Why are republicans the morality police. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Why are republicans the morality police.


frank4570
04-29-2012, 22:01
I was just wondering why republicans are are typically so very involved with religious issues, where democrats are not.
Controlling morality is kind of anti-freedom.

LawScholar
04-29-2012, 22:01
Wuh-oh.

I don't disagree exactly, but...wuh-oh.

This will not end well.

Sam Spade
04-29-2012, 22:19
* * *
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
*John Adams

frank4570
04-29-2012, 22:25
* * *
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
*John Adams

Seriously? I didn't know that.

AlexHassin
04-29-2012, 22:29
i have no clue. granted some very prominent "Moral Guardians” have beenchough engaging in the very activities they denounce. I wonder if it is part ofsome internal curiosity, or revulsion at self that comes into play at times.

Granted I don’t see a lot of “moral Guardians” as being that moral.

W420Hunter
04-29-2012, 22:35
I was just wondering why republicans are are typically so very involved with religious issues, where democrats are not.
Controlling morality is kind of anti-freedom.

Ummm your a bit off there. The left is always getting into religious issues, they just tend to be suppressing them. Like telling kids they can't have prayer groups in school, or trying to claim "in god we trust" is a state sponsored religion.

Blast
04-29-2012, 22:38
I was just wondering why republicans are are typically so very involved with religious issues, where democrats are not.
Controlling morality is kind of anti-freedom.
Because maybe democrats are immoral heathens?

So rape and pillage and doing all sorts of immoral acts should be a Constitutional right? Freedom of expression and such, right?

9jeeps
04-29-2012, 22:45
We've descended from a Judeo/Christian Moral ethic into a Situational amoral Ethic.

It will be interesting how that works over the next 200 years.

Thus far It's not been working all that well. Even for the Judeo/Christians!

frank4570
04-29-2012, 22:47
Because maybe democrats are immoral heathens?

So rape and pillage and doing all sorts of immoral acts should be a Constitutional right? Freedom of expression and such, right?

I was thinking more about liquor sales on sunday, and hunting on sunday. Also the laws that make some sex acts illegal even between a married man and woman.

AlexHassin
04-29-2012, 22:58
I was thinking more about liquor sales on sunday, and hunting on sunday. Also the laws that make some sex acts illegal even between a married man and woman.
becuse stoping you from doing what i dont want you to do makes me moral. or maybe makes me feel powerfull. idk :steamed:

Ewalk
04-29-2012, 23:25
Because Republican Superman are our superiors!

Ewalk
04-29-2012, 23:26
LoL, J/K, no politicians are anybody's superior, they are all scum bags

chickenwing
04-30-2012, 01:02
The GOP has to pander to the religious right to secure its base, who are not really for any type of limited government.

I mean, god forbid any godless heathens have more fun then backwards zealots like Blast, who throw fallacies out about godless heathens raping and pillaging because they don't get their morals from a book or government. Raping and pillaging is so akin to voluntary interactions between adults anyway, what a great example. :upeyes:



Short answer - religion.

Basically dudes who "talked" to god wrote some stuff down in a few different books many years ago, and people are still arguing over who's god is right, who worships the true god, butt sex, scissoring, etc...

While government debt grows, enslaving future generations to obligations and services people enjoy now. People are concerned with two dudes getting married, and "deviant" behavior by adults and what they put in their bodies besides alcohol.

Who cares about kicking the can to future generations to pay for when two guys can marry. Priorities.

G29Reload
04-30-2012, 01:35
I was just wondering why republicans are are typically so very involved with religious issues, where democrats are not.

Just by contrast, because democrats are filthy degenerate hippies and hippies suck. Anyone else looks upstanding by comparison.


Controlling morality is kind of anti-freedom.

Except no one is for controlling morality, just encouraging people to adhere to it.

Because the opposite is criminal lawlessness, not "freedom". :upeyes:

stevelyn
04-30-2012, 01:50
I was just wondering why republicans are are typically so very involved with religious issues, where democrats are not.
Controlling morality is kind of anti-freedom.

It started back in the late 70s and early 80s when the "Jerry Falwell Virus" aka Moral Majority infected the party and has gone downhill from there.

Blast
04-30-2012, 02:39
The GOP has to pander to the religious right to secure its base, who are not really for any type of limited government.

I mean, god forbid any godless heathens have more fun then backwards zealots like Blast, who throw fallacies out about godless heathens raping and pillaging because they don't get their morals from a book or government. Raping and pillaging is so akin to voluntary interactions between adults anyway, what a great example. :upeyes:

Short answer - religion.

Basically dudes who "talked" to god wrote some stuff down in a few different books many years ago, and people are still arguing over who's god is right, who worships the true god, butt sex, scissoring, etc...

While government debt grows, enslaving future generations to obligations and services people enjoy now. People are concerned with two dudes getting married, and "deviant" behavior by adults and what they put in their bodies besides alcohol.

Who cares about kicking the can to future generations to pay for when two guys can marry. Priorities.

Ronulan ale with a dash of liberal koolaid talking.:rofl:

The Founding Fathers would agree with us "backwards zealots".:supergrin:

Bren
04-30-2012, 04:26
I was just wondering why republicans are are typically so very involved with religious issues, where democrats are not.
Controlling morality is kind of anti-freedom.

Why do you think that, when the Democrats are even more concerned with restricting individual freedoms and enforcing their own form of morality? They just distract you by pointing out the Republicans trying to enforce more traditional morals. You don't pay attention when they tell you how welfare and universal healthcare and freeing criminals from prison, and having open borders, etc., etc., are the "right" thing to do?

Also, if you think religion = morality, you need to spend some time educating yourself. There are many moral systems other than religion. If you look at the 2 parties, they both push their own moral agenda, but the Dems base less of it on religious rule morality.

I always say, "I vote Republican because the Democrats hate freedom just a little bit more."

Chronos
04-30-2012, 04:27
I was just wondering why republicans are are typically so very involved with religious issues, where democrats are not.
Controlling morality is kind of anti-freedom.

Statism seeks to dominate and displace all competing ethical standards, including:

1) Rational standards of ethics (which enshrine liberty).

2) Arbitrary but non-statist standards of ethics (which enshrine the content of iron-age holy books).

A given person might be skeptical of the state and end up in the Republican party for one or some combination of both reasons. You don't necessarily need a freedom agenda to oppose statism.

It's not just in America, either. There were a bunch of different ways to be "counter revolutionary" in the workers' paradise.

Bren
04-30-2012, 04:28
I was thinking more about liquor sales on sunday, and hunting on sunday. Also the laws that make some sex acts illegal even between a married man and woman.

And what makes you think those laws were passed by Republicans? You may know absolutely nothing about U.S. history, if you think that. Those law predate the Republicans being the "conservative" party and go back to when the Democrats were still supporitng slavery and everybody in the KKK still voted Democrat.

series1811
04-30-2012, 04:32
Seriously? I didn't know that.

