Illogical enough to keep you posting. I can see why liberals bash you crazies on here. And I didn't denigrate religion....I denigrated those that think their religion is the absolute for everyone. America is an umbrella. We should all be protected. PEOPLE not corporations. Americans not JUST CHRISTIANS.
Treachery abound???
- Thread starter Boomboom521
- Start date
Religion had nothing to do with your debate. You're the one that brought it up
"Trumps going to appoint two or more to SCOTUS, so be prepared for more smarter people...." you said some BS like that. You expect me to believe your joy over Trump getting to name judges to the court had NOTHING to do with your religion?? BS! Oh wait....I should say....you're intellectually dishonest.
You are really, really reaching. I mentioned Scotus because they legalized citizens United. I mentioned Scotus because of Trump will nominate two or more justices in all likelihood. You were the one that brought up religion, not me. I am done with you tonight.
Most of us that are excited at the prospect of the GOP picking the next court is because he says he is going to select originalists, that doesn't mean religion. It says a return to the intentions of the Constitution and not a 21st century interpretation, at least to me, anyway. And in my opinion, that would actually mean less religious involvement. I'm personally not religious at all, I lost my faith in 03 and I can't stand the crazy religious component of my party.
I think people concerned about Roe v Wade and Same sex marriage have been fear mongered by the left. They won't be challenged, nor will they be overturned. In the same vane, churches will not be required to violate their faith and beliefs either.
I hope that's true. Although I believe interpretation of the constitution was meant to be a more open and adaptive undertaking, I like the moderate conservatives. Kennedy is a great legal mind, and though we might not agree on everything, he is of the American mind. The thought of overturning Gay marriage or Roe is terrifying to women, men with daughters, homosexuals, and really anyone with a true American mindset. Trump said he would appoint judges that would overturn Roe, and it's a big reason why many feel devastated in the wake of his victory. Most of those of the Christian faith are happy because they feel their crusade against us non-believing hethens that are trying to ruin their America are going to be denied our American rights as guaranteed by the constitution. If you are not right, it will be a sad day to watch our beautiful nation jump backwards into the dark, judgemental recess of absolutism.
I hope we can get back to reasonable debate. I know that I will stop any name calling. If I did so yesterday, apologize. I get carried away from time.
There are two schools of thought on SCOTUS. The first is generally called originalism (many conservatives championed by Scalia) It holds that the Founders original intent is paramount. If society, through (Congress or Senate) want to create a law that violates that original intent, they must follow the prescripts provided by the constitution. Either a Constitutional Amendment or a writing of a law that passes Constitutional muster.
The other school of thought (mostly liberal) is that the Constitution is a living document and must change with the times. Therefore gay marriage can be created as new law even though the Founders would never have countenanced it in the Constitution. The same with abortion.
Personally, I am a man of the law. I feel originalism is correct. The Founders set up these checks and balances for a reason. They did not want an all powerful executive branch, so they created a check on that branch with Congress. The Founders did not want an extremely powerful judicial branch creating new law, first because they are unelected and unbeholding to the people (that is the job of Congress), so they gave Congress mechanisms for ridding the Courts of those that violate their oaths. Impeachment.
The Founders wanted Congress to initiate laws, the President to sign and execute the laws and the Courts to weigh in on questions of Constitutionality. The Founders felt the Congress was closer to the people and thus the law would be more representative of the people's will. I do not believe the Courts should be in the business of creating new law out of whole cloth because that forces the people (their representatives) to accept laws without representation.
Curiously, one of the courts most liberal, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, feels strongly that SCOTUS guaranteeing the right to an abortion was wrongly decided. She not only felt it was decided on weak grounds, but that the people would eventually have come around on its legality. Thus, 60 years of fighting amongst the people would have been avoided. The people themselves would have spoken.
I'll apologize as well.
No one can argue against the beauty of our governments system of checks and balances, it was beautifully designed. I personally do believe the constitution to be living and adaptive. You outlined how very well. However, even after the 13th and 14th amendments, we still needed Brown to overcome segregation. That ruling in turn led to the Civil Rights Act. So, sometime the court acts as not only an interpreter of the constitution, it has to articulate the essence of the constitution as how it pertains to events or questions of the times. The forefathers knew, in my opinion, that slavery would have to be addressed in this gradual manner....pursued through the years by each branch.
