Finall thoughts on Presedential race..

WaterPog said:
Carefull there, you're making a moral argument and you don't even realise it ;)

It's far from semantics, it's the essence of law. NOT ALL PEOPLE THINK THAT KILLING IS BAD, that's what you have to grasp. NOT ALL PEOPLE THINK THERE IS SUCH A THING AT "general human rights".

You're taking your set of morals and assuming that they are the standard, it's a common falicy and just coincidently happens to be the one you're acusing the president of.
If you are going to play word games, then yes, it all comes down to morals. I do believe, however, that we all get the jist of what ChrisWeil is trying to say.

Perhaps better would be to talk about "morals" that have to do with actions that do not affect the person with the belief. For example, lets say you think that gay sex is immoral. By your definition, this is the same as saying that murder is immoral. However, there is a obvious difference: two consenting adults having gay sex have no effect on anybody but themselves. It may disgust you, but that in itself does not make it an appropriate target of legislation. Murder, on the other hand, has a very obvious affect on you, and so it should be governed by law.

This is what I think most people are referring to when they complain about religious morals becoming entangled with government.

WaterPog said:
It also has nothing to do with separation of church and state (which I would also defy you to find defined anywhere in the founding papers of our country, but that's a whole other topic).
At the risk of getting off onto a tangent...

You are referring to the Establishment Clause, which is part of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" We say "separation of church and state" today, which originates from a phrase Thomas Jefferson used, "wall of separation between church and state," in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

That letter, along with the U.S. Constitution, counts as founding papers to me. :) Not that it matters when it was written of course, the Constitution is the Constitution now matter what part you look at, or when it was written.

Dave
 
  • Sponsors (?)


Rootus said:
If you are going to play word games, then yes, it all comes down to morals. I do believe, however, that we all get the jist of what ChrisWeil is trying to say.

I wasn't playing word games, I was pointing out that he should know what a word means before he goes tossing it arround like that. ;)

Rootus said:
Perhaps better would be to talk about "morals" that have to do with actions that do not affect the person with the belief. For example, lets say you think that gay sex is immoral. By your definition, this is the same as saying that murder is immoral. However, there is a obvious difference: two consenting adults having gay sex have no effect on anybody but themselves. It may disgust you, but that in itself does not make it an appropriate target of legislation. Murder, on the other hand, has a very obvious affect on you, and so it should be governed by law.

This is what I think most people are referring to when they complain about religious morals becoming entangled with government.
That's one way to look at it, but has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I purpously avoided the whole "f-a-g issue" because I really don't care about it much and know that it is a hot button for the whole liberal marching band. Bottom line is that it doesn't even make my list of issues.

My point earlier was more about the democratic party's lack of moral judgment in general, and it's blatent willingness to use whatever it could to sway the vote in it's favor. Kerry was just the focus since he's the figurehead currently.
Rootus said:
At the risk of getting off onto a tangent...

You are referring to the Establishment Clause, which is part of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" We say "separation of church and state" today, which originates from a phrase Thomas Jefferson used, "wall of separation between church and state," in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

That letter, along with the U.S. Constitution, counts as founding papers to me. :) Not that it matters when it was written of course, the Constitution is the Constitution now matter what part you look at, or when it was written.

Dave

Yes, that is exactly what I was referring to. Problem is that the interpretation of that vary's almost as much as the interpretation of the bible ;)

I don't see it as saying that the government and it's leaders should be devoid of relidgious conviction and guidance, but more that the various churches should be free of governmental restriction.
 
Separation of church and state has been changed throught the generations. The founding fathers were referring to King George, who by the way, was also the head of the church of england. The church of england was established after a king (forgot which one) wanted a divorce but could not get one throught the catholic church. He figured, why not start my own? Which he did. So he not only ruled the country but also the religion. The founding fathers wanted no single religion to be present in the constitution but to have the morals of religion present. This is what is meant by separation of church and state, not that we should have no moral compass present in our legislation.
 
