PDA

View Full Version : Huckabee: Amend Constitution to be in 'God's standards'


Jeremy
01-16-2008, 09:20 AM
I hope they ask how he would change the consitution in the debate.

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Huckster at it again! (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_Amend_Constitution_to_meet_Gods_0115.html )

ShutDown24
01-16-2008, 09:51 AM
I thought you were against Huckabee? That is actually pretty smart on his part. The majority of voters in the US are Christians, a good many strong Christians. Particularly the older crowd will buy into what he is saying if no one else and I don't think it will really lose him too many voters... That article was really short.... This quote made up a large part of it lol - And it is a good one.

"If someone without his charm," said that, "he'd be dismissed as a crackpot, but he's Mike Huckabee and he's basically the front-runner."

Jeremy
01-16-2008, 09:54 AM
I thought you were against Huckabee? That is actually pretty smart on his part. The majority of voters in the US are Christians, a good many strong Christians. Particularly the older crowd will buy into what he is saying if no one else and I don't think it will really lose him ay voters... That article was really short.... This quote made up a large part of it lol - And it is a good one.

Did you fail history in school? One of the pillars of the American system is Freedom of Religion! You can't claim that there's Freedom of Religion when you put God in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers didn't put God in the Constitution for a reason.

Besides, if you believe that The Huckster is the front runner, you're sadly deluded. He had one nice victory, but he shat the bed in Michigan. The race is between Romney and McCain with The Huckster serving as nothing more than the Redneck Sideshow.

fansince'76
01-16-2008, 09:58 AM
Yep, that's definitely frightening. I don't want to live in a Theocracy. If I did, I'd pack my bags and move to Teheran.

ShutDown24
01-16-2008, 10:03 AM
Did you fail history in school? One of the pillars of the American system is Freedom of Religion! You can't claim that there's Freedom of Religion when you put God in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers didn't put God in the Constitution for a reason.

Freedom of Religion is all well and good, but we have English as our official language and other people choose to speak other languages. Plus, just because the founding fathers did something doesn't mean it can't be changed. They were just politicians and normal people like us today.

I'm not going to get into a shitting match with you, but if the majority of the US was Muslim and I was Christian (Just for example) I wouldn't feel violated at all if the country changed the way the government worked based off of their beliefs. Just like anything else, the biggest groups of people who believe in a certain thing get it done. That is how the president is elected, that is what makes things sell, that is how our American Idol is selected :flap: - That is just how it works. If you are in a minority, well too bad.

I am not necessarily saying I agree with Huckabee, but I can see how it could work.

Jeremy
01-16-2008, 10:03 AM
Yep, that's definitely frightening. I don't want to live in a Theocracy. I f I did, I'd pack my bags and move to Teheran.

You're not the first person to make that comparison. The Huckster represents that minuscule number of Americans who seem to think that this is a "Christian" country. Not surprisingly, you find most of these people in the backwoods and off the beaten path. They've never really had the exposure to a wider variety of people that would open their eyes to the fact that America is anything but a Christian nation. You have Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, and various Eastern religions here as well. When you start talking about making America a "Christian" nation, you start really offending people.

There's a reason The Huckster came in 3rd in Michigan. As states like Michigan and Pennsylvania go, so goes the election.

Jeremy
01-16-2008, 10:05 AM
Freedom of Religion is all well and good, but we have English as our official language and other people choose to speak other languages. Plus, just because the founding fathers did something doesn't mean it can't be changed. They were just politicians and normal people like us today.

I'm not going to get into a shitting match with you, but if the majority of the US was Muslim and I was Christian (Just for example) I wouldn't feel violated at all if the country changed the way the government worked based off of their beliefs. Just like anything else, the biggest groups of people who believe in a certain thing get it done. That is how the president is elected, that is what makes things sell, that is how our American Idol is selected :flap: - That is just how it works. If you are in a minority, well too bad.

The Democratic system was developed to protect the rights of the minority from the oppression of the majority. I honestly think you should go and look in to taking a government class at a local community college because you seem to have our system of government totally backwards.

Mosca
01-16-2008, 01:07 PM
OK. Which God? There is equal evidence for any of them. God is an item of faith, not proof, and should not have any place in the Constitution. This is a democracy, not a theocracy.

Huck's a nice guy, but he's a whack-job. But a lot of what he says makes sense... except that in the end he's a whack-job.

tony hipchest
01-16-2008, 01:23 PM
Huck's a nice guy, but he's a whack-job. But a lot of what he says makes sense... except that in the end he's a whack-job.lol

speaking of whack-jobs.... for some reason, when i read this, the 1st thing that popped into my mind was charlie mansons quote-

No sense makes sense.

Jeremy
01-16-2008, 02:28 PM
The wheels are going to fall off for The Huckster soon enough. Romney took Michigan and McCain took New Hampshire.

Iowa was a nice little victory, but don't think for a second that he could repeat that win in a power state. He might be able to grab a spot in a Republican President's cabinet, but his hopes of Prez and VP are going down the drain.

Steeler in Carolina
01-16-2008, 06:40 PM
What I am confused about is what exactly does he want to change in the constitution?

Preacher
01-17-2008, 03:14 AM
OK. Which God? There is equal evidence for any of them. God is an item of faith, not proof, and should not have any place in the Constitution. This is a democracy, not a theocracy.

Huck's a nice guy, but he's a whack-job. But a lot of what he says makes sense... except that in the end he's a whack-job.

OK. I am not even going to touch the quote itself. I understand what he was saying... and going for, but it was very wrongly explained.

However, Mosca...

While I understand the word God is not in the constitution... the rights which the constitution defends are understood as being given by God... per the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution was not written in a vacuum, nor should it understood in a vacuum.

However, the God as discussed in the Dec. of Ind. is SPECIFICALLY left as a God of creation... a God of Deism, not necessary Theism. Thus, the God mentioned encompasses any God which any culture beleives in, as long as that concept of God created humans and endowed them with rights which can not be taken away.

WVSteeler
01-17-2008, 06:51 AM
The more I hear from Huckabee, the more I become concerned. Separation of Church and State exists for a reason. Look at Iran. If you want to believe and have faith that's terriffic. I support you 100%. That's why the churches were built. The government buildings were meant to help govern and the public schools meant to teach(sometimes). There are a lot of other avenues to explore and spread your faith. The White House is not and should not be one of them.

revefsreleets
01-17-2008, 09:05 AM
(Cough cough) I'm not saying anything here other than my money is on a McCain/Thompson ticket.

Jeremy
01-17-2008, 09:08 AM
(Cough cough) I'm not saying anything here other than my money is on a McCain/Thompson ticket.

I like McCain, but I don't see what Thompson brings to the ticket.

revefsreleets
01-17-2008, 09:21 AM
He'll attract southern votes and he balances McCain's perceived near-Independent status.

Jeremy
01-17-2008, 09:26 AM
He'll attract southern votes and he balances McCain's perceived near-Independent status.

I think you overestimate how the South looks at Thompson. I think a guy like Charlie Crist would bring more to a Presidential ticket than Thompson would.

Mosca
01-17-2008, 10:56 AM
Preacher, with all due respect, there is no place for deism in law, and the Constitution is law. The law has to stand among men, without invoking higher power, in order for it to govern men: "governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed", not from god. Otherwise you have "Christofascism". And I know that you don't think that your religion is so weak that it needs to be legislated at people, or imposed on people.

Preacher
01-17-2008, 02:49 PM
Preacher, with all due respect, there is no place for deism in law, and the Constitution is law. The law has to stand among men, without invoking higher power, in order for it to govern men: "governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed", not from god. Otherwise you have "Christofascism". And I know that you don't think that your religion is so weak that it needs to be legislated at people, or imposed on people.

Thats not my point.

My point is that the original founders beleived that the rights of humans came from A God. Therefore, government could not take those rights away without due process. That is WHY your quote of "goverments derive their just power from the consent of those governed" proves my point. Why must they get that consent? Because the founding fathers believed that the God-given right of freedom could not be abated without the consent of those governed. THAT is the context of the constitution, which we learn from the declaration of independence. I consider it VERY important to keep both... not to institute a "Christian State" because there is no such thing. Rather, because the foundational underpinning of our government is that they DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to take away the rights of its citizens, because those rights were given to the citizens by a higher power.

To pull the constitution out of that context, and re-read it now in a vacuum is to do the constitution and founding fathers a great disservice.

Look how it plays out.

Why should the govt. not be involved in religion? Because God has given every human being the right/responsibility to seek God themselves.

Why does the govt. not have the right to limit travel outside of wartime situations? Because that would impinge on the God-given right of freedom.

Why does govt. etc. etc. etc.... You get the point.

Again, understand the term "God" here is not a 1 to 1 equation with Jesus, or even the Judea/Christian God.

It is a conceptual understanding of a creator, a creator who according to our founding fathers, created each of us with unalienable rights. The constitution is written to be a law which we have agreed to by governed by, the agreement coming because they NEEDED the agreement, as only we could give up our God-given right of absolute freedom and submit to a government.

Preacher
01-17-2008, 02:54 PM
(Cough cough) I'm not saying anything here other than my money is on a McCain/Thompson ticket.

Hey Rev...

McCain/Thompson, while intriguing, won't fly I think.

McCain has isolated and ticked off too much of the base for the true base to come out and vote for him. I think they would stay home. In that case, Thompson would be no help.

My only hope at this point... is a brokered convention... with a new guy stepping in. Cause I still am not happy with anyone... Thompson just doesn't seem to want to run.

Jeremy
01-17-2008, 05:05 PM
Uh....no.

A lot of what you see in the Constitution is based off of the works of men like Hobbes and Locke. Social contract and what not. God was included because America was a very uneducated nation at the time and God and The Church were huge parts of the social structure of the time. The FF simply used the most available social vehicle to deliver their message.

Cape Cod Steel Head
01-17-2008, 05:34 PM
Freedom of Religion is all well and good, but we have English as our official language and other people choose to speak other languages. Plus, just because the founding fathers did something doesn't mean it can't be changed. They were just politicians and normal people like us today.

I'm not going to get into a shitting match with you, but if the majority of the US was Muslim and I was Christian (Just for example) I wouldn't feel violated at all if the country changed the way the government worked based off of their beliefs. Just like anything else, the biggest groups of people who believe in a certain thing get it done. That is how the president is elected, that is what makes things sell, that is how our American Idol is selected :flap: - That is just how it works. If you are in a minority, well too bad.

I am not necessarily saying I agree with Huckabee, but I can see how it could work.FYI The US doesn't have an official language. The last time we mixed religion and politics we burnt people at the stake!

Preacher
01-17-2008, 05:44 PM
Uh....no.

A lot of what you see in the Constitution is based off of the works of men like Hobbes and Locke. Social contract and what not. God was included because America was a very uneducated nation at the time and God and The Church were huge parts of the social structure of the time. The FF simply used the most available social vehicle to deliver their message.