Well, the new thing is to say that our founding fathers really weren't that smart and that any of our outstanding leaders of today could have written a better document.

Yeah. Right.

Cavalry Doc
04-30-2012, 05:50
Bottom line, it's about balance. Too much freedom is a bad thing. People should not feel free to violate your person or belongings. And the more people are able to police themselves, the less others try to control them with the government. Imagine what would happen if everyone in America suddenly decided not to speed ever again. How many wasted man hours and dollars would that save the country?

eracer
04-30-2012, 05:54
Separation of Church and State.

Some believe in it. Some don't.

Rabbit994
04-30-2012, 06:33
And what makes you think those laws were passed by Republicans? You may know absolutely nothing about U.S. history, if you think that. Those law predate the Republicans being the "conservative" party and go back to when the Democrats were still supporitng slavery and everybody in the KKK still voted Democrat.

Agreed those laws were passed by Democrats but now it's Republicans leading the charge to keep them. After Lawrence v Texas, there was discussion in Virginia about killing off Virginia cohabitation law since occasionally, it was used by state for various purposes and it was now very shaky ground to be standing on. Republicans exploded into indigent fury about morality and such. As far as I know, it is still on the books. While Democrats may have passed it, Republicans are the ones holding onto it for dear life. You can find examples like that all around the country.

Cavalry Doc
04-30-2012, 06:34
Separation of Church and State.

Some believe in it. Some don't.

Was the original idea in the Constitution supposed to protect the church from the state, or the state from the church? Religious freedom, or freedom from religion?

Sam Spade
04-30-2012, 06:41
Separation of Church and State.

Some believe in it. Some don't.

"Separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. No, I don't believe in it. Why does--why should--anyone need to cut himself off from his moral compass when he steps into the public realm?

What *is* in the document is the non-establishment of a state religion, and the frequently ignored protection for free exercise of religion. The difference is left as an exercise for the reader.

maxsnafu
04-30-2012, 06:42
Was the original idea in the Constitution supposed to protect the church from the state, or the state from the church? Religious freedom, or freedom from religion?

It was supposed to protect religion from the government and "separation of church and state" is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution.

HexHead
04-30-2012, 06:43
Democrats = liberals = socialists = Godless sodommites.

Somebody's got to have some morals and values.

barbedwiresmile
04-30-2012, 06:53
Regarding the OP question, the answer is: to get votes.

For the same reason that the Democrats run on "social justice".

Neither party could run on their true agendas, so they need to split the Joe Six-Pack vote with wedge issues. Any wedge issue will do, but the religious issues are especially good at dividing the electorate and keeping attention focused away from serious political and economic issues/problems.

For example, the Republicans wouldn't get too many votes running on TARP, for example. Americans were roughly 4/5 against TARP. Yet these same yahoos can get reelected by throwing social/religious issues out like scraps to dogs.

By contrast, the Democrats couldn't run, for example, on QEII or "stimulus". So they through out class issues and taxation "fairness" like --- you guessed it --- scraps to stray dogs. And we gobble it up.

Conveniently, this assures the political elite will continue to control vast amounts of money, have cushy retirements, and maintain control.

This strategy has worked very well.

walt cowan
04-30-2012, 06:57
it's just slight of hand to keep you from seeing the real problems.

Sam Spade
04-30-2012, 07:08
So which party approach is more conservative, i.e., more in line with originalist thinking and foundational values?

HexHead
04-30-2012, 07:14
So which party approach is more conservative, i.e., more in line with originalist thinking and foundational values?

Well, the founding fathers were for the most part, religious men. They crafted a Constitution that laid out what the Federal government couldn't do, not giving it all encompassing power. There's nothing in there about taking care of the citizenry cradle to grave by redistributing wealth.

Connect the dots and draw your conclusion.

HarlDane
04-30-2012, 07:53
"Separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. No, I don't believe in it. The phrase was coined by Mr. Jefferson as a description of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. Personally I can't find any flaws in his interpretation, apparently you do?

FifthFreedom
04-30-2012, 07:54
I was just wondering why republicans are are typically so very involved with religious issues, where democrats are not.
Controlling morality is kind of anti-freedom.


Because their base is made up of mostly christians, so it makes sense for them to pander to their base, just like Dems pander to their own.
In politics, religion is thrown around a bit, you often wonder if many of the politicians really even believe what they are saying.

AlexHassin
04-30-2012, 08:25
Who ever said religions are moral?
i personaly dont see all of it as moral, and i think most of us can go trough holy books and go, " hey this is not moral" at certin parts. so why are we holding Christianity and its rules as some sort of "golden standered"

Cavalry Doc
04-30-2012, 08:30
Who ever said religions are moral?
i personaly dont see all of it as moral, and i think most of us can go trough holy books and go, " hey this is not moral" at certin parts. so why are we holding Christianity and its rules as some sort of "golden standered"

The initial plan was to let people choose to practice their own religion, in their own way, even if their religion is atheism. I sincerely doubt the founders would have had a problem with a manger scene on a courthouse lawn.

JFrame
04-30-2012, 08:35
The phrase was coined by Mr. Jefferson as a description of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. Personally I can't find any flaws in his interpretation, apparently you do?

If I'm not mistaken, the point being made is that the "wall of separation" that Jefferson referred to in his letter to the Baptist ministers was that the FedGov would not restrict the right of the Baptists to worship as they please. It was not an inference that the FedGov itself had to be secular and/or amoral.

Whatever Jefferson himself personally wished of the FedGov would depend a lot on his chronological viewpoint, which changed and evolved during the course of a rather extensive life (especially for that period).


.

frank4570
04-30-2012, 08:37
Why do you think that, when the Democrats are even more concerned with restricting individual freedoms and enforcing their own form of morality? They just distract you by pointing out the Republicans trying to enforce more traditional morals. You don't pay attention when they tell you how welfare and universal healthcare and freeing criminals from prison, and having open borders, etc., etc., are the "right" thing to do?

Also, if you think religion = morality, you need to spend some time educating yourself. There are many moral systems other than religion. If you look at the 2 parties, they both push their own moral agenda, but the Dems base less of it on religious rule morality.

I always say, "I vote Republican because the Democrats hate freedom just a little bit more."

You know what, I think you are right. I had never looked at it that way. I would guess that the dems would say that free health care, minimum wage, etc etc is the moral thing to do, but they would just avoid the specific word "moral". It really could be that is why I never picked up on it.

Republicans- christian morals. Christian base
Democrats- different morals. Not christian, but still there.

Of course, the disturbing thing about this is that now I am paying attention, if I keep following this road I will find where I am desiring to force my morals on others. Maybe i will just choose to not look at that for now.

I will have to ponder this.

