If Bush is religious, and.....

[kingjust]

he is pushing policy based on his religion. Wouldn't that be an infringement of our 1st amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". Hence writing policy for gay marraige. Doesn't the Bill of Right's have any clout? Please let's talk!!

[Starboy]

Not to mention it makes a mockery of the oath Bush made to uphold the Constitution.

Starboy

[gr8fuldaniel]

Nothing presidential about the idiot. Dont forget, we didnt pick him, he is more of a volunteer worker that just wont go away.

[bishop]

he is.. unfortunately, lots of people like the fact that he's inserting religion into public policy. good ol' american taliban.

[CivicRacingGirl7]

Originally posted by kingjust, he is pushing policy based on his religion. Wouldn't that be an infringement of our 1st amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". Hence writing policy for gay marraige. Doesn't the Bill of Right's have any clout? Please let's talk!!

gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell research... but hey, as long as those christians can sleep at night, who cares about the constitution? oh wait, have to make sure the 2nd amendment is upholded though. :rolleyes:

[kingjust]

Love the replies, keep em coming!!

[argonak]

People have a right to vote how they please, for whatever reason they please. That is the way it works. A person has as much right to vote for policy based on their religous beliefes as they do for their analytically/scientifcally based opinions.


To put it another way, in our policial process, getting an opinion from a God which may or may not be all in one's head is just as valid as getting an opinion from the thoughts that are also all in one's head.

A big problem for the democratic party right now is their leadership FIRMLY believes that anyone who disagrees with them is an utter and complete moron. This is not a good way to get people to vote for you or agree with you. Neither party has a majority of the electorate firmly in their camp, you have to convince independants to win.

Calling them stupid, implying their strongly held beliefs are utter bunk, and generally not showing people respect (whether they are deserving of it or not) is not a way to win an election.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by argonak, People have a right to vote how they please, for whatever reason they please. That is the way it works. A person has as much right to vote for policy based on their religous beliefes as they do for their analytically/scientifcally based opinions.

In a pure democracy you would have a point. We do not have a pure democracy. There are some things, such as our personal freedoms which are supposed to never be put to a vote. This is why voting on gay marriage or abortion are against American values even if they may be for Christian values.

Starboy

[argonak]

You are correct. If a law works against the constitution, the supreme court has the duty to rule against it.

That said, not everyone agrees with this interpretation of that amendment.

[Young]

Civicracinggirl7- If women have the Pill/Patch...why is abortion needed....other than Rape/Incest? I have NO problem with stem cell research, but if you're Christian & you don't want your tax dollars paying for embryonic stem cell....how can it be right that CA can use your tax money for it? Gays.....LOL.....ROFLLMAO......Thats why we're keeping Our guns....J/K......Seriously, It'll Never happen, and you should Not lose sleep over it.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by argonak, You are correct. If a law works against the constitution, the supreme court has the duty to rule against it. That said, not everyone agrees with this interpretation of that amendment.

I find it so funny how people can claim that there is disagreement as to the interpretation. When it becomes the case that their rights are infringed by another religion the intent of the constitution becomes all too clear. There cannot be freedom of religion if the views of a particular religion are specifically favored over another religion or lack thereof. It just doesn't get any simpler than that.

Starboy

[Section 8]

It seems that we're slowly making the transition to a democracy, something that I truly fear. We already see the constitution falling prey to the majority, in the case of gun rights, gay marriage, public spectrum, PATRIOT Act, War on Drugs, and such, all of which our sitting president is advocating. The constitution is a safeguard to democracy, where no matter how miniscule the people are, their rights will always be intact.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Young, I have NO problem with stem cell research, but if you're Christian & you don't want your tax dollars paying for embryonic stem cell....how can it be right that CA can use your tax money for it?

That whole issue about tax dollars is a lot of hooey. There are lots of cases were tax dollars are spent in a way that one group or another likes or dislikes. There were plenty of people that thought that the money spent on the space program would have been better spent elsewhere. Those people are looking silly now that we see the huge advantage in technology that program gave the rest of industry in our country. Stem cell research is the same thing. So what that they don't like it! Thirty years from now when they can get their heart replaced with a healthy clone of their very own heart they will think differently. These Christians need to wake up and see that they are pawns in an old fashion power grab from the religious right. It has nothing to do with the sanctity of human life. It is just a trumped up issue that they are using to get passions aroused so that they can get the religious to vote for the candidate that will do their bidding.

Starboy

[Young]

You can quote somebody.......I'd pat you on the back....but then, you might take that the wrong way.

[argonak]

It seems that we're slowly making the transition to a democracy, something that I truly fear. We already see the constitution falling prey to the majority, in the case of gun rights, gay marriage, public spectrum, PATRIOT Act, War on Drugs, and such, all of which our sitting president is advocating. The constitution is a safeguard to democracy, where no matter how miniscule the people are, their rights will always be intact.

I agree that an entirely democratic process is not a good thing. The concept of a republic provides protection for the minority, which I do consider a good thing.

But I do not believe that this amendment can be extended the way many people claim.

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

That is the first amendment in its entirety. The entire thing is basically dedicated to the concept of free speech and free thinking. It may be that many of these recent laws are unconstitutional, but I do not think this amendment can be used to prove that.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by argonak, That is the first amendment in its entirety. The entire thing is basically dedicated to the concept of free speech and free thinking. It may be that many of these recent laws are unconstitutional, but I do not think this amendment can be used to prove that.

It is not a matter of proof but of values. There are the values of freedom which at the time were unique American values and then there are the values of Christians who essentially take their orders for god and live in a universe that does not value freedom but obedience and subservience to god and his minions. They wiggle and equivocate about the constitution but it is not because they don't understand it, but because they disagree with it. The law of god should trump the law of man and we are slaves of god. So freedom is out the door.

Starboy

[Technosoul]

Congress shall make no law, but Bush is not Congress.
So he can according to his legal advisor, soon to be the next Atturny General.

I think they can have a legal and secular difinition for the word marrage that could be said not to be one based on religion or morality. Example: They ruled that Mormons cannot marry more then one woman which was their "religious" idea that fit their sense of morality. They did not leave that determination in the hands of the state of Utah. What consitutes a family or not a family is relative to many other laws on the books, and people move around a lot nowdays from state to state, so we should not leave it fuzzy other wise the courts have no standard to use.

Congress can simple vote.

Yes, Gay marrages will be honored by all the laws pertaining to family and marrage.

or. No, they will be viewed as friendships that would demand other types of legal and binding contracts if so desired.

But it is a tricky topic and so I thnk they should demand a vote that in pretty much represents all of Congress instead of just a slight majority vote win ether way just beyond the middle.

And any Congress person who happens to avoid the issue by not showing up to vote on that day should be fined.

So, should people enter marrage by the rear door, I don't know, not my problem.

Technosoul.

[Starboy]

Soul, I understand all that but it only illustrates that government legislators are respecting religion by imposing the Christian viewpoint onto everyone as to what constitutes a family. As long as it is not hurting anyone people should be allowed to decide that for themselves. This is what freedom means. Sacred only applies to those that hold sacred to be important. The religious leaders in government of course know this because they would be the first to object it the Islamic concept of what constitutes a family was imposed on them. It really boils down to the fact that there is freedom of religion in this country as long as you are a Christian.

Starboy

[argonak]

It is not a matter of proof but of values.

If the supreme court does their job then it is a matter of proof. They look at the law, they look at the constitution. if the law doesn't fit, they throw it out.

There are the values of freedom which at the time were unique American values and then there are the values of Christians who essentially take their orders for god and live in a universe that does not value freedom but obedience and subservience to god and his minions. They wiggle and equivocate about the constitution but it is not because they don't understand it, but because they disagree with it. The law of god should trump the law of man and we are slaves of god. So freedom is out the door.

That is your opinion about people who follow a religion. But it is only your opinion. Juding from your opinion you know very little about christianity.

The 1st amendment is part of what guarentees your right to have that opinion. But it also guarentees that same right to other people. Including members of religions.