Church and state are supposed to be seperate, but maney people have been using riligion as a political tool. For example, I saw an anti-abortion thing were a woman said "This is a Christian nation Mr. President!". It may also happen on a smaller scale that you may not even know, some small riligios value that effects your voting. Also, a few mounths ago an aithiest was bieng sewed and such for bieng an aithiest... And in another recent thread (Misscariage the ultimate crime?) Morman values got in the way of logical voting. So, in conclushion, are church and state truely seperate?
Constitutional law forbids new laws being formed out of any religious belief. That being said, it is impossible for a written law to alter one's views about particular political issues, like abortion, especially if that person has a religious viewpoint. We can forbid laws such as "all men and women must attend a religious congregation every Sunday at 10:00 AM", but cannot forcefully change one's religious perspectives. There are legislators that have religious backgrounds; we can't do a thing about it; it's their right.
Also, a few mounths ago an aithiest was bieng sewed and such for bieng an aithiest...
Linkie pwease...
And in another recent thread (Misscariage the ultimate crime?) Morman values got in the way of logical voting
The legislators who thought up this horse**** probably WERE Morman and took 30 seconds to make it, because there were so many complications wrong with the proposal. I don't know whether to feel pity or feel laughter for Utah for electing those people.
If only. Religion and state should be seperate things, religious people should keep their religion to theirselves. But that's unfortunatly not the way it works.
Church and state should be separate, but unfortunately usually are not. Religion is a personal thing if you want you believe, so you cannot force anybody to follow a certain religion or not to.
James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and our other "founding fathers" were very concerned about America becoming another England where, at that time, the monarchy ruled.
Whatever the religion the king professed was the "law of the Land". Everybody last year was Catholic but now we have a new king/queen who is Protestant. So everyone was literally obeying the king to "save their necks".
George Washington chose not to be king, which to me is very profound. Also, the "founding fathers" were fed up with tyranny and never wanted to go through that again.
James Madison fought hard for our "Bill of Rights" who, was a very quiet spoken man that George Washington stood "head and shoulders" above.
They worded our "constitution" in such a way, which was patterned after the "Magna Carta", that amendments to the constitution require a two-thirds vote of approval in each chamber of congress and then be directly sent to the states for ratification. Only when congress has adjourned, preventing the return of a bill, does the president have the right to "ocket veto" it, withholding his signature. The bill doesn't become law and secondly, congress doesn't have the opportunity or constitutional authority to override it.
I would be very wary of any present/future president who says things like, ...our constitution is old fashioned... needs to be updated... some of the wording/rhetoric is out of touch with todays society, etc.
How many times has Dxxxx Dkkk, just to name one, tried to be elected; as president, senator, governor of Louisianna, he doesn't care how he worms his way to the constitution. He wont rest until he spews his hate to every state of the union. If, we the people do our job with electing the most honest polititians, taking the time to screen them as well as we do doctors, before we see them. Better yet, when we shop for a car, we have to do a "title search", plus you want to see under the hood, etc. Well, this is how tough we the people need to be to make congress understand that we want all of our GOD given rights.
You know it's kinda funny... The seperation of Church and State was first mentioned in a letter from Thomas Jefferson (I think, pretty sure) to someone in a local church, of whom the goverment was overpricing taxes just because they we're a church. So it was actually intended to keep the goverment out of the church's busness, not the other way around.
I think there should be a greater separation of church and state.
The people should have the right to vote however they wish regardless of if that vote is religiously motivated or not. However the laws themselves they are voting on should not be religiously motivated in there creation as they often are.
We should remove "In God We Trust" from the currency. It has no business being there in the first place.
Swearing on a Bible in courts should be removed. You can opt to take a different oath if your not of ant faith but the non denominational non religious swearing should be the standard not the other way around. Also by having it the way we do it can make those who are not Christian look bad in court because of the juries religious bias.
We should remove "under God" from the pledge. It was only later added in anyway because a bunch of religious people pushed for it.
Nope, he didn't, actually. -Separation. -Affect Yes, church and state are intended to be separate, but religion does affect voting. However, voting based on one's own opinion, influenced as it is by religion, is fine.
We should remove "under God" from the pledge. It was only later added in anyway because a bunch of religious people pushed for it.
I thought they put in there during the Red Scare. Because most Communist countries are Atheist, They thought they could combat Communism by including "under God".
Bias and religion do get in the way of making good laws. Look at Gay Marriage or Abortion. Religious biases get in the way of helping people.
It reminds me of a coin that needs to have a certain sentence taken out.
Because most Communist countries are Atheist
Oooh, I don't feel good about this one... Is the Red Scare still working its magic?
Swearing on a Bible in courts should be removed. You can opt to take a different oath if your not of ant faith but the non denominational non religious swearing should be the standard not the other way around. Also by having it the way we do it can make those who are not Christian look bad in court because of the juries religious bias.
There is just "under oath" as in if you lie to the court, you are held in contempt of court. I don't think using the Bible to act as a tool of malevolence works anymore. The court needs a system that can apply to all beliefs, which is just "under oath"-- tell the truth and nothing but the truth. The reason why they put that there so that the court doesn't take as much time to sort through what's fact and what's not. Lying under oath really kills your credibility rating, and doesn't make you a reliable witness.
Church and state are supposed to be seperate, but maney people have been using riligion as a political tool. For example, I saw an anti-abortion thing were a woman said "This is a Christian nation Mr. President!".
Well, I don't believe in this separation, but this nation was founded upon Christian principles, and I don't believe in Obama at all, and abortion is going to make mainly white people(No that is not racist.) and basically Americans a major minority. And religion does affect voting because is someone is a Christian(Like me) they are against that and those policies so they, of course, will vote against them, religion is about your belief, and with politics, you want to vote for the President who's policies you believe most in, so yes, it does.
There is just "under oath" as in if you lie to the court, you are held in contempt of court. I don't think using the Bible to act as a tool of malevolence works anymore. The court needs a system that can apply to all beliefs, which is just "under oath"-- tell the truth and nothing but the truth. The reason why they put that there so that the court doesn't take as much time to sort through what's fact and what's not. Lying under oath really kills your credibility rating, and doesn't make you a reliable witness.
I wasn't saying taking the oath out all together just the religious aspects of it.
And in another recent thread (Misscariage the ultimate crime?) Morman values got in the way of logical voting
this law is so misunderstood, it says that a woman cannot knowingly put her self in an extremely dangerous situation that results in her child's death, so this law is brought by a woman who paid a guy to beat her to kill the baby, luckily the babe lived.
