Lets talk
This debate started with the- Justice Sunday and Lets Paint the Picture- posts below. I'm always anxious for guest bloggers and and happy to highlight the argument presented by Fish:
Okay then, you are saying that the religious right or "fundies" and republicans are one and the same, therefore it's the republicans that are waging the religious war. Would it then be appropriate to say the communists and democrats are one and the same because some of the people registered as democrats hold totalitarian socialist beliefs?The judicial nominations (which is what this discussion is about) really come down to one objection. How do they stand on the abortion question. To the "fundies" abortion is an abomination according to their faith. To the secularists it's an acceptable choice. To most of us Americans it's currently the law of the land and is accepted as such. My personal opinion is no one should even have a vote one way or the other unless they are capable of getting pregnant, but that's neither here nor there.Since the democrats however are using this as a litmus test they, in a sense, make it an attack on the judges personal religious beliefs. They are not objecting to the judges because they find fault with decisions handed down by these nominees, nor because of scandals or any other reason. They're not even pointing to instances where the think the judge's decision reflect their religious beliefs more than the law, but simply how they stand on Roe vs Wade. Therefore it is indeed an attack on faith. Now as to your statement "our religious freedoms are being stolen" I must agree. For instance, making it illegal for a teacher or student in our schools to say a prayer before a group is unconstitutional. The first amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor restricting the free exercise thereof. Forbidding prayer in school is definitely restricting the free exercise of that person's religion. Of course "Congress" made no law one way or the other on this, but anti-Christian judges decided where it says make no law...restricting the free exercise thereof, it somehow means make a law that restricts free exercise.We have had a very strong belief system evident in the decisions of our courts for many years now. I would call it secularism when it comes to decisions regarding religion or churches, but their bottom line has been ever increasing government control. For instance we have more than twenty three thousand anti-gun laws in this country, all passed for one reason - to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It is very obvious to any casual observer the stated intent of the law is not working, but then it didn't really need to. It isn't really gun control the government wants, it's control, period. Between the federal, various state governments and the supreme and district courts the freedoms that are our inalienable right are being nibbled away bit by bit.
Comments? Here's a chance to have a dialogue and understand why we, right or left, feel like we do.
posted by Ron at 12:20 PM
6 Comments:
Prayer in schools...
Let's see... this would entail, separating out each student according to religion so that they can honor and pray to, meditate, whatever, their god (or gods) in their way and tradition,,,,
And the time it would take away from studies to do so...
Which would entail LOTS of taxes to do so...
Yeah, I'd pay for that with my taxes.
Oh wait, then that would make me a Democrat. Oops.
Well, here's my reality on this. You say:
Okay then, you are saying that the religious right or "fundies" and republicans are one and the same, therefore it's the republicans that are waging the religious war. Would it then be appropriate to say the communists and democrats are one and the same because some of the people registered as democrats hold totalitarian socialist beliefs?
Once again I hate to belabor what I consider to be the obvious but if the shoe fits... if not it doesn't. I would say it applies far more in the republican camp in your example than in the democratic camp. I regularly refer in my posts to the fundies and to the radical republicans. I do that because that is who I'm talking about. So you won't misunderstand, as you apparently did anyway.
The judicial nominations (which is what this discussion is about) really come down to one objection. How do they stand on the abortion question.
I disagree. It's more than that for both sides.
My personal opinion is no one should even have a vote one way or the other unless they are capable of getting pregnant, but that's neither here nor there.
I think you might have a point here.
Since the democrats however are using this as a litmus test they, in a sense, make it an attack on the judges personal religious beliefs. They are not objecting to the judges because they find fault with decisions handed down by these nominees, nor because of scandals or any other reason. They're not even pointing to instances where the think the judge's decision reflect their religious beliefs more than the law, but simply how they stand on Roe vs Wade. Therefore it is indeed an attack on faith.
Again I disagree and I think if you watch the hearings on this as it goes along you will see it is more than that and not an attack on faith..in any case I ask again what faith? The Christian faith? So we must assume they are not Christians or at least not good Christians?
For instance, making it illegal for a teacher or student in our schools to say a prayer before a group is unconstitutional. The first amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor restricting the free exercise thereof. Forbidding prayer in school is definitely restricting the free exercise of that person's religion. ......but anti-Christian judges decided where it says make no law...restricting the free exercise thereof, it somehow means make a law that restricts free exercise.