So in modern times, the court becomes so much more important. Members of congress will fail to move legislation that flies in the face of Christian religious ideology. The court has done its job on most counts, in my opinion, and has protected the rights of Americans. But seeking appointments to the court with the sentiment of overturning established court rulings....which is the goal of some of the Christian community, and confirmed by Trump in the final debate....is minimizing the powerful check of the court.
As to the court simply applying pressure to Congress to adapt the constitution in order for law to be accepted by the court, again I agree, but this is a congress of special interests and career politicians that are not seeking to represent the will of the people in most cases....but rather the money that ensures reelection. Minority groups such as homosexuals or non Christians are not represented, and so rely on the court to protect their interests. That is where a more open interpretation of the constitution is needed....such as with the Brown ruling.
I would respectfully argue that is not the role of the court. The courts jobs is not to make law. In fact, the Founders strictly forbid it. They knew the courts would wreck havoc since they are not elected and therefore subject to the will of the people. If the Constitution needs to be changed, we need to use the Founder's methods, either amend the Constitution (which has been done many times) or pass laws that pass Constitutional muster.
But if the courts create law without the consent of the people and the people have no recourse (they can't vote judges out of office), then our legal system begins to decay. People lose confidence. And chaos ensues as it has with abortion and gay marriage.
The Constitution has an equal protection clause. That should ensure equal treatment of all. The Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator. In other words, no man can overturn God's law and change the fact that all men are created equal. This is a critical point. Man cannot take away equality because the Constitution says the the right to do so, does not belong to man. Slavery was widely used at the time of the writing of the Constitution. I think the Founders went as far as they could go to still get it ratified. But they left us with mechanisms to eventually change it (regarding slavery) and we did. And it cost us over 250,000 lives to do so.
I am most thrilled about the Trump victory because we will get back to the original reading of the Constitution. If we want change, use our elected officials. That is the way it was designed. We are a nation of laws and if the people lose confidence that the laws are applied fairly to all of us (rich and poor), we begin to lose our nation, imo.
But if the courts create law without the consent of the people and the people have no recourse (they can't vote judges out of office), then our legal system begins to decay. People lose confidence. And chaos ensues as it has with abortion and gay marriage.
The Constitution has an equal protection clause. That should ensure equal treatment of all. The Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator. In other words, no man can overturn God's law and change the fact that all men are created equal. This is a critical point. Man cannot take away equality because the Constitution says the the right to do so, does not belong to man. Slavery was widely used at the time of the writing of the Constitution. I think the Founders went as far as they could go to still get it ratified. But they left us with mechanisms to eventually change it (regarding slavery) and we did. And it cost us over 250,000 lives to do so.
I am most thrilled about the Trump victory because we will get back to the original reading of the Constitution. If we want change, use our elected officials. That is the way it was designed. We are a nation of laws and if the people lose confidence that the laws are applied fairly to all of us (rich and poor), we begin to lose our nation, imo.
Again I agree, but there are times when the court must ensure individual rights as outlined in the constitution. Brown was a ruling on segregation (not specifically mentioned in law but the conditions it created were prohibited by the amendments). I am a believer in energy not religion, but I am a minority in that belief. Again, I think the court has filled its requirement to Democracy it this regard. However, that could change real quick. Not saying this is right, but let me ask you: do you have faith that congress has ensuring democracy for all and preserving the essence of America at the top of their priority list? Or are they following the money?
The recent Religious Freedom Restoration Act in my opinion is a perfect example. This Act basically allows discrimination. I feel the Act is aggressively an attempt by congress to alter the equal protection clause of the constitution in order to accommodate individual religious ideology. If that was a basis for allowing southern white religious extremists from extending equal rights to African Americans, it would be struck down by the courts. This calls for the court to protect the rights of homosexuals, transsexuals and non believers.
Can you elaborate on this thought a little? You already mentioned that you thought it move to less religious interpretations, but this comment stuck out to me.
