Traditional Values Defined

[liberalogic]

Mariner-- I didn't mean to use your quote in my post...I completely agree with what you're saying.

 

[musicman]

It is implied in the Constitution and no matter how much you refute it, look at the First Ammendment:

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

Respecting the establishment of a religion means respecting and abiding by its principles.

You know better than this, liberalogic - or you should. You could engage in these linguistic gymnastics if the document said "...respecting religion", but it doesn't. It reads, "...respecting the establishment of religion". Any semi-literate person with no ax to grind understands that sentence to mean that central government shall neither establish - nor prohibit the free exercise of - religion.

I just don't understand why you are so intent on keeping them together...religious should be personal...worship and live according to your religion, but please, separate it from the state. And if you want to say that we were founded on "Judeo-Christian" values, well then it is time to move ahead and adapt to the future without letting these values interfere in government.

Now, at least, you're being honest. You don't like what the document states, and want to change it.

 

[Hobbit]

It is implied in the Constitution and no matter how much you refute it, look at the First Ammendment:

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

Respecting the establishment of a religion means respecting and abiding by its principles.

I just don't understand why you are so intent on keeping them together...religious should be personal...worship and live according to your religion, but please, separate it from the state. And if you want to say that we were founded on "Judeo-Christian" values, well then it is time to move ahead and adapt to the future without letting these values interfere in government.

Problem 1: The assumption that Judeo-Christian values somehow interfere with government is fundamentally hostile to those values. They're a way of life, and saying that taking them into account when making policy interferes with government is akin to calling them worthless. It's also hypocracy. Nobody minds Judeo-Christian values when it comes to things like stealing and murder. They're even commonly cited when trying to garner sympathy for a minority group. However, as soon as those who actually like the entirety of Judeo-Christian values cite them as a reason for blocking a policy, they suddenly have no place in government. What you mean to say is that taking them into account in policy interferes with the modern secualr progressive movement.

Problem 2: Congress not establishing or respecting a religion does not mean that no semblance of religion based values may ever be seen in government. What it means is that Congress should never give any religion a leg up on the others. As of right now, no religion is banned, and they are all given the same tax breaks. They are also given proportional representation in government according to the number of voters who are members of those religions with the exception of Islam, which is given a disproportionate pull in government since a few activists have begun portraying them as an oppressed minority, and in our PC society, oppressed minorities get more governmental power than any other group.

 

[Max Power]

Problem 2: Congress not establishing or respecting a religion does not mean that no semblance of religion based values may ever be seen in government. What it means is that Congress should never give any religion a leg up on the others.

No it doesn't. It means that the government cannot establish any religion.

As of right now, no religion is banned, and they are all given the same tax breaks.

This has nothing to do with the establishment clause.

 

[liberalogic]

First of all...the assumption that we are ONLY based on these values is WRONG. How did the Ancient Greeks (Before Christ) and without ties to the Judaism (as it was BC) when they were polytheistic? They had laws that say don't kill, don't steal, etc. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure those out...they're not JUST in Judeo-Christian values...frankly we don't need these "values" (some of which I think are reprehensible themselves)...And how do we draw the line between these values and what we have today? God said Adam was the master of Eve...don't women deserve equality? What about the use of slavery in these so-called values? So here's the conservative logic: we'll let the tradition of slavery go (even though supported in the bible), we'll give women equality, but the fags can't have anything...Just separate church from state! We don't need Christ in America-- keep him in your heart, not in the law.

And don't insult your intelligence...

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

NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION...end of discussion.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You are using the Constitution and the Founding Fathers' beliefs as if they were the sole code of instruction that all Americans are supposed to follow ever-after. Maybe life and culture are more complicated than that, and constantly drift, shift, and change--show me a culture in history where they haven't.

Whatever the Founding Fathers intended, it's clear to me that the current U.S. desperately needs to continue to be a melting pot, not identified with any one religion. I guess I can agree with you that we should all know the key documents and events that led to the creation of this country. But each generation will interpret these things in its own way. The conservative temperament will always find this scary, while the liberal temperament will find it interesting. Either can go too far--we need the balance of both ways of thinking, just as we have to balance individual liberty with community good, e.g. the liberty to make money based on the opportunities provided in the U.S. with the community good of breathable air and standing forests.

Mariner.

Seems to me we had much less govt corruption when the federal politicians were much stronger in their faiths and used them to guide their responsabilities as representatives of the people.

 

[musicman]

First of all...the assumption that we are ONLY based on these values is WRONG.

I don't hear anyone advancing such an assumption. At least, I know for a fact that I haven't. What I HAVE said - and now reiterate - is that our Constitution is based on man's evolved, enlightened understanding of Christian principle, as it relates to human governance; to wit: Man's fundamental rights do not derive from temporal governments - these being the creations of imperfect, corruptible men. They are given him by God.

