I've been to Canada, Mexico, and Europe. Far more relaxed and liberal, socially speaking. The fundies need to have the sticks removed from their asses.
I've spent 6 years in latin America, 4 years in Canada, and 3 years in Europe (Eastern) and was awfully glad to retire to Alabama! The food is better, the air is pure, the water has too much clorine, but I filter it, the people are great as long as you don't let them get to the point of asking which church you attend, and the climate is fantastic!
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Well I read the bill and I don't know what the fuss is. It says that if someone believes in the Christian God, then they can't be attacked on that basis. They can acknowlege anything they like, but the sole grounds for review cannot be that.
The problem is that this act tries to undermine the US constitution. It's aim is to make it possible for Christian fundamentalist legislators to push through their agenda of a Christian Theocracy (biblical rule) unopposed. The words of God will have more importance than the rule of law.
"If enacted, it will effectively transform the American republic into a theocracy, where the arbitrary dictates of a "higher power" -- as interpreted by a judge, policeman, bureaucrat or president -- can override the rule of law."
"Their openly expressed aim is to establish "biblical rule" over every aspect of society -- placing "the state, the school, the arts and sciences, law, economics, and every other sphere under Christ the King.""
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
But that is not IN FACT what the law says. This does not make any law constitutional because it puts forward an religious agenda. What it actually says is that people can't be attacked because they have a belief that God is the ultimate authority. You have to acknowlege there is a great deal of venom around here for those who are religious. It is automatically assumed they are Bush flunkies, or stupid or will eat your babies (yeah that last was hyperbole).
Christians I know are concerned because they feel they are going to be attacked BY people like those who post in this forum. A great many feel unsafe due to the backlash against Bush, and I can see their POV. If I called gays here the things people of faith are, I would be shown the door here just as fast as you please. Many of those DID vote for Bush, not because they liked him at all, but because he wasn't Kerry, just as I did the opposite.
No, there is enough hate on both sides to go around. I would amend this so that both the presence OR absence of religious beliefs could not be used against individuals in govt.
Read the bill though, and see where it protects laws from review because they are promoted by Christians (or any other group).
I just don't see it.
What is more relevant is that it limits the creative interpretations of the Constitution. That is a more important aspect of this.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Good post. I agree with this. After the initial shock, I read the bill through again and got a better understanding of it. I would much prefer that your amendment be added though.
As for the battle taking place between the Fundamentalists and the anti-Godders.... well, I don't see any innocent sides there. You're right about the hateful comments used against religious people here, and those are inexcusable IMO, but you should remember that most AT'ers are in their late teens/early twenties and the "religious angst" part of their lives, and not representative of society as a whole.
True. Then there is the possibility that given time, such laws of Congress become more common place, possibly undermining the Constitution to the point where the Declaration of Independance could become the basis for laws instead. Such a situation would lend itself well to a Dominist perspective that wants Theologic rule.
I know, such pessimism.......
In short, this is a BAD thing.
I don't see this as a defensive move at all. On the contrary, it is very much an offensive move.
The purpose is to make Christianity part of the official, as opposed to private, life of public officials. Exactly what the founding fathers did not want for their Republic.
"History," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
As President,Thomas Jefferson, among other things, supported government involvement in:
* Legislative and Military Chaplains,
* Establishing a national seal using a religious symbol,
* Including the word "God" in our national motto,
* Official Days of Fasting and Prayer-at least on the state level,
* Punishing Sabbath breakers (is that real enough for you?),
* Punishing marriages contrary to biblical law,
* Punishing irreverent soldiers,
* Protecting the property of churches,
* Requiring oaths saying "So Help Me God," taken on the Bible
* Granting land to Christian churches to reach the Indians
* Granting land to Christian schools
* Allowing Government property and facilities to be used for worship
* Using the Bible and non-denominational religious instruction in the public schools. (He was involved in three different school districts and the plan in each one of these REQUIRED that the Bible be taught in our public schools).
* Allowing clergymen to hold public office, and encouraging them to do so,
* Purchasing and stocking religious books for public libraries,
* Funding of salaries of clergymen in Indian mission schools.
* Funding for construction of church buildings for Indians,
* Exempting churches from taxation,
* Establishing professional schools of theology. [He wanted to bring over from Geneva, Switzerland, the entire faculty of Calvin's theological seminary and establish it at the University of Virginia.]
* Treaties requiring other nations to guarantee religious freedom,
* Including religious speeches and prayers in official ceremonies."
* Legislative and Military Chaplains,
* Establishing a national seal using a religious symbol,
* Including the word "God" in our national motto,
* Official Days of Fasting and Prayer-at least on the state level,
* Punishing Sabbath breakers (is that real enough for you?),
* Punishing marriages contrary to biblical law,
* Punishing irreverent soldiers,
* Protecting the property of churches,
* Requiring oaths saying "So Help Me God," taken on the Bible
* Granting land to Christian churches to reach the Indians
* Granting land to Christian schools
* Allowing Government property and facilities to be used for worship
* Using the Bible and non-denominational religious instruction in the public schools. (He was involved in three different school districts and the plan in each one of these REQUIRED that the Bible be taught in our public schools).
* Allowing clergymen to hold public office, and encouraging them to do so,
* Purchasing and stocking religious books for public libraries,
* Funding of salaries of clergymen in Indian mission schools.
* Funding for construction of church buildings for Indians,
* Exempting churches from taxation,
* Establishing professional schools of theology. [He wanted to bring over from Geneva, Switzerland, the entire faculty of Calvin's theological seminary and establish it at the University of Virginia.]
* Treaties requiring other nations to guarantee religious freedom,
* Including religious speeches and prayers in official ceremonies."
I see problems with the constitutionality of this measure, not olny from the standpoint of the permissible circumstances under which the legislature can carve out exceptions to federal jusisdiction, but from establishment implications as well. I think there is too much of an accumulation of precedent since Marbury v. Madison and it is too political. It would take some real Rhenquist-style jusicial activism for this one to pass the muster.
Oh look...Riprorin is back to cutting and pasting and not crediting the original source. Why is he even back again??
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/...ageprint.asp?story=989
"Dr." Kennedy is just another Jesus-Freak who has distorted and lied about what the Founding Fathers said and did.
http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0128-101.htm
http://www.creation-vs-evoluti...ncy/james-kennedy.html
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/...ageprint.asp?story=989
"Dr." Kennedy is just another Jesus-Freak who has distorted and lied about what the Founding Fathers said and did.
http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0128-101.htm
http://www.creation-vs-evoluti...ncy/james-kennedy.html
This bill is a reasonable one; I just don't have confidence that the Supreme Court couldn't concoct a reason to srtike it down.
If you are denying it then read the bill again! Forget the stupid analysis! Analysis if for those who can't think on their own! YOU CAN!
In laymen's terms I see that it says that any state or federal government official can propose a bill and if that bill is based on religious principle i.e. "It's what GOD said" then the supreme court could not be used to overturn the law. This gives way for all of leviticus to be enacted as federal law without any way to challenge the law in court. In effect it can be argued this opens the door for religious rule not government by the people.
Why did you put Dr. in quotes?
Education:
B.A., University of Tampa
M.Div., Columbia Theological Seminary
(cum laude)
M.Th., Chicago Graduate School of Theology
(summa cum laude)
Ph.D., New York University, world religion
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter