Political Crossfire Forums

[tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego]

Sailor Moon wrote: No I am sorry, thats not what it says. It says no laws can manifest a religion.
Sorry, but I'm confused. Either you're agreeing with me or that was a typo.

Sailor Moon wrote: There is no way that I am going to PAY for someone elses abortion. It goes COMPLETELY against my religion.
Maybe you can quote the Bible for me, but I have never really understood why Jesus is against abortion. Also, tax money going to abortion does not cost you more, but subtracts very slightly from other government programs. Whether abortion is legal or not, it raises your taxes nothing. The budget and tax hikes/cuts are seperate things.

If assisted abortion is against God's word (which I have never heard a good reason to believe), then inducing a miscarriage should be also. The only explanations for them not both being completely against God's will are that neither is, or that assisted abortion is unChristian because of sophistry. Forgive my saying this, but I will never worship Leviticus.

[Gilbert1908]

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego wrote: Its the opposite, as I said. If you're going to cover your ears and hum to yourself, then there's nothing I can do to convince you. The first amendment means no religion can ever manifest itself in laws. Once a religion manifests itself in laws not held by the entire populace, then the government IS affecting religion. So either religion cannot affect the state (which is what that passage means) or the entire idea is falsified by its own logic.

The only thing that religion can constitutionally influence is policy. It cannot, as the constitution says, manifest itself in laws. No one here will argue that religion can't influence policy, as is right. But a LAW can never be religiously based.

What you are saying in effect by saying religion can be manifested in policy but not in law you are saying religion can ONLY influence the Executive branch and not congress. This is simply incorrect. Laws are by and large social morals which are direct reflection of the society as a whole. To suggest that Religion can not have a profound influence on what kind of laws are made and reversed ignores the entire history of the United States. (the courts interpret law and should not be influenced by anything but the law).

It is Religion which is behind the abolition of Slavery, Women's Sufferage and the Civil Rights Movement. Without its influene the three greatest injustices in the country's history are at best delayed immeasurably.

When quoting the first amendment or any such statement, it is never a good idea to remove it from the context of the entire phrase.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What follow the fairly simple and direct first portion of the sentence "Congress shall make no law respecting" respecting in this case being a transitive verb to the rest of the list and respecting means- in veiw of, considering, concerning.

1. an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereoof 2. abridging the freedom of speech 4. or of the press 5. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and 6. to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No where is it possible to interpret any restriction on religion's impact on law only on the law's impact on religion. In fact a number of clergy including a Catholic priest have served in Congress and the Senate.

The idea that an individual or a group can not use their right of free speech to seek to influence the content or creation of laws is the OPPOSITE of what the first amendment says.

But what CAN NOT happen is that that LAW can not in any way establish even a hint of a national religion.

[tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego]

No, you're wrong. About everything.

#1 Respecting is not a transitive verb

#2 For your theory to be correct, there would not be a comma between the two religious clauses

#3 Every other item on that list is a direct object of its own, SEPERATE verb

For that to be the case, the amendment would need to be rewritable as: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Congress shall make no law respecting prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Congress shall make no law respecting abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

As you can see, (or perhaps you can't, considering the remarkably simple understanding of english you have so far demonstrated) it cannot be rewritten as such, and therefore your claim is false and unfounded. If "respecting an establishment of religion" meant limiting the right to practice religion, then the second clause would be very redundant, something obviously false by the use of "or" rather than "and". The second clause is there, however, because the first clause does NOT mean interfering with religion, but with religion interfering with the law.

And also, religion had nothing to do with any of those things. Religion has always been a conservative argument, very rarely a liberal one. The Church oppressed women for 18 centuries before it was overruled. Some of the most religious people of the 20th century were members of the KKK. Again, religion slowed those reforms, never helped them. Ever.

[Sailor Moon]

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego wrote: No, you're wrong. About everything.