Bren
04-30-2012, 08:49
"Separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. No, I don't believe in it. Why does--why should--anyone need to cut himself off from his moral compass when he steps into the public realm?

What *is* in the document is the non-establishment of a state religion, and the frequently ignored protection for free exercise of religion. The difference is left as an exercise for the reader.

"A walk of separation between chruch and state" is Thomas Jefferson's description of what the guys who wrote it intended the first amendment to be. Jefferson wrote the original version, on which it was based, in 1777.

He used the phrase to reassure christians, who used to want the government to stay out of religion. That was a big deal in pre-civil war America. It was only later that they decided they wanted religion to get involved in government, so that the amendment originally supported by churches is now considered an impediment to them.

Bren
04-30-2012, 08:50
Republicans- christian morals. Christian base
Democrats- different morals. Not christian, but still there.


They are most dangerous because they both think they are doing what is morally right.

Gundude
04-30-2012, 08:58
Except no one is for controlling morality, just encouraging people to adhere to it.So people are allowed to buy (and sell) liquor in, say, Arkansas on Sundays? People are only "encouraged" not to?

frank4570
04-30-2012, 09:11
So people are allowed to buy (and sell) liquor in, say, Arkansas on Sundays? People are only "encouraged" not to?

AND Virginia.

Cavalry Doc
04-30-2012, 09:29
So people are allowed to buy (and sell) liquor in, say, Arkansas on Sundays? People are only "encouraged" not to?

You just have to plan ahead until the law is changed. I don't like those kind of laws either, but there doesn't seem to be any momentum in changing them.

Jud325
04-30-2012, 09:30
Just some history for you.

The Thanksgiving Proclamation
New York, 3 October 1789


Introduction
On 25 September 1789, Elias Boudinot of Burlington, New Jersey, introduced in the United States House of Representatives a resolution "That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness." The House was not unanimous in its determination to give thanks. Aedanus Burke of South Carolina objected that he "did not like this mimicking of European customs, where they made a mere mockery of thanksgivings." Thomas Tudor Tucker "thought the House had no business to interfere in a matter which did not concern them. Why should the President direct the people to do what, perhaps, they have no mind to do? They may not be inclined to return thanks for a Constitution until they have experienced that it promotes their safety and happiness. We do not yet know but they may have reason to be dissatisfied with the effects it has already produced; but whether this be so or not, it is a business with which Congress have nothing to do; it is a religious matter, and, as such, is proscribed to us. If a day of thanksgiving must take place, let it be done by the authority of the several States." [1]

Citing biblical precedents and resolutions of the Continental Congress, the proponents of a Thanksgiving celebration prevailed, and the House appointed a committee consisting of Elias Boudinot, Roger Sherman, and Peter Silvester to approach President Washington. The Senate agreed to the resolution on 26 September and appointed William Samuel Johnson and Ralph Izard to the joint committee. On 28 September the Senate committee reported that they had laid the resolution before the president. [2] Washington issued the proclamation on 3 October, designating a day of prayer and thanksgiving.

Whatever reservations may have been held by some public officials, the day was widely celebrated throughout the nation. The Virginia assembly, for example, resolved on 19 November that the chaplain "to this House, be accordingly requested to perform divine service, and to preach a sermon in the Capitol, before the General Assembly, suitable to the importance and solemnity of the occasion, on the said 26th day of November." [3] Most newspapers printed the proclamation and announced plans for public functions in honor of the day. Many churches celebrated the occasions by soliciting donations for the poor. Washington's secretary, Tobias Lear, wrote to John Rodgers, pastor of the two Presbyterian churches in New York City, on 28 November, that "by direction of the President of the United States I have the pleasure to send you twenty five dollars to be applied towards relieving the poor of the Presbyterian Churches. A paragraph in the papers mentioned that a contribution would be made for that purpose on Thanksgiving day; as no opportunity offered of doing it at that time, and not knowing into whose hands the money should be lodged which might be given afterwards--The President of the United States has directed me to send it to you, requesting that you will be so good as to put it into the way of answering the charitable purpose for which it is intended." [4]

Washington enclosed the Thanksgiving Proclamation in his Circular to the Governors of the States, written at New York on 3 October 1789: "I do myself the honor to enclose to your Excellency a Proclamation for a general Thanksgiving which I must request the favor of you to have published and made known in your State in the way and manner that shall be most agreeable to yourself." [5]

The original document used here online is the Library of Congress copy (DS, DLC:GW) of the Thanksgiving Proclamation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes
The above is adapted from the annotation to Washington's Circular to the Governors of the States, 3 October 1789, printed in volume 4 of The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, W. W. Abbot, Dorothy Twohig, et al (University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville and London, 1993; Dorothy Twohig, volume editor), pp. 129-30.

1. Joseph Gales, Sr., compiler. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States; with an Appendix, Containing Important State Papers and Public Documents, and All the Laws of a Public Nature. (Annals of Congress.) 42 vols. Washington, D.C., 1834-1856, pp. 1:949-50.

2. Linda G. De Pauw et al., eds. Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America. 8 volumes to date. Baltimore, 1972--, pp. 1:192, 197; 3:232, 238.

3. Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Begun and Holden in the City of Richmond . . . on Monday, the Nineteenth Day of October, in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty-nine. Richmond, 1828, p. 70.

4. National Archives, Record Group 59, Miscellaneous Letters. Washington, D.C.

5. W. W. Abbot, Dorothy Twohig, et al, eds. The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series. Charlottesville, 1987--, pp. 4:129-32.
__________________

Proclamation
[New York, 3 October 1789]

By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor--and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be--That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in thecourse and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions--to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington


DS, CStbKML; DS, DLC:GW; copy, sold by Christie, Manson, & Woods, International, 21 Oct. 1977. The proclamation was also printed as a broadside. Copies of the broadside are at Harvard University, Yale University, and the Pierpont Morgan Library. Other copies are owned (1992) by Marshall B. Coyne, Washington, D.C., and Ralph Geoffrey Newman, Inc., Chicago. Reprinted in The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, v. 4, September 1789-January 1790. (Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia, 1993), 131-32.

For background to this document, see Circular Letter to the Governors of the States, 3 Oct. 1789, n.1.
__________________

Jud325
04-30-2012, 09:34
The actual letter.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent


To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

HarlDane
04-30-2012, 09:36
If I'm not mistaken, the point being made is that the "wall of separation" that Jefferson referred to in his letter to the Baptist ministers was that the FedGov would not restrict the right of the Baptists to worship as they please. It was not an inference that the FedGov itself had to be secular and/or amoral.

Whatever Jefferson himself personally wished of the FedGov would depend a lot on his chronological viewpoint, which changed and evolved during the course of a rather extensive life (especially for that period).


.Jefferson clearly references both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause in his letter.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."


