Moore's Bill likely to Pass

It seems Moore's bill concerning god in government is likely to pass. Courts might soon be restricted from reviewing certain cases.

...and an interesting view of it, here . I haven't been hearing too much of this in the news, so it was a bit surprising to see it sweeping through the Senate.

The Supreme Court seems likely to find the bill unconstitutional.

I'd hoped he'd just go away after they canned him.

Silly me...

"It would give back to us our religious heritage. It would stop courts from defining those terms which God alone has defined, such as marriage,"

Scary.

Everyone repeat after me..."Theocracy is bad....Theocracy is bad...Theocracy is bad..."

All Hail Nehemiah Scudder!

Originally posted by russotto
All Hail Nehemiah Scudder!

If that is a referrence to what I think it is, you read some of the right books.

"Over the years, we have seen a disturbing and growing trend in our federal courts to deny the rights of our states and our citizens to acknowledge God openly and freely."


(Perhaps, but these people only want it to be legal for those who believe as THEY do to be able to acknowledge God "openly and freely.")


"Foundation for Moral Law"

(One does not have to be religious to be moral. In fact, morality has little to do with most practiced religious viewpoints)


"What these bills would actually do is restore our Constitution to its fundamental basis of God. It would restore the right of people and children to pray at school before their lunches, restore the right of public officials to acknowledge God," Moore said.

(What about the rights of people to be free of religion? What about the rights of pagans to pray to whomever they worship? Apparantly these people have not heard of the idea of separation of church and state, nor do they remember the reason for it)

I hope Moore runs against Bush for president. It would serve both of them right.

Originally posted by Shattered Soul
"What these bills would actually do is restore our Constitution to its fundamental basis of God. It would restore the right of people and children to pray at school before their lunches, restore the right of public officials to acknowledge God," Moore said.

(What about the rights of people to be free of religion? What about the rights of pagans to pray to whomever they worship? Apparantly these people have not heard of the idea of separation of church and state, nor do they remember the reason for it)

Apparently this monkey has never read any Thomas Jefferson.

"From the dissensions among Sects themselves arise necessarily a right of choosing and necessity of deliberating to which we will conform. But if we choose for ourselves, we must allow others to choose also, and so reciprocally, this establishes religious liberty." --Thomas Jefferson-- Notes on Religion, 1776.


"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." --Thomas Jefferson 1798.


"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another." --Thomas Jefferson 1799.


"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson 1802.


"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson 1808.


"[The] best principles [of our republic] secure to all its citizens a perfect equality of rights." --Thomas Jefferson 1809.


"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." --Thomas Jefferson 1814.


"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson, "Political Economy," 1816.




That's from only one of the books of Jefferson's writings I have, and these are just the quotes that apply to the subject at hand. :p

Have a nice day.

Thomas Jefferson...? Bah! Satanist! Slacker! Pervert!

What that man needed was a good dose of Jesus, let me tell you!

In Jefferson's time they assumed you were a Christian or you weren't, your choice and no matter to the government. Unless you were one of them dirty heathens and the government had definite plans for you, Tonto.;)

Originally posted by Elspode
Thomas Jefferson...? Bah! Satanist! Slacker! Pervert!

What that man needed was a good dose of Jesus, let me tell you!

While you're casting aspersions don't forget slave owner...

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
In Jefferson's time they assumed you were a Christian or you weren't, your choice and no matter to the government. Unless you were one of them dirty heathens and the government had definite plans for you, Tonto.;)

Jefferson could only do so much, and considering your point he must have been a great source of conflict. He probably walked around in a pool of discontented people leaving a trail of destruction in his wake.

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
In Jefferson's time they assumed you were a Christian or you weren't, your choice and no matter to the government. Unless you were one of them dirty heathens and the government had definite plans for you, Tonto.;)

While true, the words themselves, as applicable today, do not necessarily have to be taken to mean christian or non-christian. Them dirty heathens own all the casinos now, and they vote. Whether the politicians like 'em or not, they like the votes that keep them in office.

If a politician were going to use Jefferson as a reference, then to say he meant "Christian" would show a religious bias, which I don't think any politicain is on good enough footing to do. It's one thing for them to say, "I am a Christian, and proud of it." It's quite another for them to say, "I'm a Christian, and whether you are or not, we're going to make sure you have to be exposed to our religion in school, public places, and ball games (incidentally, I don't think God really cares who wins. It's my personal opinion--and I could be wrong--that ability might very well be a factor).

Church is for religion. School, work, and public places aren't. I'm not anti-religion. I just think it has it's place. If people want religion, they'll go TO it. It doesn't have to go to them. It's no big deal if you stand on the street corner and say, "I'm a christian," hand out tracts, and invite people to church. People can decline or walk away if they don't agree. They don't have that freedom at school or work.

I don't feel that my children should be taught, in school, a belief that I may not necessarily ascribe to. It is a parent's place to teach religious views, not the school (unless you send your children to a religious school, and then it's a moot point). I don't mind my child learning about a different religion, but I'd like them to have a grounding in our family's beliefs first. If they choose to change, or try something else once they're old enough to make an informed decision, more power to them.

But I digress...

The point is, government should not endorse any particular religion over another, and placing the ten commandments in public places, having children pray in school, and things of that sort, endorse a religion. The ten commandments belong in church; laws take care of that kind of thing in the governmental sector. And hell, kids already pray in school--right before tests. It doesn't have to be governmentally endorsed. Having the ten commandments in public view won't make people behave any better.

I think that's the main issue I have with this: that the government and religion are getting in bed together. They shouldn't. We all know politics and religion don't mix. Neither should endorse the other, and that's what's happening here. The government is not endorsing spirituality--all religions--it is endorsing a single religion over all others, and it's going to blow up in SOMEONE'S face.

Soul, do you feel "In God We Trust" is endorsing a particular religion or just the ten commandments?

I don't think it's going anywhere. The Supreme Court would never allow it to be ratified - that is, if they're still dedicated to preserving the Constitution. Personal opinions of God aside, it just doesn't wash.

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Soul, do you feel "In God We Trust" is endorsing a particular religion or just the ten commandments?

I always thought it was a desperate plea, added when money went fiat. ;)

Actually, based on when and why is was added, I think there is an additional line, printed under "IN GOD WE TRUST" in invisible ink: "[COLOR=silver]SO TAKE THAT, YOU COMMIES[/COLOR]"

"[The] best principles [of our republic] secure to all its citizens a perfect equality of rights." --Thomas Jefferson 1809.

[COLOR=indigo]Except to homosexuals, who cant get married, based on their gender.[/COLOR]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Soul, do you feel "In God We Trust" is endorsing a particular religion or just the ten commandments?

It obviously refers to christianity. However, I don't have a problem with that. People get all freaked out over what we have on our money, and it really makes no difference to me, as long as I have money in my pocket. They could put "wooga woooga wooga, boo boo be doo" on the money, and as long as it was spendable, I wouldn't care ;)

What we have on our money isn't forcing religion on people. Nobody really even looks at money that closely, and the only time they get up in arms about it is when someone mentions taking those words OFF the money. THEN all of the sudden, they notice.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar


[COLOR=indigo]Except to homosexuals, who cant get married, based on their gender.[/COLOR]

Yeah. Tell me about it. This is where forced religion, or governmental endorsement of religion, leads. If the endorsed religion thinks that something is a "sin," soon enough, we find that the religious supporters in government start trying to sneak in a law against it.

*rocks back and forth, hugging myself, and repeats after Elspode, "Theocracy is bad...theocracy is bad...theocracy is baaaaaad..."*

It obviously refers to christianity

Obviously? Christianity is the only religion that has a God?

