 
|
|
|
|
|
|
purple hayes
Frightened Inmate #2
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 14462
Location: ON YOUR LEFT!
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 10/27/04 - 10:23 Post subject:
| RexRacer wrote: | | General observation or Kerry jab? Just wondering. |
Sorry, just a general observation.
|
|
|
|
|
Wicked Flea
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 365
Location: Hair of the Dog
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 10:27 Post subject:
| purple hayes wrote: |
I'd be concerned if any president claimed to have faith or religion, but I couldn't tell it by his actions. |
Well I think there is a difference between being spirtual and having religion guide your actions and making every decision appear to the public as being ordained by your particular god.
When presidents begin to act as if they are acting as god's right arm and that since they have the ear of god that all others are in the wrong, then I see that as a problem.
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
I'd be concerned if a president claimed a particular faith and I COULD tell it by his actions, depending on the action. I have much more respect for someone who is opposed to keeping abortion legal, for example, but respects the current law than I do someone who is opposed to keeping abortion legal and working to make it illegal. The president's job isn't to make law. |
and 
A president's job is to try to make policy for the majority of people not just those that agree with his own personal religious dogma.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 10:29 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
I'd be concerned if a president claimed a particular faith and I COULD tell it by his actions, depending on the action. I have much more respect for someone who is opposed to keeping abortion legal, for example, but respects the current law than I do someone who is opposed to keeping abortion legal and working to make it illegal. The president's job isn't to make law. |
No, but I do see his job to guide and influence and lead and point the country in the direction he feels that it should go. He can't create laws, nor can he force states to ratify a constitutional amendment. If POTUS is trying to make policy that fits in with what he has publically declared his beliefs to be, I'm okay with that. We know what we got into by electing a man who is open about what he believes (let's leave Florida and 2000 out of this one). If Bush is re-elected and everything is on the up and up, we as a country know what sort of man we are electing and what manner he will govern. As long as he is breaking no laws in trying to change the law, i'm cool with it. I may not like what he is trying to do, but i'm cool with it.
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 10:38 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: | | If POTUS is trying to make policy that fits in with what he has publically declared his beliefs to be, I'm okay with that. |
I'm not. Violates separation of church and state, undermines "for the people, by the people".
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 10:50 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: |
I'm not. Violates separation of church and state, undermines "for the people, by the people". |
I don't think it does. He is an elected Representative. As a Representative it is assumed that the voters elected him to represent their wishes and so they vote for an official who believes a certain way to act in a manner consistent with his beliefs. As long as he does so, he "for the people, by the people" because the elected official is acting in a way that represents the beliefs that he presented to the voting public prior to the election. His actions are still tempered by the Supreme Court and by Congress.
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 10:54 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: | | I don't think it does. He is an elected Representative. As a Representative it is assumed that the voters elected him to represent their wishes and so they vote for an official who believes a certain way to act in a manner consistent with his beliefs. As long as he does so, he "for the people, by the people" because the elected official is acting in a way that represents the beliefs that he presented to the voting public prior to the election. His actions are still tempered by the Supreme Court and by Congress. |
1) Not all voters. No one is voted unanimously to the presidency.
2) Hardly. Excluding impeachment.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 10:57 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: | | Violates separation of church and state, undermines "for the people, by the people". |
By violating 'church and state', do you mean the Bill of Rights 1st Amendment?..
| Bill of Rights wrote: | | Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. |
How do you equate George Bush's faith with Congress establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of another?
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 11:01 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: |
1) Not all voters. No one is voted unanimously to the presidency.
2) Hardly. Excluding impeachment. |
1. True. Nor is anyone voted unanimously to any office. But if we're going to make this case against the President acting according to what he believes, we're going to have to make this case against every single elected official and every action/belief.
2. The President cannot make law, he can only sign a bill into law once it has been passed by both the Senate and the House. He can veto laws, but that veto can still be overridden by a 2/3 vote in the Senate (or is it both chambers of Congress). The Supreme Court and decide a law is unconstitutional and when it makes a ruling on a case regarding something like Roe Versus Wade, it is a ruling that overrides the President's personal preference unless he can get a new law passed and signed and uncontested by the SCOTUS. To go to war, except for the first 30 days, he needs to get approval by Congress and he needs to get his budgets approved and passed by Congress. If he wants money to keep fighting in Iraq, he needs to get that money approved by Congress.