Man is, then, a free agent; government, his servant. This view of government is unique in all of history; it's acknowledgement of man's inevitably corrupt nature, uniquely Christian. Government - left unchecked - must become corrupt and tyrannical; this is hard-wired into human nature. Government is, therefore, kept on a very short, well-guarded leash.

The Constitution grants a few necessary, very specific powers to the federal government (aka, the state). Beyond these, the state is clearly instructed to keep it's nose out of the everyday affairs of the people - affairs such as religion. Religion is for the people to decide for themselves.

Just separate church from state!

It's been done - to protect freedom of religion FROM the state - by the Establishment Clause of Amendment I.

We don't need Christ in America-- keep him in your heart, not in the law.

That'd be fine by me. But it appears to be the ANTI-Christians who seek to use the law as a hammer against religious freedoms. Can you name any Christians who are doing this?

And don't insult your intelligence...

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

NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION...end of discussion.

I honestly don't see what your difficulty is here. The Constitution forbids the federal government - in the person of "Congress", to insert itself in the matter of establishing a state (meaning, national) religion. Religion is for the people to decide for themselves. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[MissileMan]

That'd be fine by me. But it appears to be the ANTI-Christians who seek to use the law as a hammer against religious freedoms.

I must have missed the ACLU lawsuit to close your church...

 

[musicman]

I must have missed the ACLU lawsuit to close your church...

Perfectly understandable, considering I don't have one.

How about that other little thing - you know - the 59-year old power grab that inserts the federal government in an area where it is strictly forbidden, by the Constitution - to go? That little-bitty interpretational "glitch" that completely upsets the balance of power between the federal government and the people, through their duly elected state representatives? That eensy-weensy little interpretative gem that created the modern-day tyranny known as judicial activism? Did you miss that, too?

Does the Establishment Clause apply to the states?

 

[MissileMan]

Perfectly understandable, considering I don't have one.

How about that other little thing - you know - the 59-year old power grab that inserts the federal government in an area where it is strictly forbidden, by the Constitution - to go? That little-bitty interpretational "glitch" that completely upsets the balance of power between the federal government and the people, through their duly elected state representatives? That eensy-weensy little interpretative gem that created the modern-day tyranny known as judicial activism? Did you miss that, too?

Does the Establishment Clause apply to the states?

Even if everything you just said is true, you haven't shown even an eensy-weensy infringement on your freedom of religion.

 

[Gunny]

First of all...the assumption that we are ONLY based on these values is WRONG. How did the Ancient Greeks (Before Christ) and without ties to the Judaism (as it was BC) when they were polytheistic? They had laws that say don't kill, don't steal, etc. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure those out...they're not JUST in Judeo-Christian values...frankly we don't need these "values" (some of which I think are reprehensible themselves)...And how do we draw the line between these values and what we have today? God said Adam was the master of Eve...don't women deserve equality? What about the use of slavery in these so-called values? So here's the conservative logic: we'll let the tradition of slavery go (even though supported in the bible), we'll give women equality, but the fags can't have anything...Just separate church from state! We don't need Christ in America-- keep him in your heart, not in the law.

And don't insult your intelligence...

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

NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION...end of discussion.

You are the one trying to insult other's intelligence. No one has argued that the Constitution states the government can make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

The argument comes into play when you lefties start literalizing words out of context with the intent of the statement. The statement is self-explanatory and requires no contortionist definition from YOU.

I also might add that Adam being the master of Eve predates Christianity; therefore, is irrelevant to your anti-Chrisitian rant.

 

[musicman]

Even if everything you just said is true, you haven't shown even an eensy-weensy infringement on your freedom of religion.

By what authority does a federal court order the removal of religious displays from a state courtroom, or a town square?

 

[MissileMan]

By what authority does a federal court order the removal of religious displays from a state courtroom, or a town square?

First, I could care less about historically significant religious symbols in public places with the exception of courthouses. Having said that, if the SCOTUS comes down tomorrow with a decision to strike the word "God" from all publically funded buildings in an egregious feat of judicial activism, how does that impact on your freedom of religion or free exercise thereof?

 

[Gunny]

By what authority does a federal court order the removal of religious displays from a state courtroom, or a town square?

By what unlawful authority you mean? Some liberal judge legislating from the bench.

You're arguing with the wrong person. I have absolutely NO problem with religious displays that have historical context being displayed on ANY public property, nor does the Constitution prohibit it without some imaginative translation.

 

[Hobbit]

First, I could care less about historically significant religious symbols in public places with the exception of courthouses. Having said that, if the SCOTUS comes down tomorrow with a decision to strike the word "God" from all publically funded buildings in an egregious feat of judicial activism, how does that impact on your freedom of religion or free exercise thereof?

