133 replies to this topic

[JadziaDax]

It came up in a discussion that it may be possible with some weird Supreme Court Justice new people electedness that Bush could create a state sponsored religion (just like he can easily kill the whole Roe vs Wade thing).

Exactly how could he do this?

Could he even hypothetically do this?

[Number_6]

Do you even have the slightest understanding what it means to appoint a conservative judge?

Go look up the term "strict Constitutionalist" and then get back to us.

Fear mongering is the last resort of those with no viable political platform of their own.

[Themis]

If he even tries, we may have another revolution.  Aside from everything else, there's the Jewish vote to consider.  Even though I went to college in the '60's (and graduated before the real protests started), I've never marched in anything but I'd be out in the front of that one.

Themis

[JadziaDax]

Number 6, I have taken political classes, thank you very much. I also have very little paitence for jerkish political people right now. So kindly don't act like one.

I was asking a question about something that came up.  Got it?

Good.

Themis. Thank you, but I was wondering if he _could_ do it. And trust me, I'd be marching along with everyone else.

Edited by JadziaDax, 03 November 2004 - 08:45 PM.

[Shoshana]

No he couldn't do it.

It would violate the whole church vs state thing. It would shatter one of the basic tenants of the Constitution, Freedom of Religion.

What he could do is make an environment where religions of all kinds could try to have more influence over us. Religious school funding, credits etc.

'shana

[Number_6]

JadziaDax, on Nov 3 2004, 08:28 PM, said:

Number 6, I have taken political classes, thank you very much. I also have very little paitence for jerkish political people right now. So kindly don't act like one.

I was asking a question about something that came up.  Got it?

Good.

Themis. Thank you, but I was wondering if he _could_ do it. And trust me, I'd be marching along with everyone else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not a crime to fear monger around here, but it is to call someone on it.

This post was edited by the Ministry of Truth, otherwise known as your friendly moderating staff.  

I hope you have all had your delicate sensibilities restored now.

Edited by Number_6, 04 November 2004 - 12:13 AM.

[Lord of the Sword]

To tell the truth, I seriously doubt he'd be able to do that. Even if he could, it would literally tear this Country apart.

I'm Christian, or at least I try to be, but if he tried that I'd definately be against it.

Edited to add: But I didn't think they'd be able to amend the constitution to include marriage as between a man and a woman either. Shows how much I know.

Edited by LORD of the SWORD, 03 November 2004 - 09:30 PM.

[Lord of the Sword]

Number_6, on Nov 3 2004, 09:27 PM, said:

And I have no patience for b*llsh*t fearmongering from Dems.

Read the Constitution, learn a little something about conservatism that isn't being told to you by your leftist professors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can we tone it down and keep things civil, please?

[Number_6]

LORD of the SWORD, on Nov 3 2004, 09:31 PM, said:

Number_6, on Nov 3 2004, 09:27 PM, said:

And I have no patience for b*llsh*t fearmongering from Dems.

Read the Constitution, learn a little something about conservatism that isn't being told to you by your leftist professors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can we tone it down and keep things civil, please?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was civil.

[Julianus]

When Bush gets to appoint new Federal judges I don't believe any real whackos would get confirmed. Although the Republicans gained seats in the Senate, most of the New England Republicans: Snow and Collins from Maine and Chaffee from Rhode Island; I would be classify as moderate to liberal and would join Democrats in opposing any judicial appointee who would roll back Roe v Wade. Jmho.

Edited by Julianus, 03 November 2004 - 09:40 PM.

[Lord of the Sword]

Number_6, on Nov 3 2004, 09:32 PM, said:

That was civil.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then perhaps you need to review the board guidelines about cursing at another poster, and flaming another poster?

[Rov Judicata]

Any notion that Bush is somehow creating a new state religion is simply false. What's at work in modern politics is the bigoted idea that a law which happens to coincide with religion is automatically invalid.

It's also particularly ironic, since Kerry did far more campaigning from the pulpit than Bush did.....

Edited by Hotspur Rovinski, 03 November 2004 - 09:42 PM.

[G1223]

Ok..... ah what religion is he going to make it?  Basically the person who came up with this idea has no real way of undertanding what would need to take place for such a thing to happen.

I  think Bush has no chance of make a state supported faith ever happen. Add in he is not likely to try.

Overturning Roe-V-Wade? First he is not likely to try. His own party has  supported  less extreme measures.  


Besides a jerk-jerk reaction has the person who came up with either idea truely thought it out. I know the mudslinging"He's Going to Overturn Roe-V-Wade" get pitched out whenever a republican's nominee is brought up.

Basically As Six was saying the likely canidates we are going to see are folks who have veiw that judges do not make laws they enforce them or rule them unconstitional.  The knee jerk from the conservative side is that we have had judges decide that they will fix a social problem.  It's nice that they want to help a situation but it's not their job.

Do you want a judge saying be cause a person is white and has all the advantages of race and culture that he should not get fincal support for school? Or for him to rule that any prefernce shown should be on ability?

[G1223]

Six as a fellow conservative I would ask you to please edit the  word to BS as it kicks in the nanny part of the system. While I have simular feelings I do not want to have parents get upset at the way things were said.

[JadziaDax]

Number 6. Kindly stop trying to make this thread turning into a flame and mudsling fest.

I was asking IF he could, HOW he could do it.