This is the bigge and where there are truly two Americas, two different realities. I understand your point and have sympathy for it but your conclusions are very narrow minded in my humble opinion. I don't think it is anti-Christian judges. Probably the vast majority of them are Christians of some stripe. I don't think their decision is to limit free excercise of religion. I think it comes down to this: First of all, In the land of Liberty and Freedom, Equality and Justice, letting a student or teacher lead a vocal prayer means that anyone that does not follow that religion has the same right. Moslem, Catholic, fundies, all. This could get quite complicated and it is easier to leave this to the private realm. Not allowing all WOULD be state sponsored religion. Personally my spiritual viewpoint has almost nothing in common with the fundies and I don't want my kids learning something like that in school. A few moments of silence would be fine with me. If they want to have a club, like chess club, debate club etc.that is also fine with me. Attendance is voluntary. This however could end up being a problem for the same reasons. Especially if the snake handlers, wiccans etc get involved and say their freedom of religion is being breached. No one is barred from saying a prayer in school......remember what Jesus said, (Matthew 6:5-6):(from a bible given to me by the Baptists by the way, God bless them.)
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 men. I tell you the truth, 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.....
It's a personal thing between you and God..or whoever. I find it interesting that we can see the problems in the Madrasses in the moslem countrys but when we do it we fail to recognize a problem.
On gun control you are beating a dead horse. There is no possible way to "control" all the guns in this country. The answer is the new technology and I think most know this. Howard Dean does!
Between the federal, various state governments and the supreme and district courts the freedoms that are our inalienable right are being nibbled away bit by bit.
I agree, but I hope you will keep in mind that these rights apply to all of us, men, women, hispanic, white, black, gay, straight, Christian, atheist, Moslem, Jew, rich and poor...or they apply to none of us. That of course if we are living in the Real America.
I have a few issues with some of the arguments presented by Fish:
Who equated "fundie" with "republicans"? I can't imagine anyone would consider McCain a "fundie", nor Schwarzenegger, nor Giuliani, nor many others (Snowe, Specter, etc.).
Most importantly the "abortion question" is a smoke screen. The leader of the Senate Democrats is anti-abortion.
The real objection of the Democrats to these judicial appointees is their adherence to the "Constitution in Exile" principle which interprets a strict reading of the Constitutional "takings" clause to mean that regulation of almost any kind, state or federal, is unconstitutional. That means no child labor laws, no EPA, no SEC, no FEC, no FCC.
Furthermore, I object to the implication that anyone who is not a "fundie" is a "Secularist". Being in favor of a strict separation is NOT secularist. It is "Constitutionalist." I've looked up the word "Secularist" and I think I understand what it means. While I think there are Secularists active in politics, I don't believe that there is a "secularist agenda". I think the "war between secularists and traditionalists" is actually "Bill O'Reilly's war." It's trumped up blather to foment the "fundie" rage against their supposed "victimization" at the hands of the "secularists" (read that to be the ACLU).
There is no law or decision that I'm aware of that restricts a teacher or student from praying in school. Private prayers are legal anytime. Why is it necessary for a student to pray before a group at school? What does it prove? Must this student profess their faith in front of others in order to validate their own faith? Why don't they validate their faith among their family or fellow church members?
Ron,
Amen! I hadn't seen Matthew, but I will read it and cite it.
Thanks!
I have a few issues as well, but they have already been stated in Fish' original posting.
Here is why I disagree with this, in whole: "'My personal opinion is no one should even have a vote one way or the other unless they are capable of getting pregnant, but that's neither here nor there.'
I think you might have a point here."
Here is one reason why. It was stated in an earlier posting about babies having babies, becoming a strain on our society. I myself believe that abstinence, adoption, etc. are good rules to follow; however, these rules are rarely followed in "Real America", particularly in this day and age. Our society is degrading at a tremendous rate. Babies are popping out, it seems, just by drinking the water.
The government is butting in on a personal decision for this girl (who brings fruit of yet another baby having a baby, and this government is allowing it), and we are continuing our zeal to ever increase our population, in order that things like this can remain the budget drainers that they are (take into account our welfare system, which gives everything carte-blanche to these kids, that we as taxpayers and workers are paying for). And, a lot of these babies are just as illiterate as GWB, before they have their babies.
Something to think about, when you see the next handfold of judicial nominees come into being. It's something to think about with the ones who are being "elected in" now, too. The government has no right to state whether one can have an abortion or not; it is a personal decision. Christians and those of faith who are against abortion, say your prayers for these babies, but you can not use the government like this to further your own agenda. I myself don't like seeing them killed via abortive means either (being of faith myself), but sometimes it's the only answer, and one to which the government has no right to intervene, as they have no right to intervene in any spiritual matter, or one which affects a person's personal body (other than one which destructs the personal body).
To Christians and those of faith also, you might think about the fact that someday you will be paying for all of these kids, as will everyone (as we pay for the majority of them now). One of these kids will be running this country someday, promoting even more of the same early propagation.
Whether one is capable of getting pregnant or not, we all need a say-so as to whether one of these kids runs our country or not. Do you want this right? If the government has its way, none of us will have that right.
Post a Comment
<< Home