[313Weather]

Originally Posted by canudigit

Ewwww...better get rid of those pesky churchgoers.

No, just get rid of those pesky churchgoers who love to spit all over the constitution and refuse to keep the church seperate from the state.

[Sparrow_temp]

Sure thing - where does it say that church must be separate from state? It doesn't. It does however state in the first amendment:

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

That means that government is supposed to be neutral and not excluding religion. As long as we don't create an official religion, we're within the bounds of the constitution. All of the atheists seem to just truncate the phrase and leave off the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So, we now have the state setting up "atheism" as the official religion.

I swear that half the population thinks that the first amendment states that "there shall be a separation of church from state". Try and actually read the constitution before stating that churchgoers are "spitting all over the constitution". Restricting prayer or biblical teaching seems to outright violate the "prohibiting the free exercise" clause.

We really need to get some strict Constitutionalists on the Supreme Court so that we don't have judges finding things that aren't in there or utilizing the "commerce clause" to let government do whatever they want. There's no way that Obamacare can be Constitutional for instance. Nor is it constitutional for the President to only enforce what laws he wants or only to enforce them when he wants to -- such as with immigration.

Originally Posted by 313Weather

No, just get rid of those pesky churchgoers who love to spit all over the constitution and refuse to keep the church seperate from the state.

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by Sparrow_temp

Sure thing - where does it say that church must be separate from state? It doesn't.

Not explicitly, but that is what Thomas Jefferson meant in the clause of the First Amendment, as expressed in his letter to a Baptist Minister in Danbury.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

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, & 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 & 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.

And utlimately, see the Supreme Court cases Reynolds vs. United States and Everson vs. Board of Education (unless they're not "strict enough Constitutionalist" for you, whatever the hell that means).

And BTW, the problem is government IS NOT neutral to religion when they're prohibiting people's constitutional right to marry who they please, smoke what they want and do whatever they want to the fetuses (who don't even know up from down) in their bodies if the only basis for it is the Chrisitan bible stating you can go to hell for it. That's exactly what Thomas Jefferson according to that letter wanted to prevent.

[michigan83]

And BTW, the problem is government IS NOT neutral to religion when they're prohibiting people's constitutional right to marry who they please, smoke what they want and do whatever they want to the fetuses (who don't even know up from down) in their bodies if the only basis for it is the Chrisitan bible stating you can go to hell for it. That's exactly what Thomas Jefferson according to that letter wanted to prevent.

Alright, lets just settle down here. It's possible to oppose all of those things without being religious at all. I guarantee there are pro-life atheists out there. Always remember that the constitution only protects your rights until they interfere with another person's rights. That's why things like drunk driving aren't constitutionally protected.

Are you saying that we shouldn't be able to have any laws that are found in religion? I think all religions have rules against murder and stuff like that. Are those laws are a violation of the first amendment?

[magellan]

Originally Posted by 313Weather

Not explicitly, but that is what Thomas Jefferson meant in the clause of the First Amendment, as expressed in his letter to a Baptist Minister in Danbury.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin



And utlimately, see the Supreme Court cases Reynolds vs. United States and Everson vs. Board of Education (unless they're not "strict enough Constitutionalist" for you, whatever the hell that means).

And BTW, the problem is government IS NOT neutral to religion when they're prohibiting people's constitutional right to marry who they please, smoke what they want and do whatever they want to the fetuses (who don't even know up from down) in their bodies if the only basis for it is the Chrisitan bible stating you can go to hell for it. That's exactly what Thomas Jefferson according to that letter wanted to prevent.

Go back and re-read the ruling and opinions from the judges in Roe v. Wade. Fetuses are protected in the 3rd trimester because of a medical status called "viability," or the ability for a fetus to live on its own outside the mother's womb. It has nothing to do with religion. And as medical technology increases, you will probably see the viability scale moved back probably to the first trimester.

Yes, some people are pro-life because of religious beliefs. Others are pro-life out of civil rights beliefs (the civil rights of the unborn viable fetuses).

But I do agree that prohibiting two people to marry (two consenting able minded adults) is purely based on religious beliefs, and should not be "acknowledged" by the government. The government should stay neutral on such issues. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

[michigan83]

Go back and re-read the ruling and opinions from the judges in Roe v. Wade. Fetuses are protected in the 3rd trimester because of a medical status called "viability," or the ability for a fetus to live on its own outside the mother's womb. It has nothing to do with religion. And as medical technology increases, you will probably see the viability scale moved back probably to the first trimester.

Yes, some people are pro-life because of religious beliefs. Others are pro-life out of civil rights beliefs (the civil rights of the unborn viable fetuses).

Thank you for doing a much better job of explaining that than I did.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by michigan83

Thank you for doing a much better job of explaining that than I did.

I knew where you were going with it..

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by michigan83

Are you saying that we shouldn't be able to have any laws that are found in religion? I think all religions have rules against murder and stuff like that. Are those laws are a violation of the first amendment?

Actually, I didn't say that. I said the reason for laws shouldn't be based on religious beliefs or rather JUST on religious beliefs. There is a difference between what you're interpreting and what I actually said.

As for other point about the pro-life people, I would love to get a tally of the folks who are pro-life because of what Magellan detailed versus those who are pro-life for religious reasons. I bet the latter number is much larger than the former.

[Bydand]

Originally Posted by 313Weather

As for other point about the pro-life people, I would love to get a tally of the folks who are pro-life because of what Magellan detailed versus those who are pro-life for religious reasons. I bet the latter number is much larger than the former.

Pro-life, civil reasons.

I have been present at the birth of all of my children, never saw the Dr. sprinkle on any magic "baby dust" that turned them from a lifeless blob of fetus material into a real live baby human.

Held a friends daughter that was born at around 22-24 weeks (second trimester) and weighed 18 ounces. After getting out of NICU, she has been a perfect healthy little girl. Happy, intelligent, charming child who is the literal living proof that even that early in development they are living, viable humans.

[Sparrow_temp]

I care more about what the Constitution says and not what some idiot interpreted it as saying in between the lines or in an unwritten part -- the idea of court precedent is problematic. You get one wrong decision and a lot more follow. For instance, Roe vs. Wade created abortion law out of thin air and somehow found a right to privacy in the constitution that's not there. Miranda v Arizona forced the police to read Miranda rights or not be able to utilize confessions as evidence. Case Kelo vs City of New London made it legal to take private property and give it to another private entity under eminent domain. Case AT&T Mobility vs Concepcion took away the right to sue a corporation by upholding arbitration agreements that favor the corp 95-98% of the time. Perry vs Schwarzenegger overturning a state Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The Legislature should be making law and not the Courts. A belief in judicial activism should be a disqualifier for judges.

If something is not in there -- pass a Constitutional amendment to put it in there instead of just making it up.

And you're right about the drug thing -- this should be decided on a state by state basis. You're not right about killing unborn children or changing what the world marriage means to satisfy the homosexual community.

Originally Posted by 313Weather

Not explicitly, but that is what Thomas Jefferson meant in the clause of the First Amendment, as expressed in his letter to a Baptist Minister in Danbury.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin



And utlimately, see the Supreme Court cases Reynolds vs. United States and Everson vs. Board of Education (unless they're not "strict enough Constitutionalist" for you, whatever the hell that means).

And BTW, the problem is government IS NOT neutral to religion when they're prohibiting people's constitutional right to marry who they please, smoke what they want and do whatever they want to the fetuses (who don't even know up from down) in their bodies if the only basis for it is the Chrisitan bible stating you can go to hell for it. That's exactly what Thomas Jefferson according to that letter wanted to prevent.