#1 Respecting is not a transitive verb

#2 For your theory to be correct, there would not be a comma between the two religious clauses

#3 Every other item on that list is a direct object of its own, SEPERATE verb

For that to be the case, the amendment would need to be rewritable as: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Congress shall make no law respecting prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Congress shall make no law respecting abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

As you can see, (or perhaps you can't, considering the remarkably simple understanding of english you have so far demonstrated) it cannot be rewritten as such, and therefore your claim is false and unfounded. If "respecting an establishment of religion" meant limiting the right to practice religion, then the second clause would be very redundant, something obviously false by the use of "or" rather than "and". The second clause is there, however, because the first clause does NOT mean interfering with religion, but with religion interfering with the law.

Your own misunderstanding of grammar aside, what you are trying to say is that there should be no such thing as religious ideas entering into government.

Thats false.

The fact remains, people in government have the right to be either religious or non religious, as long as they dont push he ACTUAL religion into law.

In other words, there may not be a "common" religion, as a law. However, the freedom of speech is in place so that the people may write their congressmen, their mayors, their governor, their President, and let them know what THEY want. When a bill is introduced, also, the people we VOTE for, due to them standing for the same values we stand for, whether those values be religious or not, then vote FOR us, as a representative of us, the people.

WE are the government. In the USA, there is no such thing as "governed". This is a free democracy, where voting for representatives is how laws get passed.

How can a law get passed? Well, first it has to be pre approved by the majority of the house of REPRESENTATIVES. This is the introduction. Remember, these are the people who represent US, OUR VIEWS, OUR VALUES. Anyone can write up a bill, though. When a citizen wants to write up a bill, it often takes thousands of signatures on a petition from other citizens, showing a major interest in the law to even have it introduced, or pre approved, so to speak. Then, There is a big vote cast, and if the majority approves, the bill is passed.

In other words:

No matter what the background reason is for a law to be made, and as long as it is not a law that will establish a common religion, any law can really be passed, even if YOU think it has some sort of "religious agenda" in it. As long as no religion is mentioned, and no religion forced, there is nothing wrong with instilling values and morality into law.

Values and morality is not the same thing as religion, anyway. I really dont know where youre coming up with this stuff, dude.

[Sailor Moon]

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: No I am sorry, thats not what it says. It says no laws can manifest a religion.
Sorry, but I'm confused. Either you're agreeing with me or that was a typo.

Sailor Moon wrote: There is no way that I am going to PAY for someone elses abortion. It goes COMPLETELY against my religion.
Maybe you can quote the Bible for me, but I have never really understood why Jesus is against abortion. Also, tax money going to abortion does not cost you more, but subtracts very slightly from other government programs. Whether abortion is legal or not, it raises your taxes nothing. The budget and tax hikes/cuts are seperate things.

If assisted abortion is against God's word (which I have never heard a good reason to believe), then inducing a miscarriage should be also. The only explanations for them not both being completely against God's will are that neither is, or that assisted abortion is unChristian because of sophistry. Forgive my saying this, but I will never worship Leviticus.

WOW. 1- Just because it doesnt RAISE my taxes doesnt mean I WANT my tax money paying for abortions!!! :shock:

2- Here, Go look at your Bible, if you really are interested:

See the 6th Commandment, first. "Thou shalt not kill".

Samuel 2:6 The LORD killeth, and maketh alive, he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. ..

Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Genesis 9:1-6 "And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

KILL: (HEB - verb) -Ratsach "to kill, murder or slay... human being"

I Cor 6:19 "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? "

Matthew 5:39-45 "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. "

Matthew 5:21-26 "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing."

Matthew 5:43-48 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

Isaiah 44:2 "Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, [which] will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen."

LISTEN TO ISAIAH ==> Isaiah 49:1 "Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. "

(medical emergencys supercede the 6th commandment)

Romans 12:15-19 "Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. [Be] of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits. Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."

Ephesians 4:32 "And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you."

AND THEN SOME MORE RELATING TO ABORTION DIRECTLY:

Not even the original sin takes away the image of God in human beings. St. James refers to this image and says that because of it we should not even speak ill of one another. "With [the tongue] we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings who are made in the image of God . . . This ought not be so, brothers" (James 3:9-10)

At the heart of the abortion tragedy is the question raised in the Psalms: "Lord, what is man that you care for him, mortal man that you keep him in mind? . . . With glory and honor you crowned him, giving him power over the works of your hands" (Psalm 8:5-7).

