- #1
Tatum
- 4
- 1
I heard that's what won the election for Bush. What exactly do these people that voted for him have faith in?
God
Pro-life
No to same sex marriage
what else?
God
Pro-life
No to same sex marriage
what else?
Bush is a devoted churchgoer
selfAdjoint said:He is seldom seen at church.
It is a very fuzzy line. Both form an important part of our culture. It's hard to even define what constitutes a division between church and state.ms. confused said:Then why does he not respect the line that divides church and state in politics? Why does he insist on banning gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion?
Tatum said:I heard that's what won the election for Bush. What exactly do these people that voted for him have faith in?
God
Pro-life
No to same sex marriage
what else?
BobG said:their actions begin to look more like a war against religion than separation between church and state; that one religion, even if that religion happens to be called atheism, is being given preference over all the others.
Spoken like Mr. Spock.vanesch said:One cannot treat atheism on equality with religion, although religious people always like to do so, in order to be able to argue on equal footings. Atheism DOES NOT require you to handle according to obscure rituals defined in ancient scriptures, all organized religions do. It is their basis of existence.
Every time the state takes an action, the question should be asked: will a christian, a muslim, a raelian, a budhist or a celtic druide, an ancient egyptian or an ancient greek, purely on the basis of his religion, be treated equally by this action ? Will he be equally happy or offended ?
If the answer is yes, then that action is to be considered as separated from religious considerations. A state that is separated from religion can only take such actions.
From the moment you do not do such a thing, you are in the same category as theocracies like the Taliban regime or Saoudi Arabia, where people have their hands cut off when they steal, and women are stoned to death because they have been cheating (or are accused of doing so).
I took a Constitutional law class in college where the texbook (biased?) argued that the intent of the 1st Amendment was simply to allow people to do what they wanted with religion on their own time, not that it needed to be removed from government. That's not a view I'd heard before, but the fact that God is cited an awful lot in government implies it may well be true. Either way, the last 20 years have indeed seen a trasition from "freedom of religion" to "freedom from religion." I'm not really sure where to draw the line, but I do believe is gone too far.BobG said:If the ACLU and others are bringing lawsuits to ban the pledge of allegiance from school (or at least to delete the "under God" part*) and to remove religous symbols from the Los Angeles city seal, their actions begin to look more like a war against religion than separation between church and state; that one religion, even if that religion happens to be called atheism, is being given preference over all the others.
The problem is (and this is what the course focused on) that this is simply an impossible goal. Government employees are people and people have religious beilefs. Therefore, religious beliefs are going to enter into their public actions. Also, public and private organizations are going to have to mesh with government for issues like taxes and membership rights. There is just no getting around that.I think separation of church and state means the government should try to stay completely out of the issue of religion. That means religious beliefs don't turn into laws and it means the government doesn't try to eradicate religion from public culture. And things like the pledge of allegiance, the ten commandents posted in a public place, city seals depicting a city's history are cultural items which have nothing to do with laws.
russ_watters said:I took a Constitutional law class in college where the texbook (biased?) argued that the intent of the 1st Amendment was simply to allow people to do what they wanted with religion on their own time, not that it needed to be removed from government. That's not a view I'd heard before, but the fact that God is cited an awful lot in government implies it may well be true.
It's because agnostics and atheists are not a cohesive group, they aren't an organization, they are not a faction to be dealt with, unlike organized religion that has people meeting once or twice weekly devoting time to impose their beliefs on others.Moonbear said:My understanding of the separation of church and state comes from the recognition this country was founded by people who were religious, but whose religion was inconsistent with a state-mandated religion (i.e., Church of England). So, in part, you are correct that this amendment prevents the government from telling people how to practice their religion or from mandating a religion.
Another part is when one person's religious beliefs influence their policy-making such that government is then supportive of that religion while enforcing rules that go against someone else's religion, this would conflict with the freedom of religion.
The tricky part is what happens when someone has no religion (i.e., atheists)? If they have no religion, then are religion-based laws going against their religious beliefs? It would be difficult to argue this. Anyone up for creating a religion that believes in the sacred ritual of gay marriage and supports abortion? If such a religion existed, then one could argue all laws banning these would be overturned as an unconstitutional infringement on those religious beliefs. That's really the crux of the problem. You can't argue infringement of religious beliefs if you have no religious beliefs. I don't think atheists were even considered a possibility when the Constitution was written, and thus it has no protection for them. I consider this a flaw in the Constitution, but have yet to come up with any good ideas on how to fix it.
I guess if atheism is a religion, then "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. Give me a break.BobG said:...that one religion, even if that religion happens to be called atheism, is being given preference over all the others.
And you think that having public officials putting up copies of "the" ten commandments on public property as an extension of their official status demonstrates "staying completely out of the issue of religion"? How about about religious neutrality?I think separation of church and state means the government should try to stay completely out of the issue of religion. That means religious beliefs don't turn into laws and it means the government doesn't try to eradicate religion from public culture. And things like the pledge of allegiance, the ten commandents posted in a public place, city seals depicting a city's history are cultural items which have nothing to do with laws.
Moonbear said:My understanding of the separation of church and state comes from the recognition this country was founded by people who were religious, but whose religion was inconsistent with a state-mandated religion (i.e., Church of England). So, in part, you are correct that this amendment prevents the government from telling people how to practice their religion or from mandating a religion.
Another part is when one person's religious beliefs influence their policy-making such that government is then supportive of that religion while enforcing rules that go against someone else's religion, this would conflict with the freedom of religion.
The tricky part is what happens when someone has no religion (i.e., atheists)? If they have no religion, then are religion-based laws going against their religious beliefs? It would be difficult to argue this. Anyone up for creating a religion that believes in the sacred ritual of gay marriage and supports abortion? If such a religion existed, then one could argue all laws banning these would be overturned as an unconstitutional infringement on those religious beliefs. That's really the crux of the problem. You can't argue infringement of religious beliefs if you have no religious beliefs. I don't think atheists were even considered a possibility when the Constitution was written, and thus it has no protection for them. I consider this a flaw in the Constitution, but have yet to come up with any good ideas on how to fix it.
ms. confused said:Then why does he not respect the line that divides church and state in politics? Why does he insist on banning gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion?
BobG said:Spoken like Mr. Spock.
The first paragraph is just saying one belief system is better than the other because of the source documents. It's still a belief system.
Faith played a significant role in the election of Bush as he appealed to conservative Christian voters through his stance on pro-life issues and his opposition to same-sex marriage.
Bush was a vocal advocate for pro-life policies, opposing abortion and supporting measures such as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Mexico City Policy.
No, Bush did not support same-sex marriage and even proposed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Bush's positions on pro-life and same-sex marriage issues garnered support from conservative Christian voters and helped him win the election in 2000 and 2004.
Yes, faith continued to play a significant role in Bush's presidency as he frequently spoke about his faith and its influence on his decision-making. He also created the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to promote partnerships between the government and religious organizations.