I think this thread should just be allowed to die. No one is going to change anyones mind. Now I like a good spirited debate as much as the next person who believes strongly in their choices. As long as emotions are kept out of it its fine. Once the argument gets heated though, peoples feelings get hurt and it can actually ruin some otherwise good relationships. :(

I was just over at Varian's house on Sunday and his parents were kind enough to ask me to stay for dinner. I had just gotten released from my Army Natl Guard duty so I was still in my uniform. :flag: Well after dinner, the talk turns to politics and Varian's family are Kerry supporters. The discussion was going ok for a bit but then a few remarks were made about the war, I said God was male :stick: , and it generally went downhill from there. :chair: It finally ended up with a woman, I forget her name, caling me a murderer because I'm in the military and that I can't think for myself and am just a robot controlled by the military. :uzi: That's when a good political debate, which I usually love, really pissed me off. Varian, the smartest of the group, generally kept quiet and was either ticked at all of us or laughing at all of us. :shrug:

So, in general, I think debates are fine but keep the really emotional hotbed items to a minimum. Just my humble opinion for which I will probably get :flame: for.
 
jordanvraptor said:
I think this thread should just be allowed to die. No one is going to change anyones mind. Now I like a good spirited debate as much as the next person who believes strongly in their choices. As long as emotions are kept out of it its fine. Once the argument gets heated though, peoples feelings get hurt and it can actually ruin some otherwise good relationships. :(

I was just over at Varian's house on Sunday and his parents were kind enough to ask me to stay for dinner. I had just gotten released from my Army Natl Guard duty so I was still in my uniform. :flag: Well after dinner, the talk turns to politics and Varian's family are Kerry supporters. The discussion was going ok for a bit but then a few remarks were made about the war, I said God was male :stick: , and it generally went downhill from there. :chair: It finally ended up with a woman, I forget her name, caling me a murderer because I'm in the military and that I can't think for myself and am just a robot controlled by the military. :uzi: That's when a good political debate, which I usually love, really pissed me off. Varian, the smartest of the group, generally kept quiet and was either ticked at all of us or laughing at all of us. :shrug:

So, in general, I think debates are fine but keep the really emotional hotbed items to a minimum. Just my humble opinion for which I will probably get :flame: for.

werd... I've allready lost 2 longtime friends because of this... there both uneducated kerry supporters and oppose the war... both oppose the draft (even tho its part of being a US citizen) and are *scared* of it, scared to the point that they will move to canada if it happens. They even tried to convince me I should do the same. All I have to say is... if they leave and *dodge* they better hope to god that I never see them again.
 
Lemme guess, you're about 20 and think that all war is evil? You like the idea of abortion because it allows you to go have sex with your girlfriend and not worry about having to take responsibility for it? am I getting warm? ;)

You want to call me a sheep, go ahead. But don't for a moment pretend that I don't know exactly where you're coming from.[/QUOTE]





I'm likely old enough to be your father. I've lived for many many years outside the USA (no military cocoon, either), and I have an advanced degree in history. I used to be to the politcial right when I was young, but while living overseas I saw how easily the rich and powerful could take advantage of the poor. After that lesson, I began to see things differently. The argument presented was not a personal attack on you, and I access no other websites for my information as you implied. I do work with someone who has a PHD in Middle East History, though.
 
WaterPog said:
Lemme guess, straight from moveon.org?

A) There's no proof of any coersion to get President Bush into the Air National Guard (from which he was Honerably Discharged). If you can show me some real proof from an impartial source I'll give you a cookie ;)

B) Kerry did everything he could to get out of serving in Vietnam, including joining the National Guard, but was unsuccessful in doing so.

C) The actions that I find reprehensable are the ones he took AFTER he got back.



It's got nothing to do with God, Guns or Gays, it's got to do with Murder plain and simple. Murder is wrong. If life begins at conception, what is the difference between an abortion and drouning your 6 year old in the river? The Pro-Murder croud has yet to give a suitable answer to that one.

Kerry came right out and said on television that HE BELIEVES that live begins at conception, yet he has no problem doing all he can to keep child murder legal. This is one issue that really is black or white.



You completely missed my point. I'm wasn't saying that any of it was anybody's fault, simply that Kerry has no scruples and is willing to do whatever it takes to win votes. When it was in his best interest to support the war he did, and when it was in his best interest to attack the president over the same war he did.