Don't assume I'm stupid. If you want to engage in a flame fest I assure you that you WILL lose. However, I adhere to the board guidelines and therefore wont.

I thank everyone else on their replies.

I believe the person I was speaking with had the thought that Bush's strong favor of the gay marriage ban and other similiar issues tied closely with religion, that it would basically be the same thing as a state sponsored religion?

Edited by JadziaDax, 03 November 2004 - 09:50 PM.

[Rov Judicata]

JadziaDax, on Nov 3 2004, 07:48 PM, said:

I believe the person I was speaking with had the thought that Bush's strong favor of the gay marriage ban and other similiar issues tied closely with religion, that it would basically be the same thing as a state sponsored religion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's true. But separation of church and state doesn't mean that an idea which coincides with religion is forbidden; if it did, we wouldn't be able to make any of the ten commandments law. Last I checked, theft and murder were illegal.

There are generally three things cited in favor of the theocracy meme:

1) Bush uses the word God a lot. True enough, but so does every politician at the national level. It's a survival skill. I'm firmly convinced that presidential candidates are locked in a conditioning room and beaten until they can say "God Bless America" with just the right combination of awe and enthusiasm.
2) Gay marriage. The Bible is generally interpreted to condemn gay activity, although not everybody agrees; see Andrew Sullivan's "Virtually Normal" for more details on that (any good college library should have it). And Bush's proposed ban against gay marriage is no doubt motivated in part by faith (but mostly by politics). However, such a law does serve a secular purpose. One could argue that marriage is for the purposes of reproduction. Further, states do have the right to legislate morality; under the FMA (according to Volokh et al), states would be able to make their own gay marriage laws, but the FF&CC wouldn't be interpreted to make them valid across state lines. Plus, it would be male/female for federal purposes. Even the majority opinion in Lawrence V. Texas stipulated that gay marriage isn't constitutionally protected (or, at least, hinted at it; it's been a while since I've read the decision). It's also interesting to note that if the FMA passes it is, by definition, constitutional.
3) Abortion. Once again, this coincides with a religious belief, but there are secular arguments against abortion. You can believe-- legitimately and secularly-- that life begins at fertilization, and therefore killing the fetus is murder.  The reason this one gets so much traction is that SCOTUS pretty much invented the right to an abortion out of whole cloth.

Aside from those three, I'm not aware of anything major that gets the secularists so upset.

[Number_6]

JadziaDax, on Nov 3 2004, 09:48 PM, said:

Number 6. Kindly stop trying to make this thread turning into a flame and mudsling fest.

I was asking IF he could, HOW he could do it.

Don't assume I'm stupid. If you want to engage in a flame fest I assure you that you WILL lose. However, I adhere to the board guidelines and therefore wont.

I thank everyone else on their replies.

I believe the person I was speaking with had the thought that Bush's strong favor of the gay marriage ban and other similiar issues tied closely with religion, that it would basically be the same thing as a state sponsored religion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I'm afraid I won't.  Your "fears" are groundless, and you need to be called on it.  And your understanding of the relationship between morality and religion severely flawed.

You're welcome to take me on.  But you WILL lose.

[G1223]

No state sponsered religion means. All people will attend  services of the state faith. Those who do not face fines and penalties  maybe even criminal charges. The crime of Heresy would be a new capital crime. commission of such a offense is punishable by death. Other crimes might be practising. Other crimes would be being of a faith other than the state's. Or those of other faiths would be given higher taxes or attacked. to make them convert.


This is how it was in Switzerland during the Calvanist period.

So no a willingness to not support gay marriage or having a dislike of abortion. does not mean  a state religion is on it's way of becomming a reality.  There are people who simply believe such things are wrong. They will use the system to try and make the wishes heard. Just as those who do support  gay marriage and abortion will. It's called a difference of opinion.  It happens and unless done in a illegal manner is protected by law for both sides.

[JadziaDax]

But having laws about gay marriage and illegal abortion that are passed because people think it's agaisnt whats in the bible or whatever, pass the laws and in effect, impose their values and beliefs onto the rest of the state which may or may not agree.

I don't know what non-christian religions stances are on those "sensative" issues....so I am not sure if they would be opposed to certain laws being passed with similar reasoning behind them.

N6: I never said they were my "fears". Stop jumping to conclusions. And while your at your annoying look-things-up mode. I suggest you look up something. It's in the dictionary. It's called "respect", m'kay?

Edited by JadziaDax, 03 November 2004 - 10:11 PM.

[G1223]

OK illeagal abortions.

First each state sets the terms by which residence my get abortions. The usual guidelines are these

Most be performed in the first three months.
Thast a licened doctor perform the activity. (To try and prevent accidents.)

Now the varibles I have seen

No one under the age of 18 without parent's permission.
Later term abortions must met specific circumstances. (I.E the Mother's health is endanger. The child is actually nonviable)
The Husband must consent to wife getting an abortion.( This One I disagree with but it's the law in a few states.)
A waiting period. (X number of days. Also decided by state)

Realize that Abortion laws in all 50 states are compromises between both sides on the issue.

Gay marriage made illegal. Well first it must be made legal in the first place. The courts are hearing the cases right now based on appeals and whatnot. Just like with other laws the court ruling is important. While the Supreme Court can have a case brought to them to make a ruling outside of the normal methods.  The basic rule is that this issue will be decidedI suspect by the indvidual states just like the abortion laws are.


I