Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This has been my point the entire time. When asked what we should do about those voting on religious beliefs, hooligan replied that that is what the supreme court is for.
Not quite so, Whipper. I apologize if I unintentionally gave that impression. The Supreme Court is there to evaluate the *laws*, not to evaluate the motivations of the voters who put the laws in place. Those are two very different things.
You can vote based on religious motivation all you like - intrinsically it's no better or worse than any other motivation.
I think the point of the op is that people can have religious reasons for supporting or opposing laws. The 1st amendment absolutely guarantees that right. The end result may violate the religion clause, but that's up to the courts.
Take 2 issues that religious people get slammed on, abortion and gay marriage. Roe v. Wade wasn't decided on 1st amendment religious grounds, nor were court decisions affirming gay marriage.
Not quite so, Whipper. I apologize if I unintentionally gave that impression. The Supreme Court is there to evaluate the *laws*, not to evaluate the motivations of the voters who put the laws in place. Those are two very different things.
You can vote based on religious motivation all you like - intrinsically it's no better or worse than any other motivation.
I think the point of the op is that people can have religious reasons for supporting or opposing laws. The 1st amendment absolutely guarantees that right. The end result may violate the religion clause, but that's up to the courts.
The end result of a law based on religion is that religion will be imposed on the people. You can support or oppose a law for religious reasons, but there better be other reasons as well or it will be unconstitutional.
Quote:
Take 2 issues that religious people get slammed on, abortion and gay marriage. Roe v. Wade wasn't decided on 1st amendment religious grounds, nor were court decisions affirming gay marriage.
Well, practically all the arguments against abortion and gay marriage are religious in nature. This means those arguments get thrown out in the decision-making.
The end result of a law based on religion is that religion will be imposed on the people. You can support or oppose a law for religious reasons, but there better be other reasons as well or it will be unconstitutional.
How do we go about regulating this? If I am a part of a religion that opposes abortion, and I go and vote for an anti-abortion bill for no other reason than the fact that my religion opposes it, are you saying that my vote is less valid? Are you saying that I shouldn't be allowed to vote?
How do we go about regulating this? If I am a part of a religion that opposes abortion, and I go and vote for an anti-abortion bill for no other reason than the fact that my religion opposes it, are you saying that my vote is less valid? Are you saying that I shouldn't be allowed to vote?
The law will be (should be) thrown out if it is based on religion. You should know that as a voter and should know that a vote to impose your religion on others is a vote for an unconstitutional law. But the only way to regulate this is for the courts to determine so after the law has been passed.
The law will be (should be) thrown out if it is based on religion. You should know that as a voter and should know that a vote to impose your religion on others is a vote for an unconstitutional law. But the only way to regulate this is for the courts to determine so after the law has been passed.
Right, everyone needs to be clear in understanding that the only world view that can be imposed and officially instituted as the official state world view would be the secular/non-God view.
Right, everyone needs to be clear in understanding that the only world view that can be imposed and officially instituted as the official state world view would be the secular/non-God view.
Nothing hypocritical about that.
Not hypocritical?
The secular-progressive-liberal Left worships the state: faith in gov't has replaced faith in the Almighty as their religion.
Right, everyone needs to be clear in understanding that the only world view that can be imposed and officially instituted as the official state world view would be the secular/non-God view.
Nothing hypocritical about that.
"Official state world view"? What are you talking about? You speak as if there are laws forbidding religious practice, which would also be unconstitutional.
Right, everyone needs to be clear in understanding that the only world view that can be imposed and officially instituted as the official state world view would be the secular/non-God view.
Nothing hypocritical about that.
So, then, we either declare 'Christianity' to be the official foundation of our laws, or we allow the Homonic Hymns, the Theogony, the Havamal, the Eddas, the Great Hymn to the Aten, the Pāli Canon, the Prinicipia Discordia, the Vedas, the Quran, the Satanic Bible, Dianetics, the Charge of the Goddess -- and writings virtually every other religion that is currently practiced in the US to have a say as well.
I hope someone has a plan to resolve the massive conflicts and contradictions that will appear when we try and actually write such a law.
Last edited by FredNotBob; 09-02-2011 at 06:56 PM..
Reason: Correcting an occurance of 'teh'. Pobody's nerfect ;)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.