The way I look at the Constitution and the men that wrote it and set up our government is precisely so it COULD evolve as times changed. Interpretations of aspects of it are naturally going to change with circumstances. Mostly I think I'm just missing your point though.
My comments were mostly with the 2nd amendment in mind. I say the continued move away from the religious component because we do have to keep all faiths in mind today regardless of our country being founded in the moral principles of Christianity. They were very clear in a separation between church and state and I agree with all of the rulings that have thus far been handed down in that regard. With that said, if it pivoted to forcing churches to conduct marriages that would violate their faith based on discrimination principles, I'd have a problem with that as religious freedom extends to those who are religious as well not just to those who aren't.
If Congress passes a law that law can always be contested in court. Then the court decides its Constitutionality. That is how the system was designed. Also, Congress gets elected every 2 years. The Founders wanted Congress to be closest to the people. If they screw up, The Founders wanted the people the chance to get them out of office quickly. At the ballot box.
Money affects both sides of the aisle. Hillary, for example, had much more big money than Trump. She still lost.
I have a far different take. I think everyone should be treated equally. However, we have a First Amendment that guarantees religious liberty. The absolute freedom to worship as one pleases. If a business refuses to serve a customer because of their sexual orientation, that is covered under existing law and is illegal. But if an religious artist refuses to cover a gay marriage ceremony due to religious beliefs, whose rights to you violate? The artists? Those getting married? The courts have already ruled that businesses with religious mores have religious rights and can therefore not be coerced to provide services that violate their beliefs (e.g. Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor).
Should an Arab baker be required to bake a cake extolling the extermination of Mohammed? Should an Arab butcher be required to cut up a pork brought by a customer if he does so for other customers? Should a Jew be required to bake a cake extolling Hitler? Should a Christian shirt maker be forced to make a shirt claiming Jesus is a fraud?
The law is in frequent conflict. One person's rights against another. Let me give you another example. My daughter is a senior at athlete at College, she has been instructed that men (that identify as women) can both shower and use the same locker rooms as her. What about her rights to privacy?
Certainly a shower is a place where privacy is expected. Who's rights win?
That is the role of the courts to decide these big issues. I think this is why you see these Religious Liberty laws being considered. To set the boundaries of what is legal and what is not.
OK, I thought that's probably what you meant, but wanted to ask first. As far as that's concerned, there would have been no way for them to know what kinds of things would eventually be developed. When it was written, the standard house had roughly the same weapons as the military. I'm absolutely for the 2nd amendment as well, so don't misinterpret. (this has been covered enough here that I don't think you would ... but somebody else might)
As for your last point ... I agree completely. I was very vocal in my support of gay marriage and gay rights in general ... but would be just as vocal if churches were forced to perform the ceremonies. That's something that we simply cannot allow to happen.
Would you be opposed to requiring the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide contraceptives? Religion, after all, exists outside the walls of the church? Would you require Catholic Churches to perform abortions?
Very good points. However, my rights to privacy can be violated by our government under current legislation. The transsexual bathroom issue makes me sad that the court even wastes time on it. There is more discomfort in a men's shower when a mtf transsexual is in there, than in a woman's shower I'd imagine. None the less, it's a tricky issue, that requires social understanding, tolerance, and acceptance on all fronts. I don't think the court can dictate that acceptance, and a right to use public bathrooms isn't infringed to begin with in those situations.
But the court is a body of great legal minds, and their role is to not only interpret the law...but to also set a precedent. Precedent is not law, but has s substantial impact on legal issues and on the legislative process
I do disagree. My daughter is mortified and feels extraordinarily uncomfortable and even violated taking a shower with a male (the male does not have to even prove they identify as a woman. His word is all he needs). The courts have ruled that a privacy right exists. Does she not deserve privacy in this setting? Why does one person's right supersede hers? Obama has already ruled out separate showers for high schools (not for colleges yet, but I suspect that is coming).
He just said he would be. So would I and additionally, I'm not religious at all and was a very big proponent of gay marriage and equality. Churches deserve their religious liberty as well....to a point. That point is right up to causing bodily harm to another individual as part of their belief system, I.e. Certain components of Sharia law.