Well, first that is what C.S. Lewis would call chronological snobbery. To call America uneducated because they did not have what WE consider a proper education is redacting 21 century social standards into that era. Furthermore, how could an eneducated nation understand a govt. based on hobbes and locke? The fact of the matter is that in the basics of Englsih, Math, etc., the average person was probably better educated in that era then now.

To suggest that God was used simply as a vehicle is to not understand our FF's beleifs in God. Whether theist or deist, they had a distinct belief that God was the creator, and within his creation of humanity, placed certain rights within the makeup of each human. The idea of God and creation was not a "vehicle" for a greater philosphy, it WAS THE PHILOSOPHY.

Hobbes and Locke were used, not in creating an understanding of the right of each human, but how to create a government based on those rights. Thus, we have a Lockian government for Hobbsian reasons.

You are confusing the American revolution with the French revolution.

American Revolution was based on the idea of God as creator, and mans rights in response not being oppressed by a government.

French Revolution was based on a social contract between the people and government, and the government's breaking of the contract.

Preacher
01-17-2008, 05:44 PM
FYI The US doesn't have an official language. The last time we mixed religion and politics we burnt people at the stake!

Nice bumper sticker... Not historically accurate... but nice bumper sticker.

83-Steelers-43
01-17-2008, 05:58 PM
Huck rubs me the wrong way. He's definately not my first choice. That's great he's a religious man. I get it. I got it the first thousand times he made it clear to me. Guy needs to give it a rest.

Mosca
01-17-2008, 07:24 PM
To pull the constitution out of that context, and re-read it now in a vacuum is to do the constitution and founding fathers a great disservice.



To leave the Constitution in that 320 year old vacuum is to do it, and everyone living today, 320 years later, a disservice. It has been continually remarked on that the Constitution is a living document, that it is written to be effective regardless of how the country grows and changes.

Tell me, exactly what do you think needs to be changed about or written into this document? How is it flawed in such a way that it needs to be brought into line with "God's standards", whatever those may be, depending on which god you've chosen and, if you've chosen the Christian one, which parts of the Bibile you've chosen to accept and which to ignore? In what way has the Constitution failed us as a nation? As a people? Huck himself didn't say.

Preacher
01-17-2008, 11:47 PM
To leave the Constitution in that 320 year old vacuum is to do it, and everyone living today, 320 years later, a disservice. It has been continually remarked on that the Constitution is a living document, that it is written to be effective regardless of how the country grows and changes.

Tell me, exactly what do you think needs to be changed about or written into this document? How is it flawed in such a way that it needs to be brought into line with "God's standards", whatever those may be, depending on which god you've chosen and, if you've chosen the Christian one, which parts of the Bibile you've chosen to accept and which to ignore? In what way has the Constitution failed us as a nation? As a people? Huck himself didn't say.

Mosca,

I am going to believe that you intended this as a question, and not sniping... but I wasn't sure.

I never said that it needs to be "Brought into God's standards." Let me go back to my original post.

OK. I am not even going to touch the quote itself. I understand what he was saying... and going for, but it was very wrongly explained.

However, Mosca...

While I understand the word God is not in the constitution... the rights which the constitution defends are understood as being given by God... per the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution was not written in a vacuum, nor should it understood in a vacuum.

However, the God as discussed in the Dec. of Ind. is SPECIFICALLY left as a God of creation... a God of Deism, not necessary Theism. Thus, the God mentioned encompasses any God which any culture beleives in, as long as that concept of God created humans and endowed them with rights which can not be taken away.

My only point here is that God isn't written IN the constitution, but an understanding of God pervades the constitution, and is the foundational concept which the FF believed gave us our rights....

That is ALL I was saying.

Cape Cod Steel Head
01-18-2008, 08:14 AM
Nice bumper sticker... Not historically accurate... but nice bumper sticker.It makes a good point. I believe the Puritans were Christians were they not?

stlrtruck
01-18-2008, 12:13 PM
While I have enjoyed the banter back and forth I must say that I agree with what I've seen and heard from huckabee. However, if he were to look closely at the Constitution he would find that it was written on the basis of God's word. The problem isn't the constitution but the application of the guidelines.

It is my belief that the separation of church and state had everything to do with the church being separated from operation of government, not God being removed from Government buildings or in the creation of laws. If we took a closer look at our laws one would find a close correlation between the bible and the laws of this great country.

I look forward to the day that we can have a strong Christian leader as the President of this country. While I believe that W did a great job of relying on his faith I also believe that a stronger man of faith can be placed in the White House.

Instead of "God Bless America," it's time for "America Bless God!"

Mosca
01-18-2008, 12:38 PM
Preacher, my questions were indeed rhetorical. My point was a bit indirect, in that the man claimed to want to change the Constitution, but didn't say what needed to be changed. Therefore, his whole speech was pandering; using his Christianity in a base manner. I don't see any reason to convene a new Continental Congress and alter the basis for our nation... does anyone else?

Since common sense and rationality will win out and the man will not be elected, I'll now exit.

Mosca
01-18-2008, 12:45 PM
While I have enjoyed the banter back and forth I must say that I agree with what I've seen and heard from huckabee.

I find the man genuinely likeable. I even agree with some of his policies. I think that if I were in Congress with him we would find common ground on many issues; he is an effective legislator. But I don't think he's qualified to be president; I don't think he would be an effective executive.

And to forestall any questions, I haven't decided whom I think would be an effective executive. Of the Republicans I'm leaning toward Romney as potentially the most effective President... but McCain is one tough SOB, and he isn't power hungry like the current administration. Of the Democrats, I'm torn. Obama has the nicest words, Clinton is the strongest personality, and Edwards has the best policies and makes the most sense.

It's way too early to be decided, IMO.

sherlock
01-18-2008, 12:53 PM
I wouldn`t know any of these guys from Adam,but this is developing into a really interesting thread!......Damn, Steeler fans are cool!! :thumbsup:

Mosca
01-18-2008, 12:59 PM
I wouldn`t know any of these guys from Adam,but this is developing into a really interesting thread!......Damn, Steeler fans are cool!! :thumbsup:

Hehe... this is where people of vehemently different opinions and outlooks get together and make their points without getting mad at or insulting each other! It takes a lot of discipline to write something, look at it, and then reword it to make it an effective statement of what you think rather than what you feel. After all, when all the words fall away we're all in this together.

sherlock
01-18-2008, 01:45 PM
Hehe... this is where people of vehemently different opinions and outlooks get together and make their points without getting mad at or insulting each other! It takes a lot of discipline to write something, look at it, and then reword it to make it an effective statement of what you think rather than what you feel. After all, when all the words fall away we're all in this together.

Well put Mosca...another eloquent post in this intelligently argued thread.

silver & black
01-18-2008, 07:00 PM
You're not the first person to make that comparison. The Huckster represents that minuscule number of Americans who seem to think that this is a "Christian" country. Not surprisingly, you find most of these people in the backwoods and off the beaten path. They've never really had the exposure to a wider variety of people that would open their eyes to the fact that America is anything but a Christian nation. You have Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, and various Eastern religions here as well. When you start talking about making America a "Christian" nation, you start really offending people.

There's a reason The Huckster came in 3rd in Michigan. As states like Michigan and Pennsylvania go, so goes the election.

Believe what you will, but the founding fathers based this country on christian values.

silver & black
01-18-2008, 07:05 PM
The Democratic system was developed to protect the rights of the minority from the oppression of the majority. I honestly think you should go and look in to taking a government class at a local community college because you seem to have our system of government totally backwards.

This is NOT a democracy... this is a Republic.

Mosca
01-18-2008, 07:33 PM
This is NOT a democracy... this is a Republic.


Uh... it can be both, you know.

It is what is called a representative democracy, in that we elect representatives rather than vote on issues as individuals.

silver & black
01-18-2008, 07:39 PM
Uh... it can be both, you know.

It is what is called a representative democracy, in that we elect representatives rather than vote on issues as individuals.

True enough, but it is still a republic, not a true democracy.

Pledge of allegiance...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands.

Mosca
01-18-2008, 07:48 PM
Believe what you will, but the founding fathers based this country on christian values.


And because they are "christian" values, they are not also just values? Are the values unseparable, in that in order to espouse those values you must also be Christian? Aren't atheists allowed to hold the same values as Christians, or must we be cold hearted logicians who rationalize the value of life and liberty as if it were a mathematical equation?

I think it is fair to say that the founding fathers were Christian. Otherwise, there is nothing especially Christian about the principles of law and fairness. Pre-Christian societies were not anarchic murderers and thieves. The Roman Republic was renowned for its system of law. Greek culture is famous, 3000 years later, for its art and beauty and society of law and thought, and concepts of fairness and equality; the Greeks gave us democracy!

The founding fathers chose from MANY sources for The Constitution. Without question, they chose from the Old Testament. They also took from the Magna Carta, from the British system of law, from Hobbes and Locke, from the Greeks and Romans... yes, they were Christians. But they were not unquestioning. They understood that The Bible was not the final word.

Again; Huck did not say what he felt was WRONG with the Constitution. Who writing here feels the need to convene a Constitutional Congress to change it? What would you change it to? Why?

Mosca
01-18-2008, 07:52 PM
True enough, but it is still a republic, not a true democracy.

Pledge of allegiance...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands.

Would you have every citizen vote on every piece of legislation, then?

Yes, of course it is a republic. I don't understand why the distinction is important. We have a citizen as chief executive instead of a monarch.


1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c: a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2: a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3: a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia

silver & black
01-18-2008, 07:57 PM
And because they are "christian" values, thay are not also just values? Are the values unseparable, in that in order to espouse those values you must also be Christian? Aren't atheists allowed to hold the same values as Christians, or must we be cold hearted logicians who rationalize the value of life and liberty as if it were a mathematical equation?

I think it is fair to say that the founding fathers were Christian. Otherwise, there is nothing especially Christian about the principles of law and fairness. Pre-Christian societies were not anarchic murderers and thieves. The Roman Republic was renowned for its system of law. Greek culture is famous, 3000 years later, for its art and beauty and society of law and thought, and concepts of fairness and equality; the Greeks gave us democracy!

The founding fathers chose from MANY sources for The Constitution. Without question, they chose from the Old Testament. They also took from the Magna Carta, from the British system of law, from Hobbes and Locke, from the Greeks and Romans... yes, they were Christians. But they were not unquestioning. They understood that The Bible was not the final word.

Again; Huck did not say what he felt was WRONG with the Constitution. Who writing here feels the need to convene a Constitutional Congress to change it? What would you change it to? Why?

Of course they can be just values. good values are good values. But, arguing about wheather this country was founded on CHRISTIAN values or not is a waste of time. If someone chooses not believe it, no one will change their mind.

For the record... I don't care for Huck either.

revefsreleets
01-18-2008, 09:29 PM
Fascinating!

Preacher
01-19-2008, 02:50 AM
Preacher, my questions were indeed rhetorical. My point was a bit indirect, in that the man claimed to want to change the Constitution, but didn't say what needed to be changed. Therefore, his whole speech was pandering; using his Christianity in a base manner. I don't see any reason to convene a new Continental Congress and alter the basis for our nation... does anyone else?