I understand it's his personal view, but it seems to me that his interpretation of the original intent of the amendments text, written only a few years after it was ratified, should be fairly accurate. Personally I would need to hear a pretty damn good argument against it in order to consider it flawed. For others, I guess his views on this issue are easily dismissed.

Gundude
04-30-2012, 09:46
You just have to plan ahead until the law is changed. I don't like those kind of laws either, but there doesn't seem to be any momentum in changing them.I get that. I was just challenging G29Reload's assertion that "no one is for controlling morality." I'm sure the millions of people who can't buy (or sell) liquor on Sunday, not to mention all of the country's sex workers with criminal records, will be surprised to hear that.

JFrame
04-30-2012, 09:46
Jefferson clearly references both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause in his letter.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."


I actually don't think we're saying anything different here. Jefferson was saying that no state religion would be established -- e.g., an Anglican Church. I don't think he was saying that the State (the members of it) would be precluded from having or exercising personal religious thought of their choosing. It's unlikely that a chaplain would have been authorized for Congress otherwise.


.

HarlDane
04-30-2012, 09:53
I actually don't think we're saying anything different here. Jefferson was saying that no state religion would be established -- e.g., an Anglican Church. I don't think he was saying that the State (the members of it) would be precluded from having or exercising personal religious thought of their choosing. It's unlikely that a chaplain would have been authorized for Congress otherwise.


.I was only challenging the often repeated claim that there is no "wall of separation" inherent in the First Amendment because the exact phrase is absent from the text. It's quite clear, at least if one shares Jefferson's take on the issue, that there is.

The specifics on what government actions are allowed/prohibited is full of room to argue. Personally I think it falls somewhere between only disallowing an official state religion and banning public servants from speaking of their faith.

frank4570
04-30-2012, 09:56
You just have to plan ahead until the law is changed. I don't like those kind of laws either, but there doesn't seem to be any momentum in changing them.

It's actually going the opposite in Virginia right now. We have chosen to elect some seriously religious politicians. And they(we? whatever) voted to make homosexual marriage illegal. I guess a lot of those people need all the help they can get to resist becoming homo. I know I feel safer.

Gundude
04-30-2012, 10:10
It's actually going the opposite in Virginia right now. We have chosen to elect some seriously religious politicians. And they(we? whatever) voted to make homosexual marriage illegal. I guess a lot of those people need all the help they can get to resist becoming homo. I know I feel safer.It seems that maybe a lot of people just aren't grasping the difference between fiscal and moral conservatism. It's almost like they're saying, "Woah, we have these liberals in power spending us into oblivion, let's kick them out and elect some true conservatives. Look, this guy hates gays, he'll do."

The Republicans have chosen to differentiate themselves from the Democrats only on moral, not fiscal grounds. I believe this will be an ultimately fatal decision for the party.

aspartz
04-30-2012, 10:12
Ummm your a bit off there. The left is always getting into religious issues, they just tend to be suppressing them. Like telling kids they can't have prayer groups in school, or trying to claim "in god we trust" is a state sponsored religion.
No one is telling kids they can't pray. They cannot use school property to broadcast their prayers and they cannot force other students to be present while they pray. Other than that, there are no restrictions.

In God we trust IS an unconstitutional affirmation of government support of religion. So is the edited Pledge of allegiance.

It started back in the late 70s and early 80s when the "Jerry Falwell Virus" aka Moral Majority infected the party and has gone downhill from there.
Correct, it started with the Southern strategy. In addition to the FAllwell virus, this is when the OP became the party of NASCAR rather than the party of the educated.

And what makes you think those laws were passed by Republicans? You may know absolutely nothing about U.S. history, if you think that. Those law predate the Republicans being the "conservative" party and go back to when the Democrats were still supporitng slavery and everybody in the KKK still voted Democrat.
Like above, before the southern strategy, the religious voted Democrat because that was the party that did "good things" with my money.

Separation of Church and State.

Some believe in it. Some don't.
I do, so did Jefferson

Was the original idea in the Constitution supposed to protect the church from the state, or the state from the church? Religious freedom, or freedom from religion?
It works both ways.

"Separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. No, I don't believe in it. Why does--why should--anyone need to cut himself off from his moral compass when he steps into the public realm?
You are not required to become an immoral person once in office. You are, however, prohibited from enacting your personal morals into law.

It was supposed to protect religion from the government and "separation of church and state" is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution.
It is mentioned in the writings of Jefferson, one of the founders. These papers are frequently used to determine original intent.

So which party approach is more conservative, i.e., more in line with originalist thinking and foundational values?
Only the Libertarian party comes close.

The initial plan was to let people choose to practice their own religion, in their own way, even if their religion is atheism. I sincerely doubt the founders would have had a problem with a manger scene on a courthouse lawn.
I beg to differ. Religious freedom means you can do what you want on your own property. I would think most of the founders would have been opposed to a religious display. How many religious references are there in the Constitution? How many times is God mentioned in the Constitution?

You are free to be as religious as you want. Just don't force me pay for it or participate.

ARS

ArtificialGrape
04-30-2012, 10:28
It's unlikely that a chaplain would have been authorized for Congress otherwise.

Of course, James Madison quite vocally opposed the creation of Navy and Congressional chaplains in his Detached Memoranda (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html):

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles
-ArtificialGrape

Jud325
04-30-2012, 10:34
Madison was also against a Bill of Rights before he was for it. :tongueout:

JFrame
04-30-2012, 10:43
Of course, James Madison quite vocally opposed the creation of Navy and Congressional chaplains in his Detached Memoranda (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html):
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles-ArtificialGrape

Madison was also against a Bill of Rights before he was for it. :tongueout:


Jud325 -- yup! :supergrin:

Madison also saw to the construction of a larger navy after he saw what an economic impact Britain's sea-dominance had on the new United States in the War of 1812 -- clearly a man who was able to learn from his mistakes... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/grin.gif


.

FifthFreedom
04-30-2012, 10:55
AND Virginia.


....And Pa?

frank4570
04-30-2012, 11:01
....And Pa?

It's probably a LONG list of states that have laws to enforce christianity. And that's exactly what it is.

FifthFreedom
04-30-2012, 11:13
It's probably a LONG list of states that have laws to enforce christianity. And that's exactly what it is.

What's screwy about it is they seem to think might makes right. In their minds, they think Sunday is "the sabbath" therefore they don't want people to buy whiskey, yet to an atheist, it's not recognized as such, nor to me, who celebrates The Sabbath on Saturday.

frank4570
04-30-2012, 11:18
What's screwy about it is they seem to think might makes right. In their minds, they think Sunday is "the sabbath" therefore they don't want people to buy whiskey, yet to an atheist, it's not recognized as such, nor to me, who celebrates The Sabbath on Saturday.

I honestly think they are making it so that the christian guys do not have a more desirable choice on sunday, than go to church.
Enforcing christianity.