You can't be serious. There are some fine looking trannies out there these days and I'll welcome them in the shower.
I am for equality but not gay marriage. I don't believe society is served by changing the definition of marriage. I am all in favor of gay partners being able to have the rights of married partners, just not marriage. But I am neither a homophobe or bigot as many on the left would tar me.
The use of this kind of slander (being labeled a racist or bigot) is intended to stifle debate. It shuts down legitimate discussion.
I have two daughters, so I get it. I'm just saying, the alternative could be worse in some cases....better in others. It needs social discussion, tolerance and acceptance....not a court ruling and certainly not ridicule to make it a tolerable situation for everyone
Marriage in some areas of the world is tantamount to slavery. What is so wrong with gay marriage?
My suggestion, keep the government out of it. Let the states and individual institutions decide. They are closer to the situation. The Founders wanted to states to have enormous power, in fact all power not specifically delegated to the Federal Government.
Some colleges and their students may want to allow them to shower together. Others may not. Then we as parents can decide where we send out kids and our kids can decide if they want to go there.
I agree that no court ruling is going to settle this issue. Let those closest to those involved decide.
First of all, as you know, I am religious. I believe in God's word that marriage is between a man and a woman. Secondly, the courts have changed the definition of marriage by making new law. They have opened the doors to other types of marriages such as polygamy, or intrafamily marriages. I can think of many other options as well. I am in favor of civil unions giving gay people all the rights of married people. Just not marriage.
SCOTUS is not good at making law. Congress/States can set firm boundaries. SCOTUS can't. States can legalize gay marriage and ONLY gay marriage. This would mean that any other type of marriage is illegal. SCOTUS rulings are broad and open to future interpretation.
Polygamy is fine by me. I wouldn't want it or accept it, but that's the point.....like it or not America is about liberty, not just for Christians. Intrafamily marriages have been allowed on some scale for a long time (the Roosevelts for example). There is a line to be sure...someone marrying a set of golf clubs to claim them as a dependent for example. But religious ideology shouldn't define law. And law shouldn't force changes to religious ideology....unless it infringes on another's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.
Marriage in general was a religious institution long before government decided to get involved and tax it. Government moved in, and now redefines it, for both itself and religion.
Proper constitutional action is for government to define its own word, civil union, however it so desires, taxes civil unions, and gets out of the marriage business altogether.
Actually, marriage is an ancient institution that predates written history and organized religion. It was used in pagan religious ceremony, and used as a civil institution to define allegiances as well.
As long as the argument isn't just an effort by the Christian majority to control definitions of accepted love versus unions not accepted by their god.....I don't care if we call it civil union, although it's hard to imagine someone stating they just got unioned
Well get ready because when courts decide law, they leave aopen all sorts of possibilities. That's why the founders decidedly were against the court creating law.
And by the way, Christians actually practiced polygamy just in case you were wondering.
There are many churches that do gay marriage. I think the point is for the Gov't to not recognize any "union" as marriage as it's a religious institution. Ceremony or not, just go pay your tax and you've been legally joined.
I didn't state where it originated from, irrelevant to the discussion. It was first annotated by Catholicism due to polygamy within church members. It was defined in the Bible. Both of those long pre-date the good ol' US of A. Those are the only variables necessary.
If it predates the Bible too, how can you claim that the Bible defined it for everybody?
thank you! Sometimes I feel like I can't articulate my thoughts on a post ....even though I'm sure I did
And this is what I speak of when mentioning religious absolutism. Christianity and the holy bible isn't the ALL encompassing truth to existence you think it is.....it's a part of a reglious doctrine practiced by a large amount of people in the world. The Bible isn't the guide to righteousness and truth for everyone in America. Marriage is a term used to define a lifelong commitment between people. It's no more christian than prayer.
I respect what you're saying but as a Christian I could not disagree more. But that is why I am a Christian and you are not. Beauty of this country is that there is room for everyone.
Ummm, what? You're not making any sense, in particular telling me my thoughts. The US government hijacked the term marriage, taxed it, and now redefined it.