God commanded our first parents to "Be fertile and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). Why? God Himself is fertile. Love always overflows into life. When the first mother brought forth the first child, she exclaimed, "I have brought forth a man with the help of the Lord" (Genesis 4:1). The help of the Lord is essential, for He has dominion over human life and is its origin. Parents cooperate with God in bringing forth life. Because this whole process is under God’s dominion, it is sinful to interrupt it. The prophet Amos condemns the Ammonites "because they ripped open expectant mothers in Gilead" (Amos 1:13).

Truly children are a gift from the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward" (Psalm 127:3).

God knows the preborn child. "You knit me in my mother’s womb . . . nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret" (Psalm 139:13,15). God also helps and calls the preborn child. "You have been my guide since I was first formed . . . from my mother’s womb you are my God" (Psalm 22:10-11). "God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace" (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15).

The killing of children is especially condemned by God through the prophets. In the land God gave his people to occupy, foreign nations had the custom of sacrificing some of their children in fire. God told His people that they were not to share in this sin. They did, however, as Psalm 106 relates: "They mingled with the nations and learned their works…They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons, and they shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, desecrating the land with bloodshed" (Psalm 106:35, 37-38).

"They mutilated their sons and daughters by fire…till the Lord, in his great anger against Israel, put them away out of his sight" (2 Kings 17:17-18).

"Justice shall flower in his days…for he shall rescue the poor man when he cries out and the afflicted when he has no one to help him" (Psalms 72:7,12). Jesus Christ is our justice (1 Corinthians 1:30) because He rescued us from sin and death when we had none to help us (see Romans 5:6, Ephesians 2:4-5).

"Be merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful" (Luke 6:36). "Go and do likewise" (Luke 10:37). "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" (Matthew 7:12). "Love one another" (John 15:17).


Trample my courts no more! Bring no more worthless offerings…Your festivals I detest…When you spread out your hands, I close my eyes to you; though you pray the more, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood! Wash yourselves clean…learn to do good. Make justice your aim: redress the wronged, hear the orphan’s plea, defend the widow" (Isaiah 1:13-17).

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave or free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).

We can likewise say, "There is neither born nor unborn."


"This is the message you have heard from the beginning: we should love one another, unlike Cain who belonged to the evil one and slaughtered his brother" (1 John 3:11-12)

If someone…sees a brother in need and refuses him compassion, how can the love of God remain in Him?" (1 John 3:17).

Abortion is death. Christ came to conquer death, and therefore abortion. "I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full" (John 10:10).

The final outcome of the battle for life has already been decided by the Resurrection of Christ. We are not just working for victory; we are working from victory. We joyfully take a victory that has already been won, and proclaim, celebrate, and serve it until He comes again to bring it to its fullness. "There shall be no more death" (Revelation 21:4). "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!" (Revelation 22:20).

[Gilbert1908]

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego wrote: No, you're wrong. About everything.

#1 Respecting is not a transitive verb

#2 For your theory to be correct, there would not be a comma between the two religious clauses

#3 Every other item on that list is a direct object of its own, SEPERATE verb

For that to be the case, the amendment would need to be rewritable as: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Congress shall make no law respecting prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Congress shall make no law respecting abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

As you can see, (or perhaps you can't, considering the remarkably simple understanding of english you have so far demonstrated) it cannot be rewritten as such, and therefore your claim is false and unfounded. If "respecting an establishment of religion" meant limiting the right to practice religion, then the second clause would be very redundant, something obviously false by the use of "or" rather than "and". The second clause is there, however, because the first clause does NOT mean interfering with religion, but with religion interfering with the law.

Try not to personalize what is otherwise a reasonable discussion, I assure you my grasp of english, while not perfect is enough to make it through a logical and reasonable conversation.

If respecting is not a transitive verb then correct me please I am not averse to learning.

In any case even if you are right, I still fail to see how Congress's inability to make laws establishing religion has anything at all to do with religious people establishing laws.

There is simply no prohibition what so ever for a Catholic priest seeking to prohibit the sale of liquor on Sunday to propose and pass such a law.

And in fact such a law exists here in liberal MA and such laws are perfectly constitutional.

