Religion in Government

Go look up the word slave, and salvery. Also try reading the bible's defination of slavery.There you will find more answers.

The will of the majority of the people doesn't rule on Constitutional matters. The Constitution protects the minority and majority alike. If religious rights were subject to majority rule, the U.S. would likely be a Christian Nation. But they aren't, and it's not.It's not "God on the heart" of politicians that's the problem - it's oppressive laws and religious bigotry in government that is the problem. For example, Madelyn Murray O'Hair won a court case (O'Hair v. Hill) against Texas on its requirement that officeholders acknowledge a "Supreme Being", as that violates the U.S. Constitution. However, Texas has dragged its heels on eliminating the violation, and it may require another legal action to enforce the law. We've seen several examples of scofflaws such as ex-judge Moore of Alabama and politicians from the State of Texas who think the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to them. Therein lies the problem.Let's strive for "justice for all".This message has been edited by Ediacaran, 06-07-2004 10:19 AM

I guess I had been misinformed on the subject. I remembered from my government class in high school (a long time ago) that the founders had left issues of religion to the states. I had thought that some states had even established official state religions. I had even looked at the Alabama Constitution preamble which says: It had originally seemed to me that this was an establishment of religion but I think that you are right in what you said here:

quote:

---

It is therefore unconstitutional for a State to establish religion. After all, what is the point of having a federal right to practice religion freely if the State can take it away?
  —Rrhain

---

This message has been edited by bob_gray98, 06-07-2004 11:29 AM

I think the more likely explanation is that nobody in Alabama is going to challenge it, and if they do, nobody else in Alabama is going to listen to them.

---

"He supposed that the intent of the Gospels was to teach people, among other things, to be merciful, even to the lowest of the low. But the Gospels actually taught this: Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't well connected."
-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

Indeed. I realized that it wasn't a very good question and I just edited out that last part. I think that Ediacaran also addressed the issue in post #92 with this reference: What I still don't understand is how Texas will change this. It isn't a law that they have it is actually written into their constitution. Do they have to pass a constitutional amendment to fix this or will a simple law take care of it? Or is simply considered null and void because the ruling is against it?

What the people want in respect to non-constitutional matters. My pastor was saying the other day that we are now a minority (christians), and churches are closing in Ameroca at the rate of 7 per-day. I don't know if he was talking about all christians, or excluding catholics. I wonder what the actual stats are. I agree that this is worng.Funny thing though, the bible indicates that all people in power are there by God's will whether they believe in him or not.
Psalms 82. Follow the fote notes.

You agree thatt the texas law was wrong or that the lawsuit was wrong?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Texas is wrong.

Good. That's what I thought you meant. Thanks.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

riVeRraT, thanks for the clarification.I should clarify a statement I made previously - while Constitutional rights in the U.S. aren't subject to the will of the majority of the people directly, per se, a sufficiently bigoted and malevolent majority can get together and amend the Constitution to deprive the minority of equal freedoms and rights.I used the Texas example because it points to a further problem - even when the courts correct violations of the Constitution, if the other branches of government are led by those who ignore the law when it suits them, the violation of rights continues.In partial response to Bob's question, Texas' constitution has been revised several times since Murray v. Hill for various reasons, including in response to lawsuits and obsolete portions. I suspect some of those dragging their heels would coyly claim that the requirement isn't strictly enforced anymore, so no harm, no foul. Many others probably would simply cloak themselves in their religion, rant about "activist judges", and portray disregard for the court decision as a virtue.But the requirement is in the Texas Constitution, so it's the law, and it violates the U.S. Constitution. Nothing in that section of the Texas Constitution (or any other section, IIRC) states that clause is null and void, so the violation remains.As for National v. State imposition of religion, many of the original colonies had established religions. The Constitution initially constrained the Federal government - and powers not in the purview of the Federal government fell to the states and/or citizens (10th Amendment), as you learned, but subsequent disestablishment of religion by state governments followed, and further amendment to the U.S. Constitution (14th) after the Civil War codified the extension of U.S. Constitutional rights to the citizens, particularly Section 1:

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Secondly, God was not responsible for slavery in the U.S.

---

But you said god wanted slaves.So why are you picking on slavery?

quote:

---

quote:

---

So if you were president, would you fight for your religious values or would you fight for the Constitution?

---

​

I would fight for the constitution and what the people want. Majority rules.