Since common sense and rationality will win out and the man will not be elected, I'll now exit.


Ahhh... You know, that line is 100 percent true! I don't disagree with that one bit!

The discussion we were having, for me, was separate from what he said... sorry if I didn't clarify a bit more. I don't want the bible to be used as a background document for the constitution, that is not what the bible is for, nor is it what the constitution is for.. heck, my spiritual forefathers stood AGAINST that.

I was talking more about the idea that the government at one time thought they were not the end all be all.. but rather they too were limited in power by a greater power. When the concept of God was taken out of government, the government seemed to assume the concept into itself!

Mosca
01-19-2008, 09:01 AM
Ahhh... You know, that line is 100 percent true! I don't disagree with that one bit!

The discussion we were having, for me, was separate from what he said... sorry if I didn't clarify a bit more. I don't want the bible to be used as a background document for the constitution, that is not what the bible is for, nor is it what the constitution is for.. heck, my spiritual forefathers stood AGAINST that.

I was talking more about the idea that the government at one time thought they were not the end all be all.. but rather they too were limited in power by a greater power. When the concept of God was taken out of government, the government seemed to assume the concept into itself!

OK, I see what you mean. I was wondering how anyone could hear what the man said and think that it would be a good idea. I listened to him this morning as he tried to do damage control, and IMO he just made it worse; but so be it.

There are many things I like about the man, but he is not suitable to be president, again IMO.

silver & black
01-19-2008, 04:07 PM
Would you have every citizen vote on every piece of legislation, then?
Yes, of course it is a republic. I don't understand why the distinction is important. We have a citizen as chief executive instead of a monarch.
1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c: a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2: a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3: a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia




No, I wouldn't. That is why I pointed out that we do not have a true democracy in this country.

The distinction is only importent if you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic... I know you, and probably anyone responding in this thread, does know the difference.

Its just a pet peeve of mine that our form of government is wrongly refered to as a democracy by the general masses.

Preacher
01-19-2008, 08:57 PM
No, I wouldn't. That is why I pointed out that we do not have a true democracy in this country.

The distinction is only importent if you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic... I know you, and probably anyone responding in this thread, does know the difference.

Its just a pet peeve of mine that our form of government is wrongly refered to as a democracy by the general masses.

What? a Raider's fan having a pet peeve (Immmaculate reception)...

Never!

:wink02:
:poke:

silver & black
01-19-2008, 09:31 PM
What? a Raider's fan having a pet peeve (Immmaculate reception)...

Never!

:wink02:
:poke:

Hmmm.......... I think you mean immaculate deception, don't you? :wink02:

Mosca
01-19-2008, 09:47 PM
Hmmm.......... I think you mean immaculate deception, don't you? :wink02:

You are of course referring to the contract that Jamarcus Russell and his agent foisted on you guys, right?

Preacher
01-19-2008, 10:01 PM
You are of course referring to the contract that Jamarcus Russell and his agent foisted on you guys, right?

:sofunny::sofunny:


(ahhh... another thread successfully hijacked!)

Jeremy
01-19-2008, 10:01 PM
For the record.....The Huckster wants Constitutional Amendments outlawing abortion and same sex marriages. That is what this enlightened Conservative views as "God's standard."

Both the Christian right and Conservative right are more than welcome to this snake oil salesman. He manages to give both Christian and Conservatives a bad name at the same time.

Preacher
01-19-2008, 10:17 PM
For the record.....The Huckster wants Constitutional Amendments outlawing abortion and same sex marriages. That is what this enlightened Conservative views as "God's standard."

Both the Christian right and Conservative right are more than welcome to this snake oil salesman. He manages to give both Christian and Conservatives a bad name at the same time.

You know.. I agree with him that both of those things are God's standards. Furthermore, I agree, but for VERY DIFFERENT REASONS, that abortion should be outlawed in our nation.

Same sex marriage... I don't beleive the state should sanction marriage... but ONLY unions.

Huckabee is wrong in using teh bible to push for positions of faith and morality.

silver & black
01-19-2008, 10:26 PM
You are of course referring to the contract that Jamarcus Russell and his agent foisted on you guys, right?

LOL... you may be right about that! We'll just have to see how that one plays out.

Jeremy
01-19-2008, 10:52 PM
You know.. I agree with him that both of those things are God's standards. Furthermore, I agree, but for VERY DIFFERENT REASONS, that abortion should be outlawed in our nation.

Same sex marriage... I don't beleive the state should sanction marriage... but ONLY unions.

Huckabee is wrong in using teh bible to push for positions of faith and morality.

No matter what Lizzy Hasselbeck says, abortion is justified in some cases. But then again she's never been raped, so she's not in a position to speak about that. Come to think of it, no man has ever had to bear the child of a rapist. So I think that men, especially so called "religious" men, should butt the hell of of women's lives.

Christians are some of the biggest hypocrites on the planet.

Preacher
01-19-2008, 10:57 PM
No matter what Lizzy Hasselbeck says, abortion is justified in some cases. But then again she's never been raped, so she's not in a position to speak about that. Come to think of it, no man has ever had to bear the child of a rapist. So I think that men, especially so called "religious" men, should butt the hell of of women's lives.

Christians are some of the biggest hypocrites on the planet.

To cheapen the entire discussion to the above post is downright intellectually dishonest.

We can have a good discussion and debate about this, or we can let it go. But I am not going to resort to bumper sticker slogans and soundbite philosophies like the one posted above to discuss this topic.

Jeremy
01-19-2008, 11:11 PM
To cheapen the entire discussion to the above post is downright intellectually dishonest.

We can have a good discussion and debate about this, or we can let it go. But I am not going to resort to bumper sticker slogans and soundbite philosophies like the one posted above to discuss this topic.

You want to outlaw abortion in America and have an intelligent discussion about it? Those two things cannot coexist Preacher.

Preacher
01-19-2008, 11:16 PM
You want to outlaw abortion in America and have an intelligent discussion about it? Those two things cannot coexist Preacher.

I am sorry, but that is a very arrogant statement.

It states.. "My position is right, and enlightened, and yours isn't."


In other words... I am right... you are wrong. There is nothing you can say... cause I am right.

Do you really want to debate like that?

Jeremy
01-19-2008, 11:20 PM
I am sorry, but that is a very arrogant statement.

It states.. "My position is right, and enlightened, and yours isn't."


In other words... I am right... you are wrong. There is nothing you can say... cause I am right.

Do you really want to debate like that?

You know.. I agree with him that both of those things are God's standards. Furthermore, I agree, but for VERY DIFFERENT REASONS, that abortion should be outlawed in our nation.

I'm not the one who started with the arrogance Preacher.

Preacher
01-19-2008, 11:35 PM
I'm not the one who started with the arrogance Preacher.

You really believe that is arrogance?

You know.. I agree with him that both of those things are God's standards. Furthermore, I agree, but for VERY DIFFERENT REASONS, that abortion should be outlawed in our nation.

Arrogance: offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.

Show me superiority here. There is none. That is simply MY BELIEF.

If your interested in a civil intelligent debate, then may I suggest we start a thread and debate it. I would expect the likes of Mosca, Rev, GBmel, and AD to jump in and constructively add to the conversation, as they usually do on subjects like this (and I enjoy it when they do).

If not, I am really not interested in continuing as we are going.

in that case... May we just agree, "Please God Not Hillary!"

The Duke
01-19-2008, 11:39 PM
:popcorn:
............

am I late?

Jeremy
01-19-2008, 11:47 PM
You really believe that is arrogance?



Arrogance: offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.

Show me superiority here. There is none. That is simply MY BELIEF.

If your interested in a civil intelligent debate, then may I suggest we start a thread and debate it. I would expect the likes of Mosca, Rev, GBmel, and AD to jump in and constructively add to the conversation, as they usually do on subjects like this (and I enjoy it when they do).

If not, I am really not interested in continuing as we are going.

in that case... May we just agree, "Please God Not Hillary!"

Clinton is a non-factor at this point. It's going to be between Senator McCain and Flip Flop Romney.

Thankfully both of them will keep religion where it belongs, in the Church.

Mosca
01-19-2008, 11:54 PM
I think that even people who are pro-choice would have a hard time saying they are pro-abortion.

Within my own family we are divided. I think I would call myself limited pro-choice, but I find the thought of abortion itself repugnant. My teenage daughter is participating in a pro-life rally in DC on Tuesday, with my blessing.

It is a terrible, terrible issue to have to decide on. If it has ever touched you personally, that pretty much sets how you will feel about it.

I don't think that either abortion or gay marriage are Constitutional issues. As emotional as they are, they are nevertheless specific issues of individuals and individual choices. Constitutional issues are broad definitions of rights.

Preacher
01-20-2008, 12:00 AM
I think that even people who are pro-choice would have a hard time saying they are pro-abortion.

Within my own family we are divided. I think I would call myself limited pro-choice, but I find the thought of abortion itself repugnant. My teenage daughter is participating in a pro-life rally in DC on Tuesday, with my blessing.

It is a terrible, terrible issue to have to decide on. If it has ever touched you personally, that pretty much sets how you will feel about it.

I don't think that either abortion or gay marriage are Constitutional issues. As emotional as they are, they are nevertheless specific issues of individuals and individual choices. Constitutional issues are broad definitions of rights.


You know.. I was writing something... but I think I just may PM you instead... cause right now, I jsut don't think this is the place for the discussion.

Jeremy
01-20-2008, 09:47 AM
You know.. I was writing something... but I think I just may PM you instead... cause right now, I jsut don't think this is the place for the discussion.

:shake01:

stlrtruck
01-22-2008, 04:07 PM
Clinton is a non-factor at this point. It's going to be between Senator McCain and Flip Flop Romney.

Thankfully both of them will keep religion where it belongs, in the Church.

Funny you say that because it is the bible that helped create the foundation of this great country. While we are free to make choices, there are laws that have been created by using the bible as a basis - from those foundational laws other laws have been piggy-backed into our society.

And even if the constitution is amended to speak to "God's standards" that truly isn't the problem. The problem eventually comes down to application. If laws are not applied correctly in society (i.e. bribes, blind eyes, oblivious officials, jurors and jurys, etc.) then it won't matter what is on the books.

Personally, I believe it's a good idea to amend the constituion on marriage as being between a man and a woman. As for abortion I'm torn - because if my daughter was ever raped and got pregnant from that person then I'd go mad for the rest of my life. So - to some extent I agree with the one point about men never have had to deal with pregnancy after being rapped.

I'd also like to see God take priority in this country again. Seemed to be a lot less problems when it was "America Bless God!" (sorry Preach had to throw out the bumper sticker slogan)

Jeremy
01-22-2008, 04:33 PM
No...sorry. I'd rather have God stay in the Church and out of the White House.