Gundude
04-30-2012, 11:29
I honestly think they are making it so that the christian guys do not have a more desirable choice on sunday, than go to church.
Enforcing christianity.Hmmm, that may be why the Pacific timezone, with our 10am NFL games, is such a bastion of hedonism and atheism. :supergrin:

I'm voting Democrat because I know that a Republican FCC will eventually make networks time-delay the east coast games so that we godless degenerates get to church like regular people. :supergrin:

(Satire, yes, but in every satire, a morsel of truth...)

FifthFreedom
04-30-2012, 11:53
I honestly think they are making it so that the christian guys do not have a more desirable choice on sunday, than go to church.
Enforcing christianity.

hmmm, maybe once upon a time..But now there is plenty of junk of Tv for the xtian guys to watch if they can't go get a bottle of jack daniels :tongueout:

Gundude
04-30-2012, 12:01
hmmm, maybe once upon a time..But now there is plenty of junk of Tv for the xtian guys to watch if they can't go get a bottle of jack daniels :tongueout:Idunno, have you tried watching TV lately? It's excruciating unless you're able to slow your brain down to a crawl first... (the aforementioned NFL being the exception, of course, where you can gradually slow your brain down with alcohol over the course of the broadcast).

Bren
04-30-2012, 12:10
I honestly think they are making it so that the christian guys do not have a more desirable choice on sunday, than go to church.
Enforcing christianity.

As I recall, you are correct. traditionally, all the way back to the puritans, businesses were required to close on Sunday or at least during church, especially entertainment businesses, so they wouldn't give people an alternative to church. We still have the same in KY. Bars and liquor stores and pool halls and various other entertainment places are forced to close on Sunday and many others are restricted to late opening and early closing that happen to coincide with morning and evening church services.

When these things are debated, the christians wink and smile and say it has nothing to do with religion "it's just a day of rest and relaxation for the community." I never really got the way they feel it is OK to lie about things like that, as if to say "we both know I'm lying, but there's nothing you can do about it."

ArtificialGrape
04-30-2012, 12:18
Madison was also against a Bill of Rights before he was for it. :tongueout:

Jud325 -- yup! :supergrin:
Agreed, because he believed that the Bill or Rights was not doing anything new -- those are rights that people already had.

-ArtificialGrape

snerd
04-30-2012, 12:21
Man! When aspartz and the grape show up in the Political Issues forum to bash everything religious and Christian, you know it's a slow day in the religion forum! Let me be the first to bring it up....... shouldn't this thread be moved to the Religious Issues forum?

edited....... that was a fruedian slip. :supergrin:

JFrame
04-30-2012, 12:25
Man! When asfartz and the grape show up in the Political Issues forum to bash everything religious and Christian, you know it's a slow day in the religion forum! Let me be the first to bring it up....... shouldn't this thread be moved to the Religious Issues forum?

Hmmm...It definitely seems to have gravitated in that direction...


.

frank4570
04-30-2012, 12:29
I never really got the way they feel it is OK to lie about things like that, as if to say "we both know I'm lying, but there's nothing you can do about it."

Because a little white lie is acceptable compared to saving souls. The end justifies the means.

Gundude
04-30-2012, 12:47
Man! When aspartz and the grape show up in the Political Issues forum to bash everything religious and Christian, you know it's a slow day in the religion forum! Let me be the first to bring it up....... shouldn't this thread be moved to the Religious Issues forum?When religious beliefs get encoded into prohibitive laws, isn't that a political issue?

JFrame
04-30-2012, 13:45
When religious beliefs get encoded into prohibitive laws, isn't that a political issue?


Well -- you have a point there...Like Obamacare forcing religious institutions to go against their tenets...


.

ArtificialGrape
04-30-2012, 13:45
Man! When aspartz and the grape show up in the Political Issues forum to bash everything religious and Christian
I posted a quote from a Founding Father without personal commentary. You'll have to explain to me how that is bashing.

-ArtificialGrape

RonS
04-30-2012, 13:52
They have a different morality, but the left is just as fanatical about their "religion". People often don't see it that way, but many of the things the far left believe in are as mystical as any religion.

Gundude
04-30-2012, 14:15
Well -- you have a point there...Like Obamacare forcing religious institutions to go against their tenets...


.Agreed. It's akin to forcing a store owner to sell liquor on Sunday. That's equally bad.

Republicans certainly don't have the monopoly on this kind of bad lawmaking, but is pointing to the other guy and saying "he does it too" going to help? Like it or not, the Democrats own that strategy. It works for them. It doesn't for Republicans. However it came to be that way, it doesn't matter. Republicans are actually going to need to behave better than Democrats to win. Is that so bad for the country?

aspartz
04-30-2012, 14:17
I posted a quote from a Founding Father without personal commentary. You'll have to explain to me how that is bashing.

-ArtificialGrape
I too only pointed out that there are no restrictions on religious rights currently and the the GOP became the morality police when they went after the southern vote. Exactly what "bashing" has been committed.

ARS

Cavalry Doc
04-30-2012, 14:21
I too only pointed out that there are no restrictions on religious rights currently and the the GOP became the morality police when they went after the southern vote. Exactly what "bashing" has been committed.

ARS

No restrictions? Try to start a high school football game with a prayer and see what happens.

aspartz
04-30-2012, 14:28
No restrictions? Try to start a high school football game with a prayer and see what happens.

You are free to pray all you want. What is restricted is your right to use the tax payer funded PA system to broadcast your prayer, and thus forcing other people to participate. Private prayer is fine, enforced public prayer is not.

ARS

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Gunhaver
04-30-2012, 14:38
The initial plan was to let people choose to practice their own religion, in their own way, even if their religion is atheism. I sincerely doubt the founders would have had a problem with a manger scene on a courthouse lawn.

I sincerely doubt that anyone would make an issue of the manger scene if religion wasn't constantly creeping it's way into our everyday lives in ways that adversely affect people thereby prompting a vocal minority of non-believers to push back even harder. You can push against abortion, science education, drugs and alcohol, gay rights, stem cell research, birth control, various sex positions and even pornography and sex toys if you like but you risk loosing all those battles plus the manger scenes, god's honorable mention on the money and the courthouse and the memorial crosses along the roads ect. in the process.

What the religious are really upset about is the fact that this has gone from a country where they called the shots to one where they get spanked when they forget their place.

Cavalry Doc
04-30-2012, 14:41
You are free to pray all you want. What is restricted is your right to use the tax payer funded PA system to broadcast your prayer, and thus forcing other people to participate. Private prayer is fine, enforced public prayer is not.

ARS

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Yes, and that's my point, it is a restriction.

Gunhaver
04-30-2012, 14:43
No restrictions? Try to start a publicly fundedhigh school football game with a prayer and see what happens.

