a human and has a quality of life, whether or not the fetus should be allowed to affect the quality of life of the mother. We've now decided that a judge and an estranged husband may determine the quality of life for an invalid, and terminate that life if they so desire, regardless of any wishes of that person. Next, maybe we'll decide that we should determine the quality of life of Alzhiemers patients, or dementia patients, or the profoundly retarded, and if we feel their quality of life isn't up to our standards, we'll just terminate them as well. Yeah, the slope is slippery alright.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Unborn children being murdered? You would think I would have seen that on CNN.
I was asked for 2 religious items that an attempt was being made to legislate. I mentioned them.
LOL, you expect NEWS from CNN?
Since when is abortion a religious matter? Just because it is a matter of right vs. wrong does not make it specifically religious. By your arguement we could find a religion that practices some sort of ritual that goes against the current laws and decide that those laws must be struck down because they restrict that religion. Or we could decide that since the laws we have are based mostly on the Ten Commandments, they "establish a religion", and therefore are in violation of the Constitution.
I suppose pulling an unborn fetus from the womb of the mother and stabbing it in the back of the head with scissors is not murder?:rolleyes:
Oh, and in order to qualify as legislation of religion, according to the Constitution, it would mean Congress would have to pass a law ESTABLISHING a CHURCH of the NATION, and outlawing or restricting the other churches. I have yet to see this happen, or even see any attempts to make it happen.
Just because we decide what is right and what is wrong, and what is acceptable behavior, does not mean we are establishing or legislating religion.
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
Oh yeah, and put something in the subject asking Toad to pleeease not read the thread. You'll look better in the end.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Nash needs help....
Now I could go on and on, but if we are gonna use contextual proof to show what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote the second amendment, we can certainly do the same with the first.
Two problems with your position.
1. It is written AFTER the Constitution, and after it was ratified as well. It speaks to specific issues in a specific context, not the basic premise found in the Constitution itself.
2. Like Jefferson's letter, it is written by ONE MAN who was involved with the Constitution years before, and not by all who were involved. Also like Jefferson's letter, it is not a continuation of the specific clause in the Constitution, but rather an opinion on certain specific issues after the Constitution was ratified.
I do agree that Nash needs help though.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Specifically it states that the United States Congress may make no law. It is a local issue that the state constitution must address, not the Federal Government. If a state allows it, a school district can require prayer, if you believe in the actual intention and compass of the US Constitution.
Equal Protection (I forgot the amendment number) extends the federal restriction to state and local governments as well. State and local legislative bodies may also "make no law".
-
Originally posted by Silat
Anti Gay agenda
Abortion
Thats 2.
Your faith belongs in your heart not in my face.
Abortion is not a religious issue at all. It's no more a religious issue than murder or any other crime committed by one individual against another.
-
Sigh,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/final-report.pdf
federal dollars going to churches
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/booklet.pdf
how churches can receive federal dollars but can discriminate based on religion when it comes to employment.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/01/20010129-2.html
Sec. 3. Functions. The principal functions of the White House OFBCI are, to the extent permitted by law:
to develop, lead, and coordinate the Administration's policy agenda affecting faith-based and other community programs and initiatives, expand the role of such efforts in communities, and increase their capacity through executive action, legislation, Federal and private funding, and regulatory relief;
aww expanding the role of churches using federal taxes dollars. gotta love the slick wording.
to coordinate public education activities designed to mobilize public support for faith-based and community nonprofit initiatives through volunteerism, special projects, demonstration pilots, and public-private partnerships
gotta love the use of the public education to support faith based initiatives.
to eliminate unnecessary legislative, regulatory, and other bureaucratic barriers that impede effective faith-based and other community efforts to solve social problems;
My favorite. Eliminate all opposition, Including laws that make what he is doing very very wrong.
I know some will say look at the good they are doing in their communities, so I ask what good? All the faith based initiative did was free up money at the church. I would like to see if the churches increased the amount of "public help" they are giving by the same amount as they received from the government.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Old laws don't count in this one Vulky
The key word is "trying". Did you miss Bush wanting a new amendment against gays having the same marriage rights as the rest of us?
Now I showed you the 2. Google is your friend.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Abortion is not a religious issue at all. It's no more a religious issue than murder or any other crime committed by one individual against another.
Well you can google the history of the religious right as well as I>
Abortion wasnt an issue until Russia went down. Then the Religious Zealots needed a cause and guess which one it was. Now believe or not that is the facts.
And we disagree. I believe totally in a womens right to choose.And in America it is not murder. No matter how many times you say it.
-
My cat's breath smells like cat food.
-
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Amendment 14. It states that all must be treated the same, but has nothing to do with what I said.