Mosca
01-22-2008, 07:23 PM
Everyone is writing as if there were no laws at all before the 10 Commandments. Believe it or not, there were civilizations before then, and they had laws. As Preacher pointed out quite correctly, there are no mentions of gods or religions in the Constitution. It is a document of how to construct a government among men.

If you read it, you will see that it describes how the government is to be set up, with the different branches; it differentiates state and federal powers; it describes the powers that are to reside in each branch of the government; and it limits the power of the government over the people in the amendments.

There is nothing Christian... NOTHING AT ALL.... in the Constitution. The only time religion is mentioned is in the First Amendment, and they are the very first words of the First Amendment, and the wording is very specific: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Nothing Christian there. As I read it, the First Amendment specifically enforces keeping religion out of government, and therefore out of the Constitution. And that includes Christianity. Which doesn't mean that we aren't guided by Christian principles of conduct rather than, say, Aztec principles of human sacrifice. But those same principles are shared by Christians and non Christians alike, as part of Western Civilization. I don't need a Christian god in order to not want to steal, or murder. There is nothing intrinsically Christian about that. The Greeks and Romans had laws against stealing and murder; the Egyptians had laws against stealing and murder. But while those are laws in our country, they STILL aren't part of the Constitution. Now, the Christian part; the part about believing in Jesus Christ as my personal savior, and honoring god and the Sabbath.... Where should that go in the Constitution?

There are no overlaps between the Bible and the Constitution. None. There are no references in the Constitution to any of the 10 Commandments; nothing in the Constitution about murder, thievery, or adultery. Nothing about false witness, the Sabbath, graven images... nothing. Nothing about coveting. Don't believe me? Read the document for yourself here. (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble)

And there are no mentions of a bicameral legislature; no mentions of quartering soldiers, no mention of abolishing slavery or womens' sufferage (other than to allow slaves, and place women in subservience to men), no mention of presidential term limits or congressional pay raises or search and seizure or trial by jury (other than to describe trial by fiat) in the Bible. Though I'm sure if there are any, someone will quote them at me.

All the amendments? Every amendment, save one, have either limited the power of the government over its citizens (such as the Bill of Rights), or expanded the rights of the citizens (voting, slavery [which is condoned in the Bible, which was used by anti-abolitionists to justify slavery], citizenship), or further clarified the construction of the government itself (senators elected by popular vote, presidential terms, etc). The lone exception, the only time that a Constitutional amendment attempted to legislate morality, was the 18th. The dry amendment was one of the greatest follies of our government, where a small minority of righteous moralists rammed through a Constitutional Amendment that legislated behavior on moral grounds, outlawing and criminalizing something that was, in essence, a personal choice (consuming alcohol). The effects of the 18th Amendment on American society are well documented; while it did not cause organized crime, is certainly aided in the expansion of organized crime, and it criminalized normal behavior for millions of citizens. 14 years later, it was declared a failure when it was repealed by the 21st Amendment. And THAT is the legacy of the sole moral attempt to legislate citizens directly via the Constitution.

Now, I'll ask again. How would you like to change the Constitution? What would you add? What would you take out? How has it failed us, so far?

HometownGal
01-22-2008, 07:49 PM
Come to think of it, no man has ever had to bear the child of a rapist. So I think that men, especially so called "religious" men, should butt the hell of of women's lives.


Ever hear of adoption? The child conceived by a rapist's action is innocent - just like a rapist's victim.

TroysBadDawg
01-22-2008, 09:26 PM
The only time religion is mentioned is in the First Amendment, and they are the very first words of the First Amendment, and the wording is very specific: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Nothing Christian there. As I read it, the First Amendment specifically enforces keeping religion out of government, and therefore out of the Constitution. And that includes Christianity. Which doesn't mean that we aren't guided by Christian principles of conduct rather than, say,

Can I disagree a bit with you here after reading this thread. I believe it was not only to keep religion out of the government but Government out of religion. Thus attempting to change ones views on religion. There is nothing written anywhere in the constitution stating separation of Church and State. That was in a letter BF wrote to a constituent asking if there was going to be a state religion. The ACLU is now using that to remove all signs of religion from any public place or gathering, which is against the article you just quoted. The government (through the courts) interfering in the majorities religion. I am steadfastly against the federal judges legislating from the bench. ie. Roe v. Wade. California Prop187,[passed by the majority (Over 5 million votes) but one Federal judge threw out their votes.] link (http://www.ccir.net/REFERENCE/187-History.html)

Sorry to sidtrack this thread but I felt I just had to say it. Now I will climb back in my hole.

Mosca
01-22-2008, 09:43 PM
Can I disagree a bit with you here after reading this thread. I believe it was not only to keep religion out of the government but Government out of religion. Thus attempting to change ones views on religion. There is nothing written anywhere in the constitution stating separation of Church and State. That was in a letter BF wrote to a constituent asking if there was going to be a state religion. The ACLU is now using that to remove all signs of religion from any public place or gathering, which is against the article you just quoted. The government (through the courts) interfering in the majorities religion. I am steadfastly against the federal judges legislating from the bench. ie. Roe v. Wade. California Prop187,[passed by the majority (Over 5 million votes) but one Federal judge threw out their votes.] link (http://www.ccir.net/REFERENCE/187-History.html)

Sorry to sidtrack this thread but I felt I just had to say it. Now I will climb back in my hole.

Nothing is keeping anyone from exercising religion. Tell me why public property and public funds should be used for religious displays. There are plenty of private places to do that otherwise, no? Should public funds and property be used to praise Allah? How about Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church? Why not? What ever reason you gave, apply it to Christianity.

Just because it is the majority's religion doesn't mean it is the peoples' religion, or the country's. You can't use the public's property for religious displays. Use your church's property, or your own. But not ours, yours AND ours, the properties owned in part by your Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, and atheist neighbors.

Preacher
01-22-2008, 11:57 PM
Nothing is keeping anyone from exercising religion. Tell me why public property and public funds should be used for religious displays. There are plenty of private places to do that otherwise, no? Should public funds and property be used to praise Allah? How about Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church? Why not? What ever reason you gave, apply it to Christianity.

Just because it is the majority's religion doesn't mean it is the peoples' religion, or the country's. You can't use the public's property for religious displays. Use your church's property, or your own. But not ours, yours AND ours, the properties owned in part by your Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, and atheist neighbors.

Because it is the publics' property. Thus, I do own it, and if I am paying taxes for it, then I have the right to expression on it, just as everyone else does. That is why, I prefer to have a public square where we put up a christmas tree if someone wants a tree, a star of David if someone wants it, something representing Kwanzaa if someone wants that, etc. etc.

That would be freedom OF religion. What we have today is the repression of religion in the public square. That was never envisioned in the constitution. I don't want my local govt. putting up the tree. However, I do want PRIVATE PARTIES to be able to put up displays in public squares, as long as they are within generally accepted boundaries... (NO ONE wants to see a cut up cow with the innards falling out... however, if you want to symbolize that... fine with me).

Mosca
01-23-2008, 08:20 AM
Because it is the publics' property. Thus, I do own it, and if I am paying taxes for it, then I have the right to expression on it, just as everyone else does. That is why, I prefer to have a public square where we put up a christmas tree if someone wants a tree, a star of David if someone wants it, something representing Kwanzaa if someone wants that, etc. etc.

That would be freedom OF religion. What we have today is the repression of religion in the public square. That was never envisioned in the constitution. I don't want my local govt. putting up the tree. However, I do want PRIVATE PARTIES to be able to put up displays in public squares, as long as they are within generally accepted boundaries... (NO ONE wants to see a cut up cow with the innards falling out... however, if you want to symbolize that... fine with me).

No, YOU don't own it. WE own it, you, and me, AND EVERYONE ELSE. Somehow I think that your words would fall hollow in the practice; perhaps not yours personally, but yours as representing the Christian community. I somehow don't think that full blown celebration of Ramadan on public square would be welcomed by Christians in the same way creches are tolerated by Muslims.

And please, back on track.

stlrtruck
01-23-2008, 08:25 AM
Everyone is writing as if there were no laws at all before the 10 Commandments. Believe it or not, there were civilizations before then, and they had laws. As Preacher pointed out quite correctly, there are no mentions of gods or religions in the Constitution. It is a document of how to construct a government among men.

If you read it, you will see that it describes how the government is to be set up, with the different branches; it differentiates state and federal powers; it describes the powers that are to reside in each branch of the government; and it limits the power of the government over the people in the amendments.

There is nothing Christian... NOTHING AT ALL.... in the Constitution. The only time religion is mentioned is in the First Amendment, and they are the very first words of the First Amendment, and the wording is very specific: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Nothing Christian there. As I read it, the First Amendment specifically enforces keeping religion out of government, and therefore out of the Constitution. And that includes Christianity. Which doesn't mean that we aren't guided by Christian principles of conduct rather than, say, Aztec principles of human sacrifice. But those same principles are shared by Christians and non Christians alike, as part of Western Civilization. I don't need a Christian god in order to not want to steal, or murder. There is nothing intrinsically Christian about that. The Greeks and Romans had laws against stealing and murder; the Egyptians had laws against stealing and murder. But while those are laws in our country, they STILL aren't part of the Constitution. Now, the Christian part; the part about believing in Jesus Christ as my personal savior, and honoring god and the Sabbath.... Where should that go in the Constitution?

There are no overlaps between the Bible and the Constitution. None. There are no references in the Constitution to any of the 10 Commandments; nothing in the Constitution about murder, thievery, or adultery. Nothing about false witness, the Sabbath, graven images... nothing. Nothing about coveting. Don't believe me? Read the document for yourself here. (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble)

And there are no mentions of a bicameral legislature; no mentions of quartering soldiers, no mention of abolishing slavery or womens' sufferage (other than to allow slaves, and place women in subservience to men), no mention of presidential term limits or congressional pay raises or search and seizure or trial by jury (other than to describe trial by fiat) in the Bible. Though I'm sure if there are any, someone will quote them at me.

All the amendments? Every amendment, save one, have either limited the power of the government over its citizens (such as the Bill of Rights), or expanded the rights of the citizens (voting, slavery [which is condoned in the Bible, which was used by anti-abolitionists to justify slavery], citizenship), or further clarified the construction of the government itself (senators elected by popular vote, presidential terms, etc). The lone exception, the only time that a Constitutional amendment attempted to legislate morality, was the 18th. The dry amendment was one of the greatest follies of our government, where a small minority of righteous moralists rammed through a Constitutional Amendment that legislated behavior on moral grounds, outlawing and criminalizing something that was, in essence, a personal choice (consuming alcohol). The effects of the 18th Amendment on American society are well documented; while it did not cause organized crime, is certainly aided in the expansion of organized crime, and it criminalized normal behavior for millions of citizens. 14 years later, it was declared a failure when it was repealed by the 21st Amendment. And THAT is the legacy of the sole moral attempt to legislate citizens directly via the Constitution.

Now, I'll ask again. How would you like to change the Constitution? What would you add? What would you take out? How has it failed us, so far?