Fixed it for you. You're free to send your kids to private Christian schools if you really need to openly ask god to help your team win. To quote every conservative that ever lived, "just don't expect my tax dollars to pay for it".

Gunhaver
04-30-2012, 14:46
Yes, and that's my point, it is a restriction.

You can't burn heretics at the stake anymore either. That's a restriction. How sad for you. :crying:

Gunhaver
04-30-2012, 14:49
I honestly think they are making it so that the christian guys do not have a more desirable choice on sunday, than go to church.
Enforcing christianity.

:rofl:
The list of options they would have to remove to prompt me to go back to church includes every possible conceivable thing except church.

brickboy240
04-30-2012, 15:23
Back in the 80s, my high school had a quick 2-3 minute (or less) prayer before football games.

Nobody died, nobody cried or wet their pants, no non-Christians even said "boo."

This did not cost anyone anything, either.

What happened between then and now?

- brickboy240

aspartz
04-30-2012, 15:28
Back in the 80s, my high school had a quick 2-3 minute (or less) prayer before football games.

Nobody died, nobody cried or wet their pants, no non-Christians even said "boo."
The non-Christians sat quietly while their rights were violated. We are uinwilling to continue to do so. Would you have said "boo" if the Koran was read before the game?

This did not cost anyone anything, either.
The public paid for the PA system that was used.

What happened between then and now?
The non-believers grew a pair and decided to stop having their beliefs contradicted in a government sponsored event.

ARS

brickboy240
04-30-2012, 15:37
The Koran was not read because...hello!...this was a high school in Texas. Where most people were Christians or Jews. I am pretty sure that if I went to high school in Saudi Arabia....we'd hear the Koran because...hello!....it is the predominant religion.

Listen, I am not an overly religious guy or anywhere near an evangelical but I do find this need in past years to wipe every sign of Christianity out of our view as alarming.

We have to ask ourselves...why are we doing this?

Is this being done because some people are really offended and oppressed by these things or is this being done merely as a stick in the eye by the non-believers.

It also makes me wonder what next will be "sanitized" from our sight, because a small few were "offended" by it's presence.

The strange and somewhat urgent "we need to get rid of all this stuff" attitude is what gets me.

It could also lead to a small group getting rid of something YOU like next....think about it.

- brickboy240

Gundude
04-30-2012, 15:48
I am pretty sure that if I went to high school in Saudi Arabia....we'd hear the Koran because...hello!....it is the predominant religionUh, or because in Saudi Arabia, the church and state are one and the same. You might be muddying your position a bit with that example.

brickboy240
04-30-2012, 15:53
Not really.

Go to any other country and you will find that the majority religion has it's icons and imagery in most places...public and private. Italy, Spain and Mexico have tons more religious icons in public view than we do here in the USA.

I don't want to live in a theocracy but having a few signs of the predominate religion in view of the public just does not constitute "forcing a particular faith down everyone's throat" as some might have you believe.

If the sight of a nativity scene in December makes you cry...there are places on this planet where you can live and never see such a thing. If it bothered me THAT MUCH....I'd leave.

Why did we have many of these things in public view for decades but NOW...everyone is having a fit and they all must go?

Sorry, but with the economic situation we find ourselves in right now...the removal of Christian imagery is just not all that important or something I can get all that worked up over.

Gundude
04-30-2012, 16:16
I'm not disagreeing with you there. I don't feel violated in any way by seeing or hearing religious proceedings take place, in public or otherwise. Atheists often bring up the overused and abused "slippery slope" argument that if even the tiniest overlap occurs between public funds and religion, the next stop is theocracy. The same way conservatives argue that if homosexual marriage is allowed, the next stop is marrying animals and infants. I find it disingenuous at best.

But out of all possible examples, citing an actual theocracy as an example of how religion and public events co-exist in other countries isn't helpful to your cause. Just sayin'... :supergrin:

Gunhaver
04-30-2012, 16:33
Not really.

Go to any other country and you will find that the majority religion has it's icons and imagery in most places...public and private. Italy, Spain and Mexico have tons more religious icons in public view than we do here in the USA.

So now the argument is that we should do as other countries do? Doesn't seem to jive with your avatar and sig line.

I don't want to live in a theocracy but having a few signs of the predominate religion in view of the public just does not constitute "forcing a particular faith down everyone's throat" as some might have you believe.

I see it as making religion less relevant in modern society which only increases everyone's freedom, not just the freedom of those religious to see their views prevail over the entire society. Sure, there will be the dinosaurs that scream and cry about the downfall of America after turning away from god as they continue to go extinct but that doesn't phase me a bit. If you think only publicly funded state sponsored prayer is heard by god then you're doing it wrong.

If the sight of a nativity scene in December makes you cry...there are places on this planet where you can live and never see such a thing. If it bothered me THAT MUCH....I'd leave.

Why leave a battle that you're winning? It doesn't make me cry but as I said in a previous post it is a result of religious people forgetting their place to the extent that they're now experiencing a huge push back.

Why did we have many of these things in public view for decades but NOW...everyone is having a fit and they all must go?

Because the times they are a changin' and the free exchange of information lets people who think alike band together and be heard as one large group. Perhaps that's just one more form of progress that the religious right should rail against.

Sorry, but with the economic situation we find ourselves in right now...the removal of Christian imagery is just not all that important or something I can get all that worked up over.
Neither is the removal of pornography or gay rights or abortion rights or any of the other freedoms that the right persists in assaulting yet they persist. Somebody should tell them to focus on the economy.

Gunhaver
04-30-2012, 16:38
I'm not disagreeing with you there. I don't feel violated in any way by seeing or hearing religious proceedings take place, in public or otherwise. Atheists often bring up the overused and abused "slippery slope" argument that if even the tiniest overlap occurs between public funds and religion, the next stop is theocracy. The same way conservatives argue that if homosexual marriage is allowed, the next stop is marrying animals and infants. I find it disingenuous at best.


If religion can't stand on it's own and make it's own goals with the support of it's members then it's not a very popular idea and thereby has no right to exist. It's no different than subsidizing failing companies.

Brucev
04-30-2012, 16:41
I was just wondering why republicans are are typically so very involved with religious issues, where democrats are not.
Controlling morality is kind of anti-freedom.

The republicans are involved in religious issues for the same reason the demokrats support the gays... votes. If they thought they could do better elsewhere, they would turn elsewhere. It's that simple.

As to controlling morality being anti-freedom... no it is not anti-freedom. It is anti-libertinism.

G23Gen4.40
04-30-2012, 18:06
I strongly feel that the decline of America is directly connected to the loss of Biblical morals in this country. For the first 100 to 150 years of this country the majority of the people in this country followed the morals set forth in the Bible. It wasn't until the 60's and people started with the "If it feels good, do it" way of thinking, did this country really start a downward turn.