---

What if what the majority wanted directly contradicted the Constitution?When Loving vs. Virginia was decided, fully 70% of the US population thought that interracial marraige was a bad thing.The SCOTUS said no, marriage is a fundamental right and the Constitution permits interracial marriage.Would you, as president, have fought for the Constitution and its declaration of equal protection under the law, including the right for people of different races to marry, or would you have fought for the "will of the people"?You seem to be arguing that if millions of people do something, that means it's the right thing.Is it never possible for most people to be wrong?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Take, for example, your opposition to legal equality for gay people. That is in direct violation to the Constitutional demand for equal treatment under the law.

---

​

Don't go bringing that in here, it is off-topic.

---

Incorrect. It is spot on. You say that you would fight for the Constitution. Well, the Constitution clearly indicates that same-sex marriage is protected and cannot be denied as the Constitution requires equal treatment under the law.And yet, you have directly stated that you would fight such a concept.So which is it? Are you fighting for the Constitution or are you fighting for your religion?You made contradictory statements. I am merely trying to get you to clarify. And if that isn't on topic, what else is?

quote:

---

It is also wrong of you to describe what I feel

---

I am not describing what you feel. You are. I am merely repeating what you said.If you didn't mean it, why did you say it?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Go look up the word slave, and salvery.

---

I have.That's why I pointed out your logical error of equivocation. You confounded the meaning of "slave" as someone who is an object forced to do the bidding of another and "slave" as devotion.

quote:

---

Also try reading the bible's defination of slavery.

---

It's pretty much the same thing as American slavery: The treatment of someone who is an object forced to do the bidding of another.That's why when Jesus talks about slavery, he's talking about people and not about concepts.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

bob_gray98 writes:

quote:

---

What I still don't understand is how Texas will change this. It isn't a law that they have it is actually written into their constitution. Do they have to pass a constitutional amendment to fix this or will a simple law take care of it? Or is simply considered null and void because the ruling is against it?

---

Take a look at Colorado's Amendment 2 for an example.In the early 90s, Colorado passed a constitutional amendment that revoked all city equal protection ordinances regarding non-heterosexual sexual orientation and further went on to say that anybody who had experienced discrimination on the basis of non-heterosexual sexual orientation had no standing to take their case to court. The SCOTUS struck this down. It clearly violates the Fourteenth Amendment requiring equal treatment under the law, creating non-heterosexuals as a distinct class and indicating that they are available for governmental discrimination: The amendment is, indeed, null and void.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Then they would pass a new ammendment, wouldn't they? Or they would go ahead and do it anyway and get the supreme court to agree with their interpretation that the law does not contradict the constitution. This is not unheard of. This is a good point. That this happens quite frequently is evidenced by the number of laws we have repealed over the last century.

I wasn't the one who brought up slavery and tried to blame it on God.
I never said God wanted it. I said he allowed it, and it is off topic. I would fight for the constitution and what the people want. Majority rules.
Is this so hard for you to understand. Consitution first, then majority. If the majority wants to over rule the constitution, there are ways for that to happen, by ammending the constitution. Being a president means I have a country to run, and I would have to be cabably of being a fair a just ruler. This statement just proves you don't know how I feel. You are trying catergorize me with what you think christian people think. This is a sign of prejudice. It also shows your ignorance to being a christian.We are talking about religion in governement, not gay marraige. But since you brought it up, I will clarify again for you. I have nothing against gay people. But when the constitution was written the word marraige did not mean "same sex". So the constitution does not cleary indicate that same sex marriage is protected. There would have to be an amendment for it to be clear. I would be against this based on my religious beliefs, and my personal beliefs. I have the freedom to choose that, it is America.
Now I don't want everyone in here to get all up in arms about this, and start thinking that I have something against gay people, because I don't. I love them just the same. Its not who they are, its what they do.
Maybe America needs to make an ammendment to allow gay marriage, and state that religious america feels it is against God's will, but does not want to stop the freedom of choice for any given people.I don't have the answer to this one, I haven't thought about it enough, because I am not the president. But I do feel as though it is wrong, even before I believed in God. And yes being straight was a choice for me.On the other hand being a chirstian also means throwing yourself into the fire.Matthew:
The Parable of the Weeds24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'
28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'
29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "This means we are to grow up with the good and the bad, and let God separate them. I am not sure if this protects us as a nation from God's wrath, but it is a clue. This is a religious view anyway.I can tell you this, same sex marraige and straight marraige are 2 different things requiring different laws. Whether I am for or against it is my right. Even if it is religious based. If you think its not my right to have an opinion on that, then you are anti-American. It would be fine if you repeated what I said and stop taking things out of context by not including the full statement.Jesus loves you.