 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 10/27/04 - 12:43 Post subject:
But everyone is going to be influenced by what they believe to be right and moral. I don't see that as a Church and State issue. My beliefs on an issue may stem from my religious beliefs, some from common sense, others because i just have a feeling about it. If you personally believe that abortion should be legal, you are going to try (for the sake of argument) to influence Congress to pass laws legalizing abortion (or whichever issue). That's fine, and that's not Church/State. If you are elected to any office you are expected to do act in the manner you said you would as a candidate. If I believe abortion is immoral, i would push for legislation which will make abortion illegal. This should be expected by the voting public because i would not have hidden my views.
What I'm hearing you say, Kid, is that a politician should not try to influence lawmakers (or if they are a lawmaker to create a bill) that is influenced by their religious beliefs. Please correct me if i am wrong about this.
Here is what I feel is the logical extension of this. I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but rather this is what i feel that is suggested by what you said about religion. If I am influenced by my religious beliefs, and John Doe is influenced by his anti-religious beliefs, and Jane is influenced by her personal beliefs which have nothing to do with religion, we are all in the same boat because our beliefs should not influence what we promote in politics. That belief should be excluded from the political discourse. But I don't know how to separate that. Religious beliefs can influence national policy, but that is a function of who is elected. A politician needs to disclose what he believes on a particular issue, and maybe even why.
We vote for the person who most matches our own beliefs or for someone who we are comfortable enough with and can accept that he will push for certain programs and laws. We know it going into the voting booth.
To keep in with the idea of abortion, there can be someone who is firmly, firmly pro-life but is not a Christian. That person just believes it is morally wrong to abort a fetus in any instance. How is that different than President Bush also being pro-life? These two individuals would both be pursuing an agenda of pro-life and are not hiding it. How is that inappropriate?
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 12:55 Post subject:
Good points, Pug. Would you feel differently if we were talking not about GWB but, for example, Antonin Scalia?
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 12:59 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | Good points, Pug. Would you feel differently if we were talking not about GWB but, for example, Antonin Scalia? |
Probably not. I'm not nearly as familiar with Scalia as I am Bush for the simple reason that national media exposure for the President is much higher.
Are we still talking about elected officials now (or theoretical elected officials), or did you bring up Scalia because he has a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court subject only to Congressional Review?
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 13:03 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: | But everyone is going to be influenced by what they believe to be right and moral. I don't see that as a Church and State issue. My beliefs on an issue may stem from my religious beliefs, some from common sense, others because i just have a feeling about it. If you personally believe that abortion should be legal, you are going to try (for the sake of argument) to influence Congress to pass laws legalizing abortion (or whichever issue). That's fine, and that's not Church/State. If you are elected to any office you are expected to do act in the manner you said you would as a candidate. If I believe abortion is immoral, i would push for legislation which will make abortion illegal. This should be expected by the voting public because i would not have hidden my views.
What I'm hearing you say, Kid, is that a politician should not try to influence lawmakers (or if they are a lawmaker to create a bill) that is influenced by their religious beliefs. Please correct me if i am wrong about this.
Here is what I feel is the logical extension of this. I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but rather this is what i feel that is suggested by what you said about religion. If I am influenced by my religious beliefs, and John Doe is influenced by his anti-religious beliefs, and Jane is influenced by her personal beliefs which have nothing to do with religion, we are all in the same boat because our beliefs should not influence what we promote in politics. That belief should be excluded from the political discourse. But I don't know how to separate that. Religious beliefs can influence national policy, but that is a function of who is elected. A politician needs to disclose what he believes on a particular issue, and maybe even why.
We vote for the person who most matches our own beliefs or for someone who we are comfortable enough with and can accept that he will push for certain programs and laws. We know it going into the voting booth.
To keep in with the idea of abortion, there can be someone who is firmly, firmly pro-life but is not a Christian. That person just believes it is morally wrong to abort a fetus in any instance. How is that different than President Bush also being pro-life? These two individuals would both be pursuing an agenda of pro-life and are not hiding it. How is that inappropriate? |
Of course people are going to be guided by their religious beliefs, but politicians need to recognize that just because their religion says something is wrong, doesn’t mean they can legislate that. I think the ban on same sex marriage is a classic example of this, as is abortion. If a politician wants to argue that both should be outlawed, make it on legal reasons or reason why it would be bad for society. But don’t tell me that is what God intended, because their God is not shared by everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Wicked Flea
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 365
Location: Hair of the Dog
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 13:06 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: | That's fine, and that's not Church/State. If you are elected to any office you are expected to do act in the manner you said you would as a candidate. If I believe abortion is immoral, i would push for legislation which will make abortion illegal. This should be expected by the voting public because i would not have hidden my views.
|
But here's the thing....
Not all politicians are as open about what their views are.
In other words, they can dance around a subject and not give an anwer to a direct question concerning (oh lets say...) abortion.
From the 3rd debate
"Question 14: Would Bush like to overturn Roe v. Wade?
SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, I want to go back to something Sen. Kerry said earlier tonight and ask a follow-up of my own.
He said -- and this will be a new question to you -- he said that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. So I'd ask you directly, would you like to?
BUSH: What he's asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges? And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I'll have no litmus test.
SCHIEFFER: Sen. Kerry, you'd like to respond?
KERRY: Is that a new question or a 30-second question?
SCHIEFFER: That's a new question for Senator -- for President Bush.
KERRY: Which time limit...
SCHIEFFER: You have 90 seconds.
KERRY: Thank you very much.
Well, again, the president didn't answer the question.
I'll answer it straight to America. I'm not going to appoint a judge to the court who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, or some other right that's given under our courts today -- under the Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right.
So I don't intend to see it undone.
Clearly, the president wants to leave in ambivalence or intends to undo it."
Now I didn't see where he answered that question, I saw a side step. But the thing is that most of us know that Bush would like to overturn Roe V Wade because he is against abortion. Why is he against abortion? Because of his religious beliefs.
| Pug wrote: | | To keep in with the idea of abortion, there can be someone who is firmly, firmly pro-life but is not a Christian. That person just believes it is morally wrong to abort a fetus in any instance. How is that different than President Bush also being pro-life? These two individuals would both be pursuing an agenda of pro-life and are not hiding it. How is that inappropriate? |
I don't think even the Dems here are arguing that it is not ok for an anti abortion candidate to promote that agenda.
What I have been posting about (and I think others too) is that when an elected official's religious dogma makes him/her promote, use his/her influence for and/or help pass legislation that promotes their own religious beliefs over what may be the good of the country. Or quite frankly what may be good for countries that we say we are trying to help. (see my abstinence only program or no funds for the United Nations post)
Maybe I am not writing this so you can understand but think it as someone promoting their own agenda over and above the good of those that they have sworn to serve. That is not a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 13:12 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: |
Probably not. I'm not nearly as familiar with Scalia as I am Bush for the simple reason that national media exposure for the President is much higher.
Are we still talking about elected officials now (or theoretical elected officials), or did you bring up Scalia because he has a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court subject only to Congressional Review? |
I brought up Scalia b/c he's been vocal about his concern on "activist judges" while being accused of being same. I guess I just don't see where an activist judge is any worse than an activist president.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 13:21 Post subject:
I get your point WF. It doesn't sound like you see it as a Church/State issue but rather a personal agenda issue. I was arguing Church/State (or trying to).
You can typically get a sense of where a candidate stands on a major issue like abortion. President Bush has stated that he is against partial birth abortions (he called Senator Kerry out on opposing a ban on p.b. abortions). You know what his religious beliefs are, so you have an idea where he will land on the abortion issue in general even if he doesn't directly state "I'm against all forms of abortion and want to overturn RvW".
Besides, this is from the President's website:
In his second term, President Bush will:
Defend the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban - President Bush will vigorously defend the Federal law banning the violent and brutal practice of partial birth abortion.
Prevent Federal Funding for Abortion - President Bush will continue to enforce restrictions that prevent the expenditure of Federal funds to support or promote abortion.
Plus, I have something that i use regarding candidates. If they don't say that they are for something that I believe in, I just assume they are on the other side (or on the side that is more reflected by their political party).
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 13:23 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
I brought up Scalia b/c he's been vocal about his concern on "activist judges" while being accused of being same. I guess I just don't see where an activist judge is any worse than an activist president. |
It's a tough one. A lower court judge can always be overruled by a higher court judge, but what happens when that activist judge is in the Supreme Court?
I'm not as bothered by the judge issue, though, especially SC because that individual has to be approved by a Congress which will have a large number of people from the other party.
|
|
|
|
|
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 - 13:29 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: |
Of course people are going to be guided by their religious beliefs, but politicians need to recognize that just because their religion says something is wrong, doesn’t mean they can legislate that. I think the ban on same sex marriage is a classic example of this, as is abortion. If a politician wants to argue that both should be outlawed, make it on legal reasons or reason why it would be bad for society. But don’t tell me that is what God intended, because their God is not shared by everyone. |
But as far as the same sex marriage thing goes, has he ever said God only wants marriage to be between men and women? I'm asking honestly because I don't remember hearing that phrase. He makes a lot of noise about it destroying the sanctity of marriage, and threatening the institution itself, which I don't agree with so I usually tune him out at that point. Has he been quoted as saying that God doesn't want this?
I'm seeing Pug's point on the abortion issue too. Is it his religious beliefs or his personal beliefs that are governing his choices? And how is that different from another candidate (for any office, to keep it general and kinda tie in to Go's reference to Scalia) whose beliefs are opposed to Bush's supporting or voting against legislature that works in tandem with what he believes? Don't both sides do that? And again, where's the line drawn between personal beliefs and specifically religious beliefs? Do we honestly know what motivates a person?
I say that because I am not affiliated with any particular religion, so my stands on any of these controversial issues are what I believe as an individual, on a personal level, not what my church thinks is right or wrong.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