You can see it time and time again in the Bible. Adam and Eve thought they did not need GOD and thought they could become god-like. HE destroyed the earth by flood when the people turn against HIM. The Jews would prosper for a long time, then when they started thinking that they no longer needed GOD and turned away from him he would let them fall.

I feel that is what's happening in America. We as a country have turned our back on GOD and now HE has turned HIS back on us. We are directly in violation of Biblical teachings. Being gay, divorce, abortion, sex before marriage, etc. are all ok now. The only god this country worships now is money.

I must say when I vote, my main concern is, does the candidate closely represent my values. I want a candidate who will try and uphold Christian values. That is the most important qualification of a leader, as far as I am concerned. If it is the republicans that most closely fit that mold then they are the ones I will support.

syntaxerrorsix
04-30-2012, 18:25
Fixed it for you. You're free to send your kids to private Christian schools if you really need to openly ask god to help your team win. To quote every conservative that ever lived, "just don't expect my tax dollars to pay for it".


No.. not free. I still pay for public education that I do not agree with and (hypothetically) still have to pay for my (hypothetical) children to go to a Christian school.

syntaxerrorsix
04-30-2012, 18:27
Separation of Church and State.

Some believe in it. Some don't.

No such thing according to the COTUS.

syntaxerrorsix
04-30-2012, 18:29
So which party approach is more conservative, i.e., more in line with originalist thinking and foundational values?

Today? The GOP if RP was a reflection of their value system.

syntaxerrorsix
04-30-2012, 18:31
.................................No one is telling kids they can't pray.........................

Patently untrue.

syntaxerrorsix
04-30-2012, 18:36
No one is telling kids they can't pray. They cannot use school property to broadcast their prayers and they cannot force other students to be present while they pray. Other than that, there are no restrictions.

In God we trust IS an unconstitutional affirmation of government support of religion. So is the edited Pledge of allegiance.


Correct, it started with the Southern strategy. In addition to the FAllwell virus, this is when the OP became the party of NASCAR rather than the party of the educated.


Like above, before the southern strategy, the religious voted Democrat because that was the party that did "good things" with my money.


I do, so did Jefferson


It works both ways.


You are not required to become an immoral person once in office. You are, however, prohibited from enacting your personal morals into law.


It is mentioned in the writings of Jefferson, one of the founders. These papers are frequently used to determine original intent.


Only the Libertarian party comes close.


I beg to differ. Religious freedom means you can do what you want on your own property. I would think most of the founders would have been opposed to a religious display. How many religious references are there in the Constitution? How many times is God mentioned in the Constitution?

You are free to be as religious as you want. Just don't force me pay for it or participate.

ARS

You mean like the 1A and the 2A and the rest of our amendments?

You should have stopped at unconstitutional education policy. Not where the unconstitutional policy should stop.

syntaxerrorsix
04-30-2012, 18:40
You are free to pray all you want. What is restricted is your right to use the tax payer funded PA system to broadcast your prayer, and thus forcing other people to participate. Private prayer is fine, enforced public prayer is not.

ARS

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

You mean like the unconstitutional tax I pay to support your unconstitutional school?

syntaxerrorsix
04-30-2012, 18:42
How about you restrict your simple comments in regards to a topic you hypocritically defend?

Naelbis
04-30-2012, 18:47
Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are mutually exclusive concepts, you cannot have one without denying the other.

syntaxerrorsix
04-30-2012, 18:54
Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are mutually exclusive concepts, you cannot have one without denying the other.

Your right to be free from me includes my right to be free from you.

Gunnut 45/454
04-30-2012, 19:08
Sam Spade
Sam your trying to educate the Imoral left wing socialist Dumocrats again? They can never rap their immoral minds around the fact that living a moral life is a good thing. It interfears with the asexual mindset!:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

By the way great quote from John Adams!:supergrin:

syntaxerrorsix
04-30-2012, 19:17
Sam Spade
Sam your trying to educate the Imoral left wing socialist Dumocrats again? They can never rap their immoral minds around the fact that living a moral life is a good thing. It interfears with the asexual mindset!:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

By the way great quote from John Adams!:supergrin:


Morality doesn't equal legality.

Is this a disconnect?

ArtificialGrape
04-30-2012, 19:47
I strongly feel that the decline of America is directly connected to the loss of Biblical morals in this country.

I would like to remind people that I was not even close to being the one to introduce religion into this thread :supergrin:

What biblical morality in particular is it that you miss... owning slaves, putting to death homosexuals, witches, fortune tellers, adulterers, people who work on the sabbath, disrespectful children, children who strike or curse a parent, women who are not a virgin on their wedding night, women who are raped in town, but not heard screaming...

-ArtificialGrape

juggy4711
04-30-2012, 19:47
Regarding the OP question, the answer is: to get votes.

For the same reason that the Democrats run on "social justice".

Neither party could run on their true agendas, so they need to split the Joe Six-Pack vote with wedge issues. Any wedge issue will do, but the religious issues are especially good at dividing the electorate and keeping attention focused away from serious political and economic issues/problems.

For example, the Republicans wouldn't get too many votes running on TARP, for example. Americans were roughly 4/5 against TARP. Yet these same yahoos can get reelected by throwing social/religious issues out like scraps to dogs.

By contrast, the Democrats couldn't run, for example, on QEII or "stimulus". So they through out class issues and taxation "fairness" like --- you guessed it --- scraps to stray dogs. And we gobble it up.

Conveniently, this assures the political elite will continue to control vast amounts of money, have cushy retirements, and maintain control.

This strategy has worked very well.

Home run and ignored. Typical.

Morality doesn't equal legality.

Is this a disconnect?

Yes it is. The purpose of the law is not to ensure moral behavior nor should it be in a society that values freedom. To paraphrase Goldwater "politics is the act of balancing freedom with the maintenance of social order".

The advertised balance of the left tends to threaten fiscal order more than social freedom, the right's social freedom more than fiscal order. Meanwhile they both suck us into a place we have less of freedom overall.

As for the ridiculous issue of prayer in school. If the government wasn't in the business of education it would not be an issue to begin with.

juggy4711
04-30-2012, 19:51
I would like to remind people that I was not even close to being the one to introduce religion into this thread :supergrin:

What biblical morality in particular is it that you miss... owning slaves, putting to death homosexuals, witches, fortune tellers, adulterers, people who work on the sabbath, disrespectful children, children who strike or curse a parent, women who are not a virgin on their wedding night, women who are raped in town, but not heard screaming...

-ArtificialGrape

It was bound to come up. Religion does not equal morality, morality does not equal religion. All one needs to do is look to the things that have been discarded from religion and no longer considered moral, some of which you mentioned, to see that.