First I have to say that I enjoy your post here. Most people when they speak of religion or politics (let alone both) get dissheveled and become impossible to hear or talk to. For that I say THANKS for being civil. Now I can only hope that I remain the same (LOL - seriously that's a joke :sofunny:)

Second, as I stated before it is not the written document that is so much at fault but the application of the document. Personally I feel that our government officials fail at this part regardless of spiritual/religious backgrounds.

And while there were civilized laws prior to the times of Christ, the foundation of this country was based on freedom from religious persecution in England. The problem now, looking back, is officials of today are attempting, very poorly I might add, to translate what was meant by certain statements. It's the same as people interpreting the bible today - sometimes the language that was used then can not be interpreted accurately to describe wording, tone, and true meaning for the reader.

As to answer your questions about what I would change, one would to amend that a marriage is recognized as only between a man and a woman - outside of that, I'd change the application process that doesn't happen in DC today.

And I'd like to add two more things - 1) I would like to see religion stay out of government but want to see Christ in our leaders. 2) If we aren't a Christian nation or one build on Christian principles then why is "God" mentioned on our money and represented in our legislative buildings?

Mosca, thanks for the dialogue - it gives one many things to think about and ponder response before tapping away at the keyboard.

Mosca
01-23-2008, 09:54 AM
stlrtrk,

Taking as an example the Roe v Wade decision, I looked at it and tried to understand the stretch that went on in the justices' minds as they tried to apply the 14th Amendment to that case. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Putting aside any religion for a moment; how does this guarantee to a woman the right to an abortion? Without quoting the entire decision, the Supreme Court specifically chose a non-religious line of reasoning, balancing the individual's right to make medical decisions without state interference against the state's "legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life." "We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

Although I still can't follow the logic that applies this particular Constitutional principle, I can understand how the justices arrived at the compromise. Hard as it might be for some people to understand, not everyone believes the same way about early term fetal life. Many women believe that as long as the fetus lives off them, they get to decide if it continues. That might be hard for some of us to get our minds around, but it is their right. I'm not completely settled with that myself, but I'm less settled with giving Constitutional protection to the unborn.

Mosca
01-23-2008, 10:29 AM
First I have to say that I enjoy your post here. Most people when they speak of religion or politics (let alone both) get dissheveled and become impossible to hear or talk to. For that I say THANKS for being civil. Now I can only hope that I remain the same (LOL - seriously that's a joke :sofunny:)

Second, as I stated before it is not the written document that is so much at fault but the application of the document. Personally I feel that our government officials fail at this part regardless of spiritual/religious backgrounds.

And while there were civilized laws prior to the times of Christ, the foundation of this country was based on freedom from religious persecution in England. The problem now, looking back, is officials of today are attempting, very poorly I might add, to translate what was meant by certain statements. It's the same as people interpreting the bible today - sometimes the language that was used then can not be interpreted accurately to describe wording, tone, and true meaning for the reader.

As to answer your questions about what I would change, one would to amend that a marriage is recognized as only between a man and a woman - outside of that, I'd change the application process that doesn't happen in DC today.

And I'd like to add two more things - 1) I would like to see religion stay out of government but want to see Christ in our leaders. 2) If we aren't a Christian nation or one build on Christian principles then why is "God" mentioned on our money and represented in our legislative buildings?

Mosca, thanks for the dialogue - it gives one many things to think about and ponder response before tapping away at the keyboard.

First, you're welcome. It is important to remember that we all agree on the same principles for how to live. Compassion. Equanimity. Fairness. Tolerance. For that vast majority of us, that is how we get by in an increasingly crowded world full of people who are becoming more different from us every day.


Regarding marriage: IMO that is a state's decision. I assume you are talking about civil unions here, because "marriage" to me means the religious union, presided over by a church. (Nothing can prevent a minister and a congregation from recognizing whatever they want to, after all; they can wed a pear to a ball bearing.The bride was beautiful, in her oil jacket...) The real issue is money: insurance coverage, survivor's and pension benefits, that kind of thing. The secondary issue is survivor's rights: the right to make medical decisions (and be present at life's end) and funeral decisions for a loved one. Because really, I don't think anyone is interested in telling anyone else who they can and can't share love, and through that love share intimacy... as alien as their choice may seem to us. (Notice I chose the word "share" for love, meaning I get to exclude children, animals, etc. from the intimacy part.) So the real issue is allocation of resources. But family coverages for pensions and health care exist so that one member of a family can devote more time to child care... it gets so confusing! THEREFORE, since the laws governing such unions refer to specific statues and the standards for such unions vary wildly from state (California) to state (Alabama), I say leave the decisions to the states. After all, it is their money to apportion, generally speaking. The money is local.


Seeing Christ in our leaders? Sure. Don't get your hopes up, though. Flawed folks, us humans! I'd settle for "trying".

"God" on the money... First appeared on paper money in 1957! Only 50 years ago! First appeared on coinage in 1864, almost 100 years AFTER the Constitution. It has appeared and disappeared as coins have changed over the last 150 years, for example not appearing on nickels from 1883 until 1938. (Source: US Treasury) (http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html). I think it is such a highly charged issue now that people would see the removal of it as something more than it is. Best to leave it alone, IMO. The country is fractured enough as it is without driving more wedges between people over something that is in the end symbolic and meaningless. However, I think that it is important to note that the words appeared on the money specifically as an attempt to establish Christianity in the government:

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:

Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.
One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

So, IMO it is an intrusion on government by religion, but one that I personally don't care about as long as the money spends.

Jeremy
01-23-2008, 11:03 AM
Ever hear of adoption? The child conceived by a rapist's action is innocent - just like a rapist's victim.

No woman should be forced to carry the child of that crime. That's what The Huckster and his insane brethern really want. Their values forced on the rest of America. It's sickening.

stlrtruck
01-23-2008, 11:55 AM
stlrtrk,

Taking as an example the Roe v Wade decision, I looked at it and tried to understand the stretch that went on in the justices' minds as they tried to apply the 14th Amendment to that case. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Putting aside any religion for a moment; how does this guarantee to a woman the right to an abortion? Without quoting the entire decision, the Supreme Court specifically chose a non-religious line of reasoning, balancing the individual's right to make medical decisions without state interference against the state's "legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life." "We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

Although I still can't follow the logic that applies this particular Constitutional principle, I can understand how the justices arrived at the compromise. Hard as it might be for some people to understand, not everyone believes the same way about early term fetal life. Many women believe that as long as the fetus lives off them, they get to decide if it continues. That might be hard for some of us to get our minds around, but it is their right. I'm not completely settled with that myself, but I'm less settled with giving Constitutional protection to the unborn.

In one of my first statements I stated that I was against abortion personally and only have a slanted viewpoint of the woman's view. And while I am against it, I don't know how I would feel if my daughter was rapped and got pregnant - how hard would it be to look at that child, without having some feeling of hate - not towards the child but the jerk responsible for destroying my daughter and destroying the child either through abortion or by the child having a father-less life!

As much as I am against abortion, I also believe that the woman has the ultimate choice. I also believe that abortion has it's place such as when a woman is rapped and she doesn't want to carry around the reminder of what happen to her. However, I think some women (and men who force women into the situation) aren't being held responsible for their lack of use of protection and creating children only to wake up one day and have their (insert number here) abortion.

On the other hand, I don't agree with these so-called "Christian" groups going to abortion clinics protesting the people walking in to them. Personally, if the people outside abortion clinics were true to God's word, then they would be there offering love, hope, and support to the women and men walking into them. But that's for another thread.

stlrtruck
01-23-2008, 12:10 PM
First, you're welcome. It is important to remember that we all agree on the same principles for how to live. Compassion. Equanimity. Fairness. Tolerance. For that vast majority of us, that is how we get by in an increasingly crowded world full of people who are becoming more different from us every day.


Regarding marriage: IMO that is a state's decision. I assume you are talking about civil unions here, because "marriage" to me means the religious union, presided over by a church. (Nothing can prevent a minister and a congregation from recognizing whatever they want to, after all; they can wed a pear to a ball bearing.The bride was beautiful, in her oil jacket...) The real issue is money: insurance coverage, survivor's and pension benefits, that kind of thing. The secondary issue is survivor's rights: the right to make medical decisions (and be present at life's end) and funeral decisions for a loved one. Because really, I don't think anyone is interested in telling anyone else who they can and can't share love, and through that love share intimacy... as alien as their choice may seem to us. (Notice I chose the word "share" for love, meaning I get to exclude children, animals, etc. from the intimacy part.) So the real issue is allocation of resources. But family coverages for pensions and health care exist so that one member of a family can devote more time to child care... it gets so confusing! THEREFORE, since the laws governing such unions refer to specific statues and the standards for such unions vary wildly from state (California) to state (Alabama), I say leave the decisions to the states. After all, it is their money to apportion, generally speaking. The money is local.


Seeing Christ in our leaders? Sure. Don't get your hopes up, though. Flawed folks, us humans! I'd settle for "trying".

"God" on the money... First appeared on paper money in 1957! Only 50 years ago! First appeared on coinage in 1864, almost 100 years AFTER the Constitution. It has appeared and disappeared as coins have changed over the last 150 years, for example not appearing on nickels from 1883 until 1938. (Source: US Treasury) (http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html). I think it is such a highly charged issue now that people would see the removal of it as something more than it is. Best to leave it alone, IMO. The country is fractured enough as it is without driving more wedges between people over something that is in the end symbolic and meaningless. However, I think that it is important to note that the words appeared on the money specifically as an attempt to establish Christianity in the government:



So, IMO it is an intrusion on government by religion, but one that I personally don't care about as long as the money spends.

Thanks for the read on American Money. I appreciate your sentiments on the money spending. However, I will have to agree to disagree with you that the attempt was to establish Christianity in the government. My view on that is that the government, through a letter from a reverend, chose to acknowledge and recognize God's impact on this nation - No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. .

I've even heard it mentioned that our Constitution should be discarded and a new one written to incorporate many of the issues that our founding fathers did not experience in their day. Personally, I think we should keep the Constitution, rid ourselves of the politicians, and start anew. While we can not guarantee that there won't be left wing or right wing nuts left to vote in, we can guarantee that we elect non-professional politicians such as people in this forum and other forums across the land.

Imagine the difference leaders like that could make - people like me and you sitting in congress not bowing down to lobbyists and the rich but instead to the people in general for the good of the majority, not the whining few.

One question. How do you feel about having English as a national language? It is not stated anywhere, as far as I know but people feel, and I agree, that there should be an amendment dictating our national language to be English.

TroysBadDawg
01-23-2008, 12:26 PM
stlrtrk,

Taking as an example the Roe v Wade decision, ..... That might be hard for some of us to get our minds around, but it is their right. I'm not completely settled with that myself, but I'm less settled with giving Constitutional protection to the unborn.

But you must admit that if the unborn could cast votes, abortion would be illegal.

As far as how it came about, again it was judicial legislating from the bench. They could not get a law passed in Congress to allow abortion so they got a Jane doe, and a judge who felt as they did and went before said judge to get a law passed. Not the usual way it is supposed to happen is it. The constitution it quit clear on who makes the laws and the courts are not part of it.