Lemme guess, you're about 20 and think that all war is evil? You like the idea of abortion because it allows you to go have sex with your girlfriend and not worry about having to take responsibility for it? am I getting warm? ;)

You want to call me a sheep, go ahead. But don't for a moment pretend that I don't know exactly where you're coming from.


This should be more clear now.

I'm likely old enough to be your father. I've lived for many many years outside the USA (no military cocoon, either), and I have an advanced degree in history. I used to be to the politcial right when I was young, but while living overseas I saw how easily the rich and powerful could take advantage of the poor. After that lesson, I began to see things differently. The argument presented was not a personal attack on you, and I access no other websites for my information as you implied. I do work with someone who has a PHD in Middle East History, though.
 
With the way people are split on the war in Iraq i think that a draft ( Although it seems pretty clear there is no way in hell there will be one) whould be the worst possible decisipons that could be maid period. Sending people that don't agree with the war we're waging right now with "terror" whould be a collalsaly bad idea.

PS, when the last time you heard of someone Comitting suicide after an election ?,like the gentlemen that went to the sight of the trade towers and ended his life. Seems pretty clear people have some prett strong feelings about whats going on in our world right now.
 
Rootus said:
Perhaps better would be to talk about "morals" that have to do with actions that do not affect the person with the belief. For example, lets say you think that gay sex is immoral. By your definition, this is the same as saying that murder is immoral. However, there is a obvious difference: two consenting adults having gay sex have no effect on anybody but themselves. It may disgust you, but that in itself does not make it an appropriate target of legislation. Murder, on the other hand, has a very obvious affect on you, and so it should be governed by law.

This is what I think most people are referring to when they complain about religious morals becoming entangled with government.

This is a tired argument against “victimless crimes”. It sounds to me like you are making the case that it is outside the jurisdiction of government to regulate that which occurs between consenting adults. Sorry, it may disagree with you conception of how this country works, but this idea has no real basis in fact or in historical jurisprudence. The framers of this country wanted to set up a system of government that was responsive to the needs of the individuals at any given point in time, yet was founded on basic principles of fairness and equity to provide stability and continuity to the system. This included the ability to pass laws for what was believed to be for “the greatest good for the greatest number” - based on strictly morals, common law, or otherwise. They knew that morals would play a role in shaping law (morals certainly played a role in justifying the actions they took to found this country), and they were aware that some morals would likely shift over time. Our system of representation provides for, and facilitates these changes in a relatively slow manner to limit the shock of rapid social change on our existing institutions.

The US Constitution provides a finite set of negative rights, the rest of our rights are defined by the laws of the states we reside in. Do this country’s legislatures have the power to enact laws against victimless or even “moral” crimes (drug laws, prostitution, virtual child pornogrophy, etc)? Yes, and they should surely be able to exercise these general police powers, in their judgment, as long as they are not in violation of the US or a state constitution. If you don’t like the decision then lobby, work to elect someone who will change the rules in your favor, or move to a different state, it’s that simple.

Another thing that should be mentioned is that because of the limitations posed on the US government by our Constitution, it is fairly difficult for a President to declare certain behaviors illegal without the support of public opinion. This is usaully the territory of individual states. Most of the time it requires a Constitutional amendment, and to ratify that takes more than the beliefs of just the head of state.


Rootus said:
You are referring to the Establishment Clause, which is part of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" We say "separation of church and state" today, which originates from a phrase Thomas Jefferson used, "wall of separation between church and state," in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

As far as the church and state issue is concerned, I am one to agree with Eric’s assessment. Just because Jefferson used the word “separation” does not mean that he, were he alive today, would agree with the modern usage. Clearly the founding fathers did not intend to keep religion from influencing the decisions of elected officials. The behavior of the framers themselves, such as prayer at the constitutional convention and countless references to Christian theology in founding documents, makes this fact obvious. There is no need to go into the history of the establishment clause, or its basis in the eyes of the early Americans except to point out that the purpose of the clause was essentially twofold. One, was to keep future generations from establishing a state church. And two, was to keep the government from intervening in the affairs of the church - thus protecting religious freedom. To expect elected officials, representatives of society at large, to remove religious principle from their decision making is pure fantasy. It is simply not what the establishment clause is about.