Separation of Church and State

[BVS]

I am having a hard time understanding your point of view. Would you ban people belonging to a religion from voting or holding elected office? You cannot separate completely from what you believe religiously from yourself. The founding fathers were trying to prevent a Religion from dominating governement and using it for "tyrranical" purposes. You would have to BAN people who belong to organized religion from ever voting to get what you wish for.

I'm not sure how you got that from my post, that is not my view at all.

Ignore the founding fathers religion....GOOD WE CAN DO THAT....But you cannot IGNORE the historical reasons that created the constitution the way they did. It was not to prevent people with religious beliefs from exercizing their rights in a Democracy to make laws.

Once again this is not what I'm saying.

The Constitution was designed for ONE purpose in the area of Religion. I have cited and put their words in here. It was NOT designed to keep people of any faith from exercising their rights in a Democracy. That is what you are asking for, and it is contrary to their words and the intent of the First Amendment. It is clear from their words what their intent was especially when their words are kept in the context of the time they were written.

I would ask that you not put words in my mouth, for this is never what I asked for. I believe everyone of all faiths should excercise their rights in a Democracy.

If you have read what I posted, you would not consider any of the men MNelon or I discussed, fundamentalist. On the contrary, one thing Melon and I would agree with (I think) is that they would very much think fundamentalism as we know it today to be very silly. Clearly Jefferson and Adams would not be party to it. I would venture Mr. Franklin would not as well. He also urged Thomas Paine to not publish his attack on religion....

I didn't say that any of our founding father's were fundalmentalist. What I'm saying is that you said it was alright for this country to claim Christianity as it's religion(based on the founding father's beliefs) as long as it doesn't claim a denomination, and that I fear will lead to fundalmentalism.

All I'm saying and the one thing you haven't answered yet, is that the first amendment should not allow the legislation of laws based soley on one's religion. If I'm understanding you correctly you feel that's fine. But that's only because you believe the same way the majority in Washington do.

I won't touch the gay marriage issue because we've already ran that one into the ground. But let's say Bush wants to add an ammendment or pass a law that says all children born out of wedlock automatically go to the state and will be put up for adoption, because his interpretation of his religion says premarital sex is wrong. And children born out of wedlock ruin the sanctity of family. Would you support his ability to do this? I'm not asking if you'd support the law, but would you support his ability?

 

[Dreadsox]

I give...

I have one question...since you are accusing me of putting words into your mouth....Could you read the first SENTENCE of my post.

Thanks.

Secondly....If you can tell me how you are going to STOP someone with a religious background from proposing a law I would appreciate it. This is what your position is?

Bush can propose whatever laws he wants. If the people do their job, then the law will not pass. Anyone can push for any law. That is why it is a democratic republic.

 

[BVS]

I give...

I have one question...since you are accusing me of putting words into your mouth....Could you read the first SENTENCE of my post.

Thanks.

Secondly....If you can tell me how you are going to STOP someone with a religious background from proposing a law I would appreciate it. This is what your position is?

Bush can propose whatever laws he wants. If the people do their job, then the law will not pass. Anyone can push for any law. That is why it is a democratic republic.

I apologize for the accusations, but you seemed pretty harsh towards the middle of your post.

I understand that he can propose any law he wants. I even understand that it may get passed because there may be many in Congress that believes the way he does. My stand is that the first ammendment as I read it should find a law like the example I used to be unconstitutional.

Now I know Congress are our representatives theoretically. But let's be honest they are not a true representation of all the different races, religion, and cultures that make America, America. And because of that I fear unless the first ammendment is used in this manner we will have laws that pass that are based purely on one's religion. Laws that have no place in our country, laws that will take away people's rights rather than protect them.

Why do we need religion in our government? We can have religion in the individuals in our government and they can use their morals, beliefs, and good will to run this country. But when one crosses a line and tries to bring their beliefs into our households without any legal merit, then they need to be stopped. That is what the separation of church and state should do. This is just my humble opinion. I have enjoyed the debate.

 

[Dreadsox]

But when one crosses a line and tries to bring their beliefs into our households without any legal merit, then they need to be stopped. That is what the separation of church and state should do. This is just my humble opinion. I have enjoyed the debate.

How is this in contradiction with what I have said?...maybe that is where I am thick headed.

And yes, if we are talking about a law...that can be found unconstitutional.

If we are talking about adding an amendment...that cannot be deemed unconstituional.

 

[Dreadsox]

I have enjoyed the debate.

me too

 

[BVS]

How is this in contradiction with what I have said?...maybe that is where I am thick headed.

Ok, maybe I've misinterpreted you, but what I read from your posts was that the first ammendment was designed to keep the government out of religion and not religion out of the government, right? But by that definition the gay marriage ban (this is why we got on this subject) can theoretically pass. No one, no one in this forum, Bush, the media, no one has given any reason other than religious of why this should go through. I have not seen one reason with legal merit of why this should go through. Yet with your definition it could. Am I wrong?

And yes, if we are talking about a law...that can be found unconstitutional.

Well with my interpretation of the first ammendment it would be unconstitutional, but I'm not sure it would with yours.

If we are talking about adding an amendment...that cannot be deemed unconstituional.

Yeah and that's what I'm afraid Bush will get away with.

 

[Dreadsox]

It is my fear that it will pass as a law. The plus side, is that it can be deemed unconstitutional. And yes, under my definition anything can become a law. That is where people as voters must do their jobs. If your representatives are not doing theirs they must be replaced. President Clinton did sign a law saying that Marriage was between a man and a woman already if I am not mistaken.

If the President pushes it as an Amendment....the process is EXTREMELY difficult to get that to happen. It is doubtful.

 

[BVS]

Ok fair enough we will have to agree to disagree on our interpretation of the ammendment. I think we both kinda want the same thing, just one of trusts the system more than the other. Night and I'll see you in the next debate.

 

[Dreadsox]

I do have faith in the system...

I think in the long run, the system has worked istself out correctly for the most part.

Night

 

[melon]

I do have faith in the system...

The U.S. Senate is probably our only obstacle to complete fanaticism. It was two votes in the U.S. Senate that stopped the proposed "anti-flag burning" amendment. It had the support of more than 3/4 of the state legislatures. Yes, an amendment for a practice that has happened how many times in the last decade here in the U.S.? Maybe twice?

(And the irony isn't lost...if I remember correctly, the people never vote for U.S. constitutional amendments. It's up to the state legislatures, so, regardless, the people never get a voice, and, instead of "activist judges," you get "reactionary legislatures.")

Our politicians are morons, and "diversion legislation" is the only thing they are good for, as none of them are smart or have integrity to actually do anything meaningful. They might offend their wealthy, corporate campaign contributors! At least with gay marriage, what all the fanatics forget is that gay people are never going to go away, no matter how much they want to push them under the rug and give them less rights than dirt.

BTW, I have lost faith in our system. Even if John Kerry becomes president, I don't have the faintest hope that he'll accomplish anything meaningful, whether it be to his own devices or the fact that he'd probably inherit a hostile Republican Congress like during the Clinton era. I expect nothing to get done, and we might as well really run this place like a business: inflate our profitability, declare bankruptcy, and become another corporate acquisition.

Melon