If a group can not get their views passed by Congress they simply now get a judge to legislate from the bench. The Constitution is very explicit in defining how laws are made where and what body of the Government makes them. I quote directly from the Constitution:
?Article I
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.?

? Article III
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.?

Yet the Bench has taken the power to make laws ie. Roe v. Wade from Congress and divested the power into itself. There is nothing within the Constitution that gave the Supreme Court this power. The Court became self-serving by legislating from the bench. Money has won the attention of the courts by buying those who placed the Judges in their position, to make rulings in favor of the party of power.

Again this is just an opinion of an old man, who has seen enough corruption in Government to make me want to throw up everyday until I die, which could be soon.

May God Bless (again my opinion)

Jeremy
01-23-2008, 12:34 PM
Thanks for the read on American Money. I appreciate your sentiments on the money spending. However, I will have to agree to disagree with you that the attempt was to establish Christianity in the government. My view on that is that the government, through a letter from a reverend, chose to acknowledge and recognize God's impact on this nation - No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. .

I've even heard it mentioned that our Constitution should be discarded and a new one written to incorporate many of the issues that our founding fathers did not experience in their day. Personally, I think we should keep the Constitution, rid ourselves of the politicians, and start anew. While we can not guarantee that there won't be left wing or right wing nuts left to vote in, we can guarantee that we elect non-professional politicians such as people in this forum and other forums across the land.

Imagine the difference leaders like that could make - people like me and you sitting in congress not bowing down to lobbyists and the rich but instead to the people in general for the good of the majority, not the whining few.

One question. How do you feel about having English as a national language? It is not stated anywhere, as far as I know but people feel, and I agree, that there should be an amendment dictating our national language to be English.

No. Just as my German ancestors were shunned when they spoke German, so are the Spanish speakers shunned now. Unlike some people in this country, I remember my family's history in this country. A Constitutional Amendment making English the national language is a slap in the face to the very history of this nation.

stlrtruck
01-23-2008, 01:05 PM
A Constitutional Amendment making English the national language is a slap in the face to the very history of this nation.

Explain to me how it would a slap in the face, I'm not following you?

Although immigrants, legal ones, have flooded this great country - matter of fact this country was made up of immigrants - when they got here, regardless of origin, what language did they come to speak?

And I'm not saying that we shouldn't accommodate foreign speaking people. I'm saying it shouldn't be our main purpose (i.e. I call a service provider and I have to push buttons to get English).

If I move to Italy, I wouldn't expect that they would accommodate my lack of knowledge of the Italian language but instead I would learn to speak Italian if I wanted to socialize with the Italians.

Just my opinion (and don't worry I don't need change from my two cents - lol)

Jeremy
01-23-2008, 01:10 PM
Explain to me how it would a slap in the face, I'm not following you?

Although immigrants, legal ones, have flooded this great country - matter of fact this country was made up of immigrants - when they got here, regardless of origin, what language did they come to speak?

And I'm not saying that we shouldn't accommodate foreign speaking people. I'm saying it shouldn't be our main purpose (i.e. I call a service provider and I have to push buttons to get English).

If I move to Italy, I wouldn't expect that they would accommodate my lack of knowledge of the Italian language but instead I would learn to speak Italian if I wanted to socialize with the Italians.

Just my opinion (and don't worry I don't need change from my two cents - lol)


Up until WWII, it wasn't uncommon for a family to maintain the language of their homeland in their homes. German families spoke German at home and English in public. But the fervent nationalism this country went through in WWII killed that and forced this idea of what a "good American" is suppossed to be on us. It was reinforced over the years with men like McCarthy.

Now here we are in 2007 and some people want to ignore all the other pressing issues in this country just so they can tack an English as the national language amendement to the Constituion. With all the other problems we have in this country, it's ****ing insulting that anyone would even want something like that or any of the things The Huckster proposes.

But like I always say, a man who can mobilize the rednecks is always going to be popular.

Mosca
01-23-2008, 01:44 PM
But you must admit that if the unborn could cast votes, abortion would be illegal.

But they can't. And neither can 16 year olds.

As far as how it came about, again it was judicial legislating from the bench. They could not get a law passed in Congress to allow abortion so they got a Jane doe, and a judge who felt as they did and went before said judge to get a law passed. Not the usual way it is supposed to happen is it. The constitution it quit clear on who makes the laws and the courts are not part of it.

Interesting facts about Norma McCorvey, aka "Jane Roe". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey)

The Constitution also makes it clear on what rights the states can and can't override through their own legislation, and why; that is the basis for it being a constitutional argument to begin with.

If a group can not get their views passed by Congress they simply now get a judge to legislate from the bench. The Constitution is very explicit in defining how laws are made where and what body of the Government makes them. I quote directly from the Constitution:
?Article I
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.?

? Article III
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.?

Yet the Bench has taken the power to make laws ie. Roe v. Wade from Congress and divested the power into itself. There is nothing within the Constitution that gave the Supreme Court this power. The Court became self-serving by legislating from the bench. Money has won the attention of the courts by buying those who placed the Judges in their position, to make rulings in favor of the party of power.

Again this is just an opinion of an old man, who has seen enough corruption in Government to make me want to throw up everyday until I die, which could be soon.

May God Bless (again my opinion)

I disagree. Amendment 9, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." What the Supreme Court does is decides when laws violate parts of the Constitution. That is Article III Section 2 that you quoted. Using Roe v Wade, a state (Texas) passed a law which the court decided violated the 14th Amendment (quoted above). The decision wasn't close; it was 7-2, with justices of both leanings concurring with the majority. White and Rehnquist dissented. Conservatives affirming were Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, and Powell. Burger, Blackmun and Powell were considered strict constructionists, so the charge of "legislating from the bench" is somewhat specious in this instance.

Across the history of our country, there is overwhelming evidence that the Supreme Court has its own mind on issues; that Justices act in accordance with the law rather than according to political leanings. That is a testament to the high caliber of the appointees to the court. The Constitution is an apolitical document, after all.

Jeremy
01-23-2008, 02:05 PM
Let me bottom line this issue.

These things The Huckster and others are talking about, outlawing abortion, defining marriage, and making English the national language, aren't going to do anything to address the problems in America. Passing these amendments is akin to getting a new paint job on a junker car. They make it look better, but it doesn't fix anything.

None of these things will fix the economy, they won't help win the war on terrorism, and they won't help with immigration.

So until the The Huckster can start talking about real issues, he and his supporters will remain a huge joke in my book.

Mosca
01-23-2008, 02:17 PM
Let me bottom line this issue.

These things The Huckster and others are talking about, outlawing abortion, defining marriage, and making English the national language, aren't going to do anything to address the problems in America. Passing these amendments is akin to getting a new paint job on a junker car. They make it look better, but it doesn't fix anything.

None of these things will fix the economy, they won't help win the war on terrorism, and they won't help with immigration.

So until the The Huckster can start talking about real issues, he and his supporters will remain a huge joke in my book.

But... but... but you can't start making sense NOW, we're in the middle of a discussion!

stlrtruck
01-23-2008, 02:25 PM
Let me bottom line this issue.

These things The Huckster and others are talking about, outlawing abortion, defining marriage, and making English the national language, aren't going to do anything to address the problems in America. Passing these amendments is akin to getting a new paint job on a junker car. They make it look better, but it doesn't fix anything.

None of these things will fix the economy, they won't help win the war on terrorism, and they won't help with immigration.

So until the The Huckster can start talking about real issues, he and his supporters will remain a huge joke in my book.

The Huckster, as you so admirably refer to him, has outlined some of those issues on his website (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.Home).

And while language, and marriage are not the top issues facing this country they are still issues that many Americans have spoken out against in the last few years. Just as abortion, taxes, and homeland security have been issues that divide voters.

And while they are not issues that I expect him to address immediately (or any newly elected president), should he win the presidency, they are issues in which I determine my voting strategies.


But like I always say, a man who can mobilize the rednecks is always going to be popular.

As for that comment, anytime any one person can mobilize any large group of individuals it is something people worry about - look what happen when Jesus mobilized those who believed in him.

Preacher
01-23-2008, 02:31 PM
No, YOU don't own it. WE own it, you, and me, AND EVERYONE ELSE. Somehow I think that your words would fall hollow in the practice; perhaps not yours personally, but yours as representing the Christian community. I somehow don't think that full blown celebration of Ramadan on public square would be welcomed by Christians in the same way creches are tolerated by Muslims.

And please, back on track.

When I say I own it, I mean I as part of the community... thus we all own it. I agree. Where I disagree with you is in the area of tolerance of other religions. I think most Christians are very willing to tolerate other religions, if everyone is willing to tolerate a debate and discussion of religions.

The problem is the second aspect is seen as hatred by some.

I for one would welcome a ramadan celebration on the city square, as long as they also welcome a easter morning service in the city square, and a passover sader on the city square. It is our property that we support with taxes, so we all should get to use it.

Preacher
01-23-2008, 02:42 PM
stlrtrk,

Taking as an example the Roe v Wade decision, I looked at it and tried to understand the stretch that went on in the justices' minds as they tried to apply the 14th Amendment to that case. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Putting aside any religion for a moment; how does this guarantee to a woman the right to an abortion? Without quoting the entire decision, the Supreme Court specifically chose a non-religious line of reasoning, balancing the individual's right to make medical decisions without state interference against the state's "legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life." "We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

Although I still can't follow the logic that applies this particular Constitutional principle, I can understand how the justices arrived at the compromise. Hard as it might be for some people to understand, not everyone believes the same way about early term fetal life. Many women believe that as long as the fetus lives off them, they get to decide if it continues. That might be hard for some of us to get our minds around, but it is their right. I'm not completely settled with that myself, but I'm less settled with giving Constitutional protection to the unborn.


You are completely right on that... and it is on that premise as well that I base my arguments on abortion as illegal.

However, the question is no longer when there is life. Science has proven life at very early stages. Yet, last year, there was great debate about partial birth abortion, where there is no question about life. While I am disagreement, I would understand a law that states abortion can NOT be performed past the 2nd month because of life. I can understand that law based on constitutional issues of life.

I am not swayed by the argument of a "Woman's right to her own body" because that right has never existed for either a man or a woman. This nation has repeatedly, and still continues to pass laws that tell us what we can, cannot, and must do with, to, and because of our bodies. seatbelt and helmet laws are passed, taking away the choice of what one does with, or to their body. Prostitution is illegal in all but 1 state, mandating what men and women cannot do with there body. Suicide attempts are illegal and such an attempt mandates the state to take control of care for ones body/mind. There is no such thing as a right to your own body in this country. There are too many laws that speak otherwise.

The saddest thing of all, is that Roe V Wade is simply horrible law... and we have had numerous presidents and congress's that are too chicken to do what SHOULD be done, and put up a constitutional amendment that clarifies EITHER WAY.

Jeremy
01-23-2008, 03:27 PM
The Huckster, as you so admirably refer to him, has outlined some of those issues on his website (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.Home).

And while language, and marriage are not the top issues facing this country they are still issues that many Americans have spoken out against in the last few years. Just as abortion, taxes, and homeland security have been issues that divide voters.

And while they are not issues that I expect him to address immediately (or any newly elected president), should he win the presidency, they are issues in which I determine my voting strategies.



As for that comment, anytime any one person can mobilize any large group of individuals it is something people worry about - look what happen when Jesus mobilized those who believed in him.


Which just goes to show that most Americans are stupid.

As for that comment, anytime any one person can mobilize any large group of individuals it is something people worry about - look what happen when Jesus mobilized those who believed in him

I am deeply offended that you would compare a snail oil salesman like The Huckster to Jesus. Shame on you for making such a outrageous argument. That earns you a place on my ignore list.

Jeremy
01-23-2008, 03:35 PM
You are completely right on that... and it is on that premise as well that I base my arguments on abortion as illegal.

However, the question is no longer when there is life. Science has proven life at very early stages. Yet, last year, there was great debate about partial birth abortion, where there is no question about life. While I am disagreement, I would understand a law that states abortion can NOT be performed past the 2nd month because of life. I can understand that law based on constitutional issues of life.

I am not swayed by the argument of a "Woman's right to her own body" because that right has never existed for either a man or a woman. This nation has repeatedly, and still continues to pass laws that tell us what we can, cannot, and must do with, to, and because of our bodies. seatbelt and helmet laws are passed, taking away the choice of what one does with, or to their body. Prostitution is illegal in all but 1 state, mandating what men and women cannot do with there body. Suicide attempts are illegal and such an attempt mandates the state to take control of care for ones body/mind. There is no such thing as a right to your own body in this country. There are too many laws that speak otherwise.

The saddest thing of all, is that Roe V Wade is simply horrible law... and we have had numerous presidents and congress's that are too chicken to do what SHOULD be done, and put up a constitutional amendment that clarifies EITHER WAY.

Why? It's a state issue.

Preacher
01-23-2008, 03:51 PM
Why? It's a state issue.

Just like slavery right?

It is the same argument.

"are they human" "Do they have the same rights" "Doesn't the right of the property owner (own body) reign supreme."

No, if slavery wasn't as state issue, and the government decided it wasn't, then neither is abortion.

Like it or not.

Jeremy
01-23-2008, 03:54 PM
Just like slavery right?

It is the same argument.

"are they human" "Do they have the same rights" "Doesn't the right of the property owner (own body) reign supreme."

No, if slavery wasn't as state issue, and the government decided it wasn't, then neither is abortion.

Like it or not.

I should have had you pegged as a big government apologist Preacher. I'm sorry for thinking you were a conservative/libertarian.

Mosca
01-23-2008, 04:32 PM
Just like slavery right?

It is the same argument.

"are they human" "Do they have the same rights" "Doesn't the right of the property owner (own body) reign supreme."

No, if slavery wasn't as state issue, and the government decided it wasn't, then neither is abortion.

Like it or not.


It is not the same argument. Not at all. If it was, then you could use the same justification to state that parents have no legal right to control of their children.

I'm sure you can find a better justification for your position. I give you a mulligan on this one. Take another try.

Jeremy
01-23-2008, 04:51 PM
It is not the same argument. Not at all. If it was, then you could use the same justification to state that parents have no legal right to control of their children.

I'm sure you can find a better justification for your position. I give you a mulligan on this one. Take another try.

Hell no....he put it out there. Let him reap the consequences of his words. The die has been cast and we can see who really supports big government and who doesn't.

Preacher
01-23-2008, 05:30 PM
I should have had you pegged as a big government apologist Preacher. I'm sorry for thinking you were a conservative/libertarian.

You are arguing the difference between what should be and what is. YOu and I both will agree on small govt. What I am pointing out is that if the govt. has taken for itself the states' right on the issue of slavery, which it has, then it must also take the same stand on abortion, and err on the side of life and freedom.

However, I am not convinced that as a small govt. abortion isn't an issue. Here is why. The govt. SHOULD be responsible for only 3 areas. Defense of the states, Defense of individual rights within the states, and commerce between the states. To me, the fed. govt. has the responsibility of protecting the unalienable rights of every human being. Since I, because of my understanding of biology believe that human life happens at conception, I believe that it is one of the govt's few jobs to protect the unalienable right of the unborn child, as the child is still human.

Hey... I live in California now. Do you REALLY think I want big govt.? What we have here is absolutely horrible. BTW, San Francisco is now banning all plastic bags from stores for enviromental reasons. I wonder if the idiots realize that means more trees will be cut down for the paper bags.

Preacher
01-23-2008, 05:39 PM
It is not the same argument. Not at all. If it was, then you could use the same justification to state that parents have no legal right to control of their children.

I'm sure you can find a better justification for your position. I give you a mulligan on this one. Take another try.

Let's revisit this. What was core reasoning behind slavery? Black people are not human. That was enshrined in the constitution (3/5ths). The belief was that since they were not human, a person could hold them as slaves. Furthermore, they could treat them how they wanted because they were slaves. Giving the slaves equal rights meant creating a situation where black people were judicially equated, to white people, fully human (however, we all know it took over a hundred years for it to begin to take hold, and still hasn't necessarily taken hold in some places).

Abortion is going through that exact same arguments. What is the core argument of abortion? The fetus is not human. It is a mass of flesh and blood. It doesn't not yet have life. That is the viability argument. The child is not viable, therefore does not have life. If the child does not have life, then it is not human and the host can do what she wants to destroy the nonviable mass. The argument is when do we as a society bestow the legal judgement of life upon the mass giving to it the legal standing of living human, thus making it legally equal to everyone else.

The end result is the argument of slavery and abortion is the same argument, because the crux of both arguments is, "Are they human?"

Your statement about no legal right to control thier children is out of context. Parents DONT have a legal right to harm their children or bring death to their children. They don't even have a legal right to neglect their children, all because the child is recognized as endowed with unalienable rights by the creator (dec. of indep.) and thus protected in life by the constitution.

Preacher
01-23-2008, 05:42 PM
BTW...

This thread PROVES we are definitely in the offseason!

Jeremy
01-23-2008, 05:43 PM
1. Ending slavery wasn't the main cause of the Civil War. The control of the spread of slavery was the issue. There is historical evidence to suggest the Linclon and other Northern leaders had every intention of sending the freed slaves back to Africa after the war. But that's an issue for another time.

2. By outlawing slavery, you're putting the rights of the unborn child over the rights of the mother. In effect, you've created a new slave class. Now there's nothing to stop a cult or gang from kidnapping women and raping them in order to have a child delivered and then argue for paretal rights. Imagine the issues that are created when you outlaw a medical procedure simply in order to satifsy a "religious" or "moral" value.

I'm sorry, but every time anyone starts talking about having more religion in governement, I cringe. I cringe because I've seen the depth of the hypocrisy of the church and especially with the born again Christians. Government should be conducted free from the spectre of religious values being forced on the population. When you amend the Constitution like The Huckster says, all you really do is put lipstick on the pig. If you're not willing to judge a candidate on the hard issues (and in that situation The Huckster comes up woefully short) then don't vote.

Preacher
01-23-2008, 06:00 PM
1. Ending slavery wasn't the main cause of the Civil War. The control of the spread of slavery was the issue. There is historical evidence to suggest the Linclon and other Northern leaders had every intention of sending the freed slaves back to Africa after the war. But that's an issue for another time.

2. By outlawing slavery, you're putting the rights of the unborn child over the rights of the mother. In effect, you've created a new slave class. Now there's nothing to stop a cult or gang from kidnapping women and raping them in order to have a child delivered and then argue for paretal rights. Imagine the issues that are created when you outlaw a medical procedure simply in order to satifsy a "religious" or "moral" value.

I'm sorry, but every time anyone starts talking about having more religion in governement, I cringe. I cringe because I've seen the depth of the hypocrisy of the church and especially with the born again Christians. Government should be conducted free from the spectre of religious values being forced on the population. When you amend the Constitution like The Huckster says, all you really do is put lipstick on the pig. If you're not willing to judge a candidate on the hard issues (and in that situation The Huckster comes up woefully short) then don't vote.


On the issue of sending slaves back to Africa, yes, that is well documented. However, my original point still stands that the core issue that allowed slavery was a misunderstanding of blacks as non-human.

I am not creating a new slave class. Instead, I am puttin personal responsibility back where it belongs. The issue of rape is a non-issue in this discussion, as it is a very minimal reason for abortion. (Please be patient as I search for a previous thread where I show the statistics. I will link it here when I find it. )

I am not willing to bring religion into govt. Notice that all references I make are from our founding documents. I do not argue these topics based on the bible. I argue them based on science and our Constitution.

What I want, is govt. COMPLETELY out of religion. Which means the courts make NO RULINGS having to do with religion.

Unfortunately, some of my fellow brothers, especially in the catholic church have destroyed that separation when they refused to deal with the sexual abuse.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __

EDIT:

Okay, i thought I was repeating myself. Here is the original post with the info, including links. Since I am pretty much repeating myself, I will just leave with this. http://forums.steelersfever.com/showpost.php?p=227550&postcount=14

Jeremy
01-23-2008, 08:30 PM
4.7% is 4.7% too much!

GBMelBlount
01-23-2008, 09:48 PM
QUOTE=Moscaw
Across the history of our country, there is overwhelming evidence that the Supreme Court has its own mind on issues; that Justices act in accordance with the law

Huh? They have their own mind yet act in accordance? That sounds contradictory to me. From what I have heard most conservative justices tend to interpret the constitution and "act in accordance," and many recent liberal justices tend to have their "own mind" and legislate from the bench when it suits their own political end game.

Mosca
01-23-2008, 10:22 PM
Huh? They have their own mind yet act in accordance? That sounds contradictory to me. From what I have heard most conservative justices tend to interpret the constitution and "act in accordance," and many recent liberal justices tend to have their "own mind" and legislate from the bench when it suits their own political end game.

Meaning that regardless of who appointed them or how they were perceived prior to nomination, they have generally been evenhanded in their interpretation of the Constitution. But don't listen to me; look it up. While there will be always be some decisions that raise eyebrows (baseball's reserve clause comes to mind), the charge of "legislating from the bench" is specious. Overwhelmingly the decisions are founded on sound Constitutional principle.

GBMelBlount
01-23-2008, 10:30 PM
Meaning that regardless of who appointed them or how they were perceived prior to nomination, they have generally been evenhanded in their interpretation of the Constitution. But don't listen to me; look it up. While there will be always be some decisions that raise eyebrows (baseball's reserve clause comes to mind), the charge of "legislating from the bench" is specious. Overwhelmingly the decisions are founded on sound Constitutional principle.

Damnit Mosca! Why do you try to base everything on facts rather than opinion and heresay. Do you realize how much more work that is? Jeez.

Mosca
01-23-2008, 10:36 PM
Current Chief Justice Roberts, a staunch opponent of judicial activism:

"At the same time, the Framers insulated the federal judiciary from popular pressure in order that the courts would be able to discharge their responsibility of interpreting the law and enforcing the limits the Constitution places on the political branches. Thoughtful critics of 'judicial activism' — such as Justices Holmes, Frankfurter, Jackson, and Harlan — always recognized that judicial vigilance in upholding constitutional rights was in no sense improper 'activism.' It is not 'judicial activism' when the courts carry out their constitutionally-assigned function and overturn a decision of the Executive or Legislature in the course of adjudicating a case or controversy properly before the courts...."

And his polar opposite philosophically, Ruth Bader Ginsberg:

"Measured motions seem to me right, in the main, for constitutional as well as common law adjudication. Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable."

I will qualify my statement about "legislating from the bench" in that I am referring specifically to the Supreme Court, not to what might happen in lower courts. No doubt that there are whackos from both extremes trying to make headlines lower down the chain.

Preacher
01-24-2008, 02:05 AM
4.7% is 4.7% too much!

Please read the ENTIRE POST. 4.7 is only to pregnancies. Too much? absolutely. However, not all those choose abortion... PLEASE READ ON.

Furthermore, despite what most people say, the chances of pregnancy during rape is estimated to be 4.7 percent of all pregnacies, or 32000 pregancies per year (U.S. Census). According to the National Organization of Women http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html an estimated 1.2 million women are raped every year (How horrible, later we can discuss why I want the death penalty for the idiots that do that dispicable act). What that means however, is that only 2.6 percent of who are raped end up pregnant. Thus, while that issue needs to be discussed, to ask "What about women who are raped" when it comes to abortion is a red herring, as very few women who are raped get pregnant. Furthermore, there are 1.3 million abortions a year according to an article in the New England Journal of Medicene http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/1/1. Therefore, if EVERY women who got pregant, had an abortion, only 2.4 percent of abortions are rape-related. However, the figures are actually around 1 to 1.5 percent (incliuding incest) http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...abreasons.html (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html) (could not find the political leaning of the source, but view the sources sited... U.N. figures, FBI and CDC.. it leads me to beleive that it is a balanced writing).

In the end, the "what about rape" argument is a non-issue on the whole to the subject of abortion.

Preacher
01-24-2008, 03:03 AM
Somehow... we need to get the war in Iraq, the nuclear weapon issue with Korea, and the national economy involved in this thread...

at that point, I think we may be able to solve all of America's problems!

:chuckle:

Offseason is fun... even more fun when you have good intelligent people to debate with!

TroysBadDawg
01-24-2008, 05:27 AM
Meaning that regardless of who appointed them or how they were perceived prior to nomination, they have generally been evenhanded in their interpretation of the Constitution. But don't listen to me; look it up. While there will be always be some decisions that raise eyebrows (baseball's reserve clause comes to mind), the charge of "legislating from the bench" is specious. Overwhelmingly the decisions are founded on sound Constitutional principle.


I have looked it up, and that is why all though there are those that said they were going to retire they did not when a Republican President was elected. For 8 long years now they have not retired, and when the one did the Democrats in congress openly stated they would block any nomination for anybody who had ruling of favoring pro-life. Now how does that support the Constitution? That only supports the Democratic party's views and platform. That is not evenhanded or even close. But then again that is just my opinion or view of things.

How Partial Birth Abortion, it is legal, that is murder. The lower courts did that one. Look at it this way then. A person kills a pregnant mother, he is charged with two murders in the court system. The Court system see the unborn as a living child thus the murder charge. So now Doctors have the right to murder patients? I guess the next thing is you will see is after a certain age, they (the doctors) will have the right to end life, to help Social Security (less people to pay) Do away with the Disabled they don't contribute only collect money why not put them down, Doctors now have the authority. See my point?

It is not that far of a stretch. This country is importing poverty from south of the border, placing a strain on the system. The feds have removed themselves from the system, but we still pay for them yet they do not contribute on cent to the system they created for themselves. Interestedly huh their own class. They and their spouses will collect more in their life time than any ten of us in our life time. And they didn't pay a cent into it.

Boy I can screw up a good thread can't I? Hey I am ADD what do you want? Egg in your beer? Talking about beer..... But that is just my opinion again.

Mosca
01-24-2008, 08:31 AM
I have looked it up, and that is why all though there are those that said they were going to retire they did not when a Republican President was elected. For 8 long years now they have not retired, and when the one did the Democrats in congress openly stated they would block any nomination for anybody who had ruling of favoring pro-life. Now how does that support the Constitution? That only supports the Democratic party's views and platform. That is not evenhanded or even close. But then again that is just my opinion or view of things.

The Dem's fears are baseless, IMO. Roberts and Alito have been pretty much right down the line. Nixon's appointees were even-handed. Johnson's was, and Bader-Ginsberg, for all the carping, has also been circumspect in her rulings (attacking Roe, for example). The only one they could take issue with is Thomas, IMO; he is not up to the standards of the rest of the court, according to many observers. My belief is that they are making a big stink as a pre-warning to make the nominations serious. Which of course didn't work when W nominated Harriet Myers.

And I don't think the fear was so much that of a Republican as much as it was of those particular Republicans; W, Cheney, Rove, et al.

stlrtruck
01-24-2008, 08:37 AM
Which just goes to show that most Americans are stupid.

As for that comment, anytime any one person can mobilize any large group of individuals it is something people worry about - look what happen when Jesus mobilized those who believed in him

I am deeply offended that you would compare a snail oil salesman like The Huckster to Jesus. Shame on you for making such a outrageous argument. That earns you a place on my ignore list.

My comment was not in specific to Huckabee but any person who can mobilize people to believe in them. Clinton in NY, heck Hitler in Germany during WW II, Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and yes even Jesus in his day. My point, is that these people are able to bring about change in their respective domains - the only difference with Christ is that He hasn't stopped mobilizing people.

But if your offended that you assume I'm comparing Huckabee and Christ to be similar in nature, then you obviously have missed my point which is ok - hopefully the conversation with others will continue to allow for such comments without others automatically going on the ignore list.

stlrtruck
01-24-2008, 08:41 AM
Which just goes to show that most Americans are stupid.
[

So let me get this straight. Because people in this country have determined in their own mind that 1) English as a national language and 2) marriage should be between man and woman; are important issues for them that they are stupid?

Isn't what you're saying just the opposite of what your fighting against with Huckabee wanting to amend the constitution? I mean you are basically telling people that their ideals about what is important and should or shouldn't be the guidelines of the government aren't really that important and those individuals should let someone else decide what really is important.

Jeremy
01-24-2008, 09:25 AM
So let me get this straight. Because people in this country have determined in their own mind that 1) English as a national language and 2) marriage should be between man and woman; are important issues for them that they are stupid?

Isn't what you're saying just the opposite of what your fighting against with Huckabee wanting to amend the constitution? I mean you are basically telling people that their ideals about what is important and should or shouldn't be the guidelines of the government aren't really that important and those individuals should let someone else decide what really is important.

Our economy is facing the very real possibility of a recession. We have a war that's costing thousands of American lives and billions of American dollars. We have an immigration crisis that's tearing some states to pieces. And in spite of all that, there are still people in this country that place issues like abortion and language above that.

So yes, people who want to ignore the 500lb elephant in the room are being stupid and short sighted. Like I said before, language, abortion, and marriage will not fix the economy or the war on terror. It's like putting new tires on a car with no engine. You have to have priorities.

stlrtruck
01-24-2008, 10:06 AM
Our economy is facing the very real possibility of a recession. We have a war that's costing thousands of American lives and billions of American dollars. We have an immigration crisis that's tearing some states to pieces. And in spite of all that, there are still people in this country that place issues like abortion and language above that.

So yes, people who want to ignore the 500lb elephant in the room are being stupid and short sighted. Like I said before, language, abortion, and marriage will not fix the economy or the war on terror. It's like putting new tires on a car with no engine. You have to have priorities.

As I'm sure there are people who want to put those issues above the war, recession, immigration and other bigger "elephant" issues, never in my statements have I insinuated that they be placed at such a level. My only purpose for putting them out there as that they are issues that also need to be addressed and they won't go away, IF and when the new president addresses the before mentioned issues at hand.

I feel pretty confident that if a poll were taken that very few would put language, marriage, and/or abortion ahead of the "elephant" issues.

However, with that being said, there are three things that come to mind. One is that while presidential hopefuls will speak about all these issues and make promises about how they will be fixed, seldom in recent years has any president made strides (other than to line the pockets of their friends) to fix these issues. Two, candidates will be vague in their stance on the "elephant" issues and skate around the minor issues. And three, most people that I speak with on a daily basis - while concerned about those same "elephant" issues we speak of today - will use the minor issues as part of their voting decision. Therefore, they just can't be swept under the rug just because there's an elephant in the room.

And just like with Mosca, I appreciate your maintaining a civil approach to our discussion. Your ideas and thoughts give me things to think about when going to the polls next week.

TroysBadDawg
01-24-2008, 01:18 PM
The more I read this this thread and try my darnedest to make jokes in it, it still amazes me how some people feel the President who ever is elected by the Electorial College is, (not by the people BTW) they will not keep a single promise, they can not. the do not make the laws, Congress makes the laws. not they can circumvent congress and issue a Presidential Order to change some things like Bush, Clinton,Ragan heck they all have to the best of my knowledge. Clinton's was the most blatant, taking money from the wildlife funds (ftaxes sportman places on themselves for the preservation of wildlife and land) and giving it to anti-gun people (Brady Campaign).

I still Like what Perot said make them all drive thier own cars and go to the voters for a raise, not themselves. Also put them on Social Security like the rest of us and see how long it takes to fix the problem.

But that is my opinion again, is it 5:00pm somwhere yet?

stlrtruck
01-24-2008, 03:07 PM
The more I read this this thread and try my darnedest to make jokes in it, it still amazes me how some people feel the President who ever is elected by the Electorial College is, (not by the people BTW) they will not keep a single promise, they can not. the do not make the laws, Congress makes the laws. not they can circumvent congress and issue a Presidential Order to change some things like Bush, Clinton,Ragan heck they all have to the best of my knowledge. Clinton's was the most blatant, taking money from the wildlife funds (ftaxes sportman places on themselves for the preservation of wildlife and land) and giving it to anti-gun people (Brady Campaign).

I still Like what Perot said make them all drive thier own cars and go to the voters for a raise, not themselves. Also put them on Social Security like the rest of us and see how long it takes to fix the problem.

But that is my opinion again, is it 5:00pm somwhere yet?

My point being is that you never hear a president come out and say, I've submitted the following to congress as part of my campaign trail but congress won't push it through without XYZ corrections to them. Personally I'd like to someone do that just once, ok twice!

At least let me know you tried something and then I can focus my aggravation on the other problem in DC - the so called officals that are there to do things for me (LOL)

And oh, by all means - please bring on the jokes.