Originally posted by OnyxCougar


[COLOR=indigo]Except to homosexuals, who cant get married, based on their gender.[/COLOR]

Marriage isn't a right, it's a rite. ;) (and a privilege)

Originally posted by wolf


Marriage isn't a right, it's a rite. ;) (and a privilege)

And that religious privelege should in no way impact how other people choose to observe their commitment to each other.

Originally posted by wolf
Marriage isn't a right, it's a rite. ;) (and a privilege)

Especially if it's to an anime character

If you don't like popups, don't click on that, btw.

Originally posted by Troubleshooter


And that religious privelege should in no way impact how other people choose to observe their commitment to each other.

Dammit TS, I hate it when I have to agree with you.

Soul, do you feel "In God We Trust" is endorsing a particular religion or just the ten commandments?

I always thought the money should say something in the general idea of "In The People We Trust". I have no idea what God has to do with the cash we spend.

In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]Except to homosexuals, who cant get married, based on their gender.[/COLOR]

This idea keeps circulating in this debate, but they do have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Exactly the same right as the heteros have.

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Obviously? Christianity is the only religion that has a God?

I didn't say that. But it's god with a capital G, inferring that it is the god of Christianity. Few, if any, other religions refer to their deity as "God," proper name.

Our founders were a mixture of Christians and (what would've been, in the middle ages), heretical Christians. Therefore, the God they would have been referring to would be the Christian god. Otherwise, it would've said," in--Krishna/Buddha/Zeus/insert a god here--we trust"

But like I said, I don't care what's on the money, and neither does anyone else, unless you bring it up--then people turn into the most religous folks you ever saw.

If the endorsed religion thinks that something is a "sin," soon enough, we find that the religious supporters in government start trying to sneak in a law against it.

In most places this is already illegal. What irritates me is to see a constitution being abused by silly amendments. For us in Florida, the most recent fun article that was tacked on to the state constitution was that the local government must make plans and erect a high speed rail system linking Miami, Tampa, and Orlando. I tend to view the federal position in similar terms -- what business does the government have attempting to define a family unit through an amendment to the constitution? This is not the government's job and not what the constitution was intended to define.

"Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Say goodbye to domestic partner benefits if your area has them.

But this isn't an assault on homosexuals. Of course not! This is the "strengthening of the family and the father figure", something we all need. The removal of gay rights from the federal website is just a coincidence.

At least we aren't the only country experiencing the same debates.

Earlier this month, Lord's Resistance Army rebels killed about 50 people during an attack on a refugee camp north of the Ugandan capital, Kampala. The group has waged a 17-year insurgency in northern Uganda, aimed at overthrowing the government and replacing it with an administration based on the Ten Commandments of the Bible.

At least we handle things a bit more peacefully in this country, :eek:

Originally posted by slang
This idea keeps circulating in this debate, but they do have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Exactly the same right as the heteros have.

That was true for interracial marriage, and separate water fountains, too. And yet, somehow people seemed to think their rights were being trampled.

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
That was true for interracial marriage,

It just wasn't done, but was it actually illegal? Certainly I expect that more than a few states had antimiscigenation laws, but was that written into the civil marriage act?

There was a bit of a scandal in my own family, you know ... great-grandpa is rumored to have been a protestant.

Yes, it was illegal in 42 states, down to 16 by the time the Supreme Court abolished the laws. I don't know how they handled "full faith and credit". I don't know if it was part of the marriage law, or a separate law - it could have been different in different states - but I don't see what difference it would make.

It just wasn't done, but was it actually illegal? Certainly I expect that more than a few states had antimiscigenation laws, but was that written into the civil marriage act?

As proof of how quickly our country (or some parts of it) advances, know that South Carolina had a ban on interracial marriages until 1998 and Alabama didn't remove their law until late 2000.

Its even more interesting to read that nearly 40% of the votes in AL that were cast on the issue were for keeping the law on the books.