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 11:02 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | By violating 'church and state', do you mean the Bill of Rights 1st Amendment?..
How do you equate George Bush's faith with Congress establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of another? |
1) No. I do not have a problem with whatever his religious beliefs are, even if I do not agree with them. I stated I had a problem with his trying to create policy based on those beliefs. Religious dogma if used as a basis for public policy is clearly a violation of separation of church and state. He can say whatever the hell he wants; he just can't try to make it or campaign for it to be law.
2) When has Congress tried to establish a religion?
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 11:08 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: |
1) No. I do not have a problem with whatever his religious beliefs are, even if I do not agree with them. I stated I had a problem with his trying to create policy based on those beliefs. Religious dogma if used as a basis for public policy is clearly a violation of separation of church and state. He can say whatever the hell he wants; he just can't try to make it or campaign for it to be law.
2) When has Congress tried to establish a religion? |
1. Would you still have that same problem if a proclaimed atheist was elected and tried to reverse many of the laws of the country which were founded on Christian prinicples because he personally believed that they were wrong?
2. Establish a national religion. The point was that it is Congress which falls under Church and State because Congress makes law, not the President. The Supreme Court's judicial review determines if a law does or does not violate Church and State.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 11:11 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: | | 2) When has Congress tried to establish a religion? |
That's what I'm trying to get at. Violating church and state was stated by the founding fathers as Congress establishing a religion. This whole notion of being a 'non' religious society has been subsequently tagged on by following generations. And if this generation and their President moves the country toward being less 'non' religious then what's the violation? Until Dubya gets cohorts in the Congress to pass a bill establishing a religion, he's good to go on a conservative agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 11:27 Post subject:
I like what Kerry said earlier this week ""I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side."
I also just read this and found it interesting... "when politicians who represent pluralistic constituencies discuss religion, they have a responsiblity to do so in a way that is accessible to all and that explains why their religious beliefs are relevant to their roles as public officials."
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 12:30 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: | 1. Would you still have that same problem if a proclaimed atheist was elected and tried to reverse many of the laws of the country which were founded on Christian prinicples because he personally believed that they were wrong?
2. Establish a national religion. The point was that it is Congress which falls under Church and State because Congress makes law, not the President. The Supreme Court's judicial review determines if a law does or does not violate Church and State. |
1) Yes, I would.
2) Establish a national religion - NO. Rest, yes, true. But remember checks and balances. Congress tries to make a law, President can veto based on his religious beliefs. President can nominate a SCJ based on religious beliefs, which can be blocked by Congress.
| jrjo wrote: | | That's what I'm trying to get at. Violating church and state was stated by the founding fathers as Congress establishing a religion. This whole notion of being a 'non' religious society has been subsequently tagged on by following generations. And if this generation and their President moves the country toward being less 'non' religious then what's the violation? Until Dubya gets cohorts in the Congress to pass a bill establishing a religion, he's good to go on a conservative agenda. |
If you don't see how clearly the religious beliefs of a president can influence national politics, and how often they unofficially define domestic policy, this is a moot argument. But if you look at Bush's stance on an issue that's so clearly steeped in religion (aka abortion) you'd see it. Try looking here. Excerpts:
| Quote: | President Bush has decided to block U.S. funds to international family-planning groups that offer abortion and abortion counseling.
Bush said in a statement. "As president, I will work to build a culture that respects life."
I will lead our nation toward a culture that values life -- the life of the elderly and the sick, the life of the young, and the life of the unborn." |
NOT TO GET INTO AN ARGUMENT ABOUT ABORTION, but this one issue, again so closely tied to religious beliefs for prolifers, and so closely tied to science and individual rights (that smacks against religious beliefs) for prochoicers, clearly fits the bill of church v. state. Bush's quotes here are judgmental and based solely on his beliefs as defined by his religion. It doesn't get clearer than that.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 12:31 Post subject:
| cherylpf wrote: | I like what Kerry said earlier this week ""I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side."
I also just read this and found it interesting... "when politicians who represent pluralistic constituencies discuss religion, they have a responsiblity to do so in a way that is accessible to all and that explains why their religious beliefs are relevant to their roles as public officials." |
That is interesting. What's that in the context of?
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 12:35 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