Gunnut 45/454
04-30-2012, 20:49
syntaxerrorsix
So please tell us which moral tenants of the Bible so offend the? How does it stop you from being as immoral as you please behind the closed doors of your home. I guess the fact that moral people don't want to see your imorality in the public space is really the problem. Why should we view your immoral ways ? Why should we allow you to force your immorality on us that don't want to live our lives that way?

aspartz
04-30-2012, 20:52
No such thing according to the COTUS.
Depends on the original intent of the founders, like Jefferson.

Patently untrue.
Citation? I have never heard of a case where private prayer was banned in schools. Teacher led, yes, Student led while attendace is mandatory, yes, private non-invasive has never been banned.

You mean like the 1A and the 2A and the rest of our amendments?
You are free to pray on public property. You cannot use public financing to promulgate your beliefs, nor can you force a captive audience to participate.

You should have stopped at unconstitutional education policy. Not where the unconstitutional policy should stop.You mean like the unconstitutional tax I pay to support your unconstitutional school?
I have never said I support a tax payer financed education system.

How about you restrict your simple comments in regards to a topic you hypocritically defend?
Personal attacks? That's always a good way to make friends and influence people.

Your point of the public schools also points out one of the reasons the moral police is an issue. The government is now involved in far too much of the average person's life. If the schools were private, no issue.

ARS

Gunhaver
04-30-2012, 21:12
Patently untrue.

Not patently untrue. If fact, if they're doing it right nobody would even know they were praying so how could they stop them?

Matthew 6:5
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

What's being stopped is school lead prayer and individual out loud prayers disrupting class. I can think of an endless string of circumstances where somebody damn well better be focused on something other than prayer.

frank4570
04-30-2012, 21:30
Regarding the OP question, the answer is: to get votes.

For the same reason that the Democrats run on "social justice".

Neither party could run on their true agendas, so they need to split the Joe Six-Pack vote with wedge issues. Any wedge issue will do, but the religious issues are especially good at dividing the electorate and keeping attention focused away from serious political and economic issues/problems.

For example, the Republicans wouldn't get too many votes running on TARP, for example. Americans were roughly 4/5 against TARP. Yet these same yahoos can get reelected by throwing social/religious issues out like scraps to dogs.

By contrast, the Democrats couldn't run, for example, on QEII or "stimulus". So they through out class issues and taxation "fairness" like --- you guessed it --- scraps to stray dogs. And we gobble it up.

Conveniently, this assures the political elite will continue to control vast amounts of money, have cushy retirements, and maintain control.

This strategy has worked very well.

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

syntaxerrorsix
05-01-2012, 04:17
Depends on the original intent of the founders, like Jefferson.

Jefferson's letter to the Baptist Church was not included in the writing of the COTUS.


Citation? I have never heard of a case where private prayer was banned in schools. Teacher led, yes, Student led while attendace is mandatory, yes, private non-invasive has never been banned.


You are free to pray on public property. You cannot use public financing to promulgate your beliefs, nor can you force a captive audience to participate.



Private prayer? Ok fine, not exactly the context of the discussion however.



I have never said I support a tax payer financed education system.


Personal attacks? That's always a good way to make friends and influence people.


Your point of the public schools also points out one of the reasons the moral police is an issue. The government is now involved in far too much of the average person's life. If the schools were private, no issue.

ARS


Here we agree.

syntaxerrorsix
05-01-2012, 04:20
syntaxerrorsix
So please tell us which moral tenants of the Bible so offend the? How does it stop you from being as immoral as you please behind the closed doors of your home. I guess the fact that moral people don't want to see your imorality in the public space is really the problem. Why should we view your immoral ways ? Why should we allow you to force your immorality on us that don't want to live our lives that way?

There is more to it than moral and immoral.

Not everyone derives there morality from the Bible.

aspartz
05-01-2012, 10:33
Jefferson's letter to the Baptist Church was not included in the writing of the COTUS.
The papers of the founders are often used to derive original intent, for example what was meant by the 1st amendment.

Private prayer? Ok fine, not exactly the context of the discussion however.
That is exactly the right you have under the 1st. You do not have a right to use the assets of the tax payers to promote you selected religion as that would be a state endorsement. You also do not have the right to use the power of the government (attendance in a classroom) to have a captive audience to watch you practice your beliefs.

ARS

syntaxerrorsix
05-01-2012, 10:42
The papers of the founders are often used to derive original intent, for example what was meant by the 1st amendment.



That is exactly the right you have under the 1st. You do not have a right to use the assets of the tax payers to promote you selected religion as that would be a state endorsement. You also do not have the right to use the power of the government (attendance in a classroom) to have a captive audience to watch you practice your beliefs.

ARS

Not one bit of that makes any difference at all Constitutionally speaking as "public" education doesn't fall within the purview of the federal government.

Who said there was a right to use tax payer monies to promote religion? Wasn't part of my argument.

This captive audience bit is a real stretch to. Did Jefferson write a letter of intent on that as well?

A person praying in a public school would be a state endorsement of religion? Oook.

syntaxerrorsix
05-01-2012, 10:43
deleted

aspartz
05-01-2012, 12:06
Not one bit of that makes any difference at all Constitutionally speaking as "public" education doesn't fall within the purview of the federal government.
I agree schools should be private and paid for by tuition.

Who said there was a right to use tax payer monies to promote religion? Wasn't part of my argument.You said private prayer was not the issue. The only other issue being debated is religious displays (visual and audio) in the public square, on public land, using public assets.

This captive audience bit is a real stretch to. Did Jefferson write a letter of intent on that as well?So you think one child, who is in a classroom after attendance is taken, should have to sit and watch you pray on his time?

A person praying in a public school would be a state endorsement of religion? Oook.A person praying in school using the school PA would be. A person requiring the other students in the class to sit there while he prayed would be.

As I have said many times. You are free to worship on your own time, on your own property, with your own equipment. The government should provide none of the three (time, property or equipment). This is a restriction on use of public property, not a restriction of your religious practice.

ARS

syntaxerrorsix
05-01-2012, 15:02
I agree schools should be private and paid for by tuition.


You could have stopped there :wavey:

Ruble Noon
05-01-2012, 15:58
Regarding the OP question, the answer is: to get votes.

For the same reason that the Democrats run on "social justice".

Neither party could run on their true agendas, so they need to split the Joe Six-Pack vote with wedge issues. Any wedge issue will do, but the religious issues are especially good at dividing the electorate and keeping attention focused away from serious political and economic issues/problems.

For example, the Republicans wouldn't get too many votes running on TARP, for example. Americans were roughly 4/5 against TARP. Yet these same yahoos can get reelected by throwing social/religious issues out like scraps to dogs.

By contrast, the Democrats couldn't run, for example, on QEII or "stimulus". So they through out class issues and taxation "fairness" like --- you guessed it --- scraps to stray dogs. And we gobble it up.

Conveniently, this assures the political elite will continue to control vast amounts of money, have cushy retirements, and maintain control.

This strategy has worked very well.

Excellent post as usual and spot on. :cheers: