- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 10,453
- Reaction score
- 3,844
- Location
- Louisville, KY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Does this go against the separation clause of our Constitution...
and more importantly, are these things (and many others) a roadblock to societal progress?
No. Separation prohibits and relationship between church and state, not religious belief and state.
No, you cannot claim all progress is good. Opposition is important to ensure a democratic process and that people don't get carried away by ideology.
Please explain the differences between religious belief and the church in this context, in other words how attempting to legislate based on religious belief does not constitute "Church" interference in state (government) policy and law.
Progress is understood to be something that moves the society forward and is not an opinion based reality. Simply because someone does not like this change in society does not change the progression or momentum.
Is the drastic (about 10X) increase in out of wedlock childbirth since 1965 considered progress? We have come dangerously close to defining "access to" something to now mean that those that cannot afford it must be given it free or having its normal cost subsidized by others (by gov't mandtrate). Certainly one cannot claim that charity is a federal gov't function (enumerated power) but that it has a firmly religious basis instead - strangely, there is little objection to that function of a religion/church being adopted by the federal gov't.
The US Constitution doesn't ban religion or religious beliefs. It doesn't even ban religious persons from bring involved in the government. It bans the establishment of a specific State Religion as was prevent in Europe at that time and still exists in certain places to this day.
I fail to see how ANY of that which you have posted addresses the OP in some way.
Out of wedlock childbirth is not related to Religious interference in society or societal progress....people have kids, and do not get married....period.
Government safety net issues are also unrelated to religious legislation, and charitable actions are not government related in any way....though I certainly applaud the efforts, religious or otherwise.
What you seem unable to see is that subsidizing out of wedlock childbirth creates more of it and that charity is based on religion. It appears that you see adopting some religious ideas as gov't policy is OK yet those that have religious objections to gov't policy are in the wrong. What constitutional basis do you see for the 70+ federal gov't "safety net" programs?
Prior to 1965, societies ostracization of out-of-wedlock pregnant young girls and women would have led to a lot of illegal unsterile abortions by unlicensed quacks and there would have been little or no data on the abortion rate to compare. But it would be interesting to know if the death and suicide rate of young women went down as the abortion rate went up.Is the drastic (about 10X) increase in out of wedlock childbirth since 1965 considered progress?
Are you referring to the Faith Based Initiatives?We have come dangerously close to defining "access to" something to now mean that those that cannot afford it must be given it free or having its normal cost subsidized by others (by gov't mandtrate). Certainly one cannot claim that charity is a federal gov't function (enumerated power) but that it has a firmly religious basis instead - strangely, there is little objection to that function of a religion/church being adopted by the federal gov't.
There is no point is helping you hijack this thread....so I will pass.
Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah
There is no point is helping you hijack this thread....so I will pass.
While I can appreciate your humor....I reject the implication contained in it. That you fail to understand the position taken is not very important to me, that you see the need to debase me however, makes the limitations of your mental prowess relatively clear.
There is no point is helping you hijack this thread....so I will pass.
As to your first question, does any of the activity you've listed constitute a violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?Society in the United States is always evolving, generally trending toward equality and advancing personal freedom and liberty. Since the founding of America, we have seen great movements toward the goals and rights our constitution inspires, at times dramatic and others quiet and slow. I have noticed a current reversal of this trend based almost exclusively on religious belief being pushed onto the citizenry.
Christians find abortion to be sinful....and so fight against it in often sinister and backdoor ways, chipping away at the freedoms of others to use their lawful rights.
Christians find homosexuality to be sinful....and fight against the choice of others to love who they want, marry, and enjoy the rights given to everyone else who happen to be heterosexual.
Catholics find contraception to be sinful....and so fight against the use of it by denying those not wishing to become pregnant easy access.
Does this go against the separation clause of our Constitution...and more importantly, are these things (and many others) a roadblock to societal progress?