Escalation, for one. For another, it denies us our heritage in the name of political correctness. The argument that "you can practice in your own home if you want" is old and tired and I'm sick of it. Christianity is not something to be stuffed in a closet and pulled out when you want. It's a way of life, and when those who wish to express it aren't allowed because the place they wish to do so is publicly owned property, even if the public voted to have the expression put there, it's infringing on their rights to religious expression. If you can't put a Christian symbol on a government building because it has historical significance, what's next? Are we going to deny fire and police services to churches because giving them a government service is an endorsement of religion? Maybe they should stop getting tax breaks because that's an endorsement of religion. Where does it stop?

 

[MissileMan]

Escalation, for one. For another, it denies us our heritage in the name of political correctness. The argument that "you can practice in your own home if you want" is old and tired and I'm sick of it. Christianity is not something to be stuffed in a closet and pulled out when you want. It's a way of life, and when those who wish to express it aren't allowed because the place they wish to do so is publicly owned property, even if the public voted to have the expression put there, it's infringing on their rights to religious expression. If you can't put a Christian symbol on a government building because it has historical significance, what's next? Are we going to deny fire and police services to churches because giving them a government service is an endorsement of religion? Maybe they should stop getting tax breaks because that's an endorsement of religion. Where does it stop?

So in your opinion then, the right to free exercise of religion is absolute. You don't believe there should be any restrictions whatsoever?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The Constitution grants a few necessary, very specific powers to the federal government (aka, the state). Beyond these, the state is clearly instructed to keep it's nose out of the everyday affairs of the people - affairs such as religion. Religion is for the people to decide for themselves.
I honestly don't see what your difficulty is here. The Constitution forbids the federal government - in the person of "Congress", to insert itself in the matter of establishing a state (meaning, national) religion. Religion is for the people to decide for themselves. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Not to mention that they have extended that amendment so far beyond its intent it impossible not to see it.

If a govt agency puts a statue of moses with the ten commandments up, how is that a "LAW establishing a religion"?

 

[Gunny]

So in your opinion then, the right to free exercise of religion is absolute. You don't believe there should be any restrictions whatsoever?

Loaded question. What's your point?

 

[musicman]

By what unlawful authority you mean? Some liberal judge legislating from the bench.

You're arguing with the wrong person. I have absolutely NO problem with religious displays that have historical context being displayed on ANY public property, nor does the Constitution prohibit it without some imaginative translation.

Wasn't arguing with you at all, Gunny. We seem to be on the same page here.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Escalation, for one. For another, it denies us our heritage in the name of political correctness. The argument that "you can practice in your own home if you want" is old and tired and I'm sick of it. Christianity is not something to be stuffed in a closet and pulled out when you want. It's a way of life, and when those who wish to express it aren't allowed because the place they wish to do so is publicly owned property, even if the public voted to have the expression put there, it's infringing on their rights to religious expression. If you can't put a Christian symbol on a government building because it has historical significance, what's next? Are we going to deny fire and police services to churches because giving them a government service is an endorsement of religion? Maybe they should stop getting tax breaks because that's an endorsement of religion. Where does it stop?

So the liberal posistion is that we should keep our Christianity in our perverbial "closet".

Ok, I get it, gay expression unlimited and same sex marriage publicly expressing their gayness is ok, but to publicly proclaim Christianity is a threat to our country. OH THE HORROR OF IT!

ACLU fights for the right of students to put "fuck you" on their t shirts, but to say "God bless you" is an establishment of religion.

Go to jail for destroying the egg of an endangered species, but kill a human unborn child, get govt funds.

Equality for all, especially blacks, but not when it comes to education and vouchers which blacks overwhelming want.

We support the troops, but oppose the war.

Warrantless wire tapping is cool, unless your name is Bush.

racism is bad, but lets give blacks preferred treatment.

Govt is evil, Bush admin is evil, but lets increase taxes and create more beaurocracies to increase the size of the govt.

presidential authority is a threat to our country, but judicial activism (and judges cant even be removed, answer to no one, like the guy in Vermont who just sentenced a guy to 60 days of therapy for RAPING A 7 YEAR OLD), judicial activism is fine.

Get off of dependency on foreign oil, but dont dare explore anwar.

Take away everyones guns and rely on the police, the same police dept's they are weakening and stripping of any authority or ability to use force.

Freedom of speech, unless it offends someone other than white Christian middle aged men.

Equality of the genders, except in family court where women get custody of kids 98% of the time.

People power, except when "we" know whats better for them, then we use judicial activism to instill same sex marriage, etc. etc. So, people power only applies to minorities.

Oppose tax cuts for the rich, but us rich liberals wont forgo the tax cuts Bush gave us, and we wouldnt dare give money to charity.