While no one has it would perfectly constitutional for a Muslim to propose to make alcohol illegal, his motivation is not the issue. If the resulting legislation were constitutional then the law would be adopted.

There is NO prohibition on the motivation or the origination of legislation only its constitutionality.

[tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego]

You're right, Gilbert. I've let my annoyance at Sailor Moon's thick headedness run away with me.

Your example is different in that it has much less relevance in the lives of who it affects. A ban on abortion forces pregnant women to carry a child to a full pregnancy, whether or not she can then find a family to adopt it does not relieve the 9 months she would not otherwise be forced to devote to that child. If there were other alternatives, the debate over abortion would not nearly be so fierce, because at the same time as being a ban on abortion it is a requirement for an unwilling mother to have a child. The abortion argument exists on many more levels than liquor sales.

If a law were suggested that force all people to drink liquor on a sunday because of a religion requiring its followers to do so, that law would be rightly unconstitutional, because the not drinking of liquor by those who would not support the law does not affect the drinkers in any way.

Also, the liquor law on sundays is one of countless inhereted laws from the days of the puritans. Massachusetts has hundreds of laws that, if they were passed before the constitution came into affect and if each were pulled out and examined, many would be ruled unconstitutional.

[Sailor Moon]

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego wrote: You're right, Gilbert. I've let my annoyance at Sailor Moon's thick headedness run away with me.

Reported.
Quote:
Your example is different in that it has much less relevance in the lives of who it affects. A ban on abortion forces pregnant women to carry a child to a full pregnancy, whether or not she can then find a family to adopt it does not relieve the 9 months she would not otherwise be forced to devote to that child.

Actually, since she isnt forced to conceive the child, she isnt forced to carry it. And this has nothing to do with religion, either. What kind of religion actually disallows pregnancy from occurring to childbirth? I know of none. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
Quote:
If there were other alternatives, the debate over abortion would not nearly be so fierce, because at the same time as being a ban on abortion it is a requirement for an unwilling mother to have a child. The abortion argument exists on many more levels than liquor sales.

Consider the opposite.. the unwillingness of being killed, in pertinence to the child's best interests. How many religions do you know of that require the killing of unborn children? Born children? Where is the religious relevance to a ban on abortion?

Quote: If a law were suggested that force all people to drink liquor on a sunday because of a religion requiring its followers to do so, that law would be rightly unconstitutional, because the not drinking of liquor by those who would not support the law does not affect the drinkers in any way.

Just like the legalization of abortion is forcing people to pay for medicaid funded abortions. Unconstitutional.

quote]Also, the liquor law on sundays is one of countless inhereted laws from the days of the puritans. Massachusetts has hundreds of laws that, if they were passed before the constitution came into affect and if each were pulled out and examined, many would be ruled unconstitutional.[/quote]

Even though slavery was considered constitutional, segregation, also.. The Supreme Court doesnt always rule in favor of human rights, as I am sure you are aware of.

[Gilbert1908]

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego wrote: You're right, Gilbert. I've let my annoyance at Sailor Moon's thick headedness run away with me.

Your example is different in that it has much less relevance in the lives of who it affects. A ban on abortion forces pregnant women to carry a child to a full pregnancy, whether or not she can then find a family to adopt it does not relieve the 9 months she would not otherwise be forced to devote to that child. If there were other alternatives, the debate over abortion would not nearly be so fierce, because at the same time as being a ban on abortion it is a requirement for an unwilling mother to have a child. The abortion argument exists on many more levels than liquor sales.

If a law were suggested that force all people to drink liquor on a sunday because of a religion requiring its followers to do so, that law would be rightly unconstitutional, because the not drinking of liquor by those who would not support the law does not affect the drinkers in any way.

Also, the liquor law on sundays is one of countless inhereted laws from the days of the puritans. Massachusetts has hundreds of laws that, if they were passed before the constitution came into affect and if each were pulled out and examined, many would be ruled unconstitutional.

You missed my point.

The issue is not what the motivation of the law is, the issue is whether the law is constitutional

It does not matter who or why a law is initiated, it only matters whether is constitutional.

input is not the issue only output.