What you seem unable to see is that subsidizing out of wedlock childbirth creates more of it and that charity is based on religion. It appears that you see adopting some religious ideas as gov't policy is OK yet those that have religious objections to gov't policy are in the wrong. What constitutional basis do you see for the 70+ federal gov't "safety net" programs?
Society in the United States is always evolving, generally trending toward equality and advancing personal freedom and liberty. Since the founding of America, we have seen great movements toward the goals and rights our constitution inspires, at times dramatic and others quiet and slow. I have noticed a current reversal of this trend based almost exclusively on religious belief being pushed onto the citizenry.
Christians find abortion to be sinful....and so fight against it in often sinister and backdoor ways, chipping away at the freedoms of others to use their lawful rights.
Christians find homosexuality to be sinful....and fight against the choice of others to love who they want, marry, and enjoy the rights given to everyone else who happen to be heterosexual.
Catholics find contraception to be sinful....and so fight against the use of it by denying those not wishing to become pregnant easy access.
Does this go against the separation clause of our Constitution...and more importantly, are these things (and many others) a roadblock to societal progress?
Funny that you explain progression toward rights and freedom by arguing against freedom of expression and the 1st amendment. Separation between church and state is meant to keep the state (government) from encroaching upon people's right to freely exercise their religion, not the other way around.
I did no such thing....in no way do I not support the rights to practice whatever religion someone follows, I instead stated a wish to not see our government impose these "expressions" upon those not following said faith. Religious people have every right to do as the faith dictates....they do not have the right to force everyone else to do so.
I am unaware that religion is preventing abortions from taking place, preventing contraception from being manufactured and used, preventing gays from slowly changing public opinion in favor. That is, of course, unless you can enlighten me with examples.
Happy to oblige:
1"(Reuters) - Arizona lawmakers gave final approval on Thursday to a bill that would allow businesses to refuse service to customers when such work would violate their religious beliefs, in a move critics describe as a license to discriminate against gays and others."
Arizona lawmakers pass bill to allow faith-based refusal of services | Reuters
2"The tenuous state of women’s basic right to make their own childbearing decisions was made clear on Monday when a federal appeals court in New Orleans heard arguments on a new abortion restriction enacted in July in Texas — one that requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
In October, a federal district judge, Lee Yeakel, ruled that the requirement serves no medical purpose and improperly infringes on women’s reproductive rights. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned his injunction on the rule’s enforcement, and the Supreme Court, in an alarming 5-to-4 opinion in November, declined to upset the panel’s ruling. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/opinion/abortion-restrictions-in-texas-and-beyond.html?_r=0
I anticipate your pointing out these do not state religion is in play.....but one would need be very naïve to avoid seeing it.
Society in the United States is always evolving, generally trending toward equality and advancing personal freedom and liberty. Since the founding of America, we have seen great movements toward the goals and rights our constitution inspires, at times dramatic and others quiet and slow. I have noticed a current reversal of this trend based almost exclusively on religious belief being pushed onto the citizenry.
Christians find abortion to be sinful....and so fight against it in often sinister and backdoor ways, chipping away at the freedoms of others to use their lawful rights.
Christians find homosexuality to be sinful....and fight against the choice of others to love who they want, marry, and enjoy the rights given to everyone else who happen to be heterosexual.
Catholics find contraception to be sinful....and so fight against the use of it by denying those not wishing to become pregnant easy access.
Does this go against the separation clause of our Constitution...and more importantly, are these things (and many others) a roadblock to societal progress?
Please re-read the OP, as it may not say what you think it does.
Please explain the differences between religious belief and the church in this context, in other words how attempting to legislate based on religious belief does not constitute "Church" interference in state (government) policy and law.
Progress is understood to be something that moves the society forward and is not an opinion based reality. Simply because someone does not like this change in society does not change the progression or momentum.
Forward where? How does one know if one is going forward or not? The Nazis thought they were going forward.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?