Palin needs to study the constitution

[bethzerosix]

i do so like to pick and chose... this is one of my favs.. 🙂

Matthew 22:34-40 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain
[A Public Domain Bible] [KJV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]

34But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.

35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38This is the first and great commandment.

39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

[lisagurl]

Everyone has the right to express their beliefs, even if we disagree with what is said

Yes this country is great because it allows everyone to practice their own religion and have their beliefs. Religion gives people happiness and allows them to have reason. However Government does not endorse any religion and decisions are made in a rational way based on fact. If a leader makes a decision based on their religion then they are not honoring all the other religions of the country. Therefore decisions should be based on the material world of rational thought not what a god tells the leader to do. Now religion makes for a great positive force to keep people going when the emotions are down that is great but the actions one tales needs to be rational and taken all peoples rights into consideration.

[Kaitlyn]

If a leader makes a decision based on their religion then they are not honoring all the other religions of the country. Therefore decisions should be based on the material world of rational thought not what a god tells the leader to do.

The problem for many "true believer" types is that their religion casts the world into this Manichaean conflict between Good and Evil, the Deity and the Adversary.  For those kind of believers, NOTHING trumps God's will.  If they have political power, they're literally obligated to wield it in the service of their religion - it's nothing less than a betrayal of God for them to run a secular state.  Further, accepting the validity of other religions is tantamount to promoting paganism.  I don't think you realize what you're asking of them.  The things they do when they have power - for them, that's the practice of their religion.  Asking them to make decisions on reason and secular principles is literally asking them to give up their religion.

Yes this country is great because it allows everyone to practice their own religion and have their beliefs. Religion gives people happiness and allows them to have reason.

I don't mean to pick, but I take issue with this.  I'm an atheist - does that mean I'm irrational?

Posted on: September 06, 2008, 12:10:52 PM

36Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38This is the first and great commandment.

39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

This seems clear and straightforward to you, because you approach it with a bias towards a secular, humanistic conception of "love thy neighbour".  i.e. beatings, rape, torture, and murder are bad things, not expressions of love.  You wouldn't want any of them to happen to you.

However, if you're talking about a fundamentalist, then all bets are off.  If the ultimate fate of a human soul is either bliss eternal or writhing damnation, and you're supposed to love other people as yourself, then shouldn't you make sure that people are saved?  Isn't anything you do towards that end an expression of love for your neighbor, regardless of how harsh it seems?  If loving thy neighbor requires you to save her from damnation (as it should), then there is absolutely no harm or oppression you can inflict on her that isn't justified by your ends.

[lisagurl]

Yes this country is great because it allows everyone to practice their own religion and have their beliefs. Religion gives people happiness and allows them to have reason.

I don't mean to pick, but I take issue with this.  I'm an atheist - does that mean I'm irrational?

I did not say religious people are irrational I said to use beliefs to make decisions is irrational. Beliefs include believing in no God or any dogma. There are no facts to prove it either way.

Asking them to make decisions on reason and secular principles is literally asking them to give up their religion.

No that is not true. Kennedy said he does not speak for his church and his church does not speak for him. He went to church every Sunday and many reforms such as legal abortion happened during his term.

It is asking them to keep there religious beliefs to their personal lives and carry out leadership duties without the influence of beliefs. There are many religions and non believers in this country which have the right to believe what they wish as long as it does not violate the law or other peoples rights. A leader can not decide an issue on religious terms without violating the rights of people that do not share his or hers beliefs.

[Kaitlyn]

I did not say religious people are irrational I said to use beliefs to make decisions is irrational. Beliefs include believing in no God or any dogma. There are no facts to prove it either way.

I disagree, but that's an argument for another time.

Asking them to make decisions on reason and secular principles is literally asking them to give up their religion.

No that is not true. Kennedy said he does not speak for his church and his church does not speak for him. He went to church every Sunday and many reforms such as legal abortion happened during his term.

It is asking them to keep there religious beliefs to their personal lives and carry out leadership duties without the influence of beliefs.

But what you're asking is a sinful betrayal of God for many believers - not everyone wants a secular common ground.  Your belief that people should keep their beliefs within their personal lives is abhorrent to these folks.  It's like demanding that they stop going to church.  Wielding temporal power in the name of God is an OBLIGATION of their faith.  You ARE asking them to give up their religion.  This isn't a division that can be reconciled.

Since I'm not religious myself, and I don't feel anyone's belief is automatically worthy of respect, I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade.

[lisagurl]

But what you're asking is a sinful betrayal of God for many believers

I said nothing of that kind. I said that the Constitution (law of the land) calls for a separation of Church and State. That means there will be no national religion. It forces the leaders to not favor any one or all religions or non religious dogma.

Can you not conduct a government without  dogma and respect all people's rights to believe what they please? Government laws are different than personal morals. I think you might be having difficulty understanding this concept.

[Kaitlyn]

Can you not conduct a government without  dogma and respect all people's rights to believe what they please? Government laws are different than personal morals. I think you might be having difficulty understanding this concept.

Actually, I understand the concept very well, and endorse it wholeheartedly.  What I'm saying is that not only are there people who don't accept that idea, but people whose "personal morals" are the source of that rejection.

Let's put it this way... an honest theocrat believes it's her personal, religiously inspired duty to be a theocrat.  It's a very recent, and very Western conceit that you can separate your personal code and your actions as a public official.  On a deeper level, that idea is nothing more than a stipulation IN your personal code that the common ground of government should be secular.  There are people whose personal codes don't have or respect that proviso.  You can't appeal to a sensibility they don't have.

I'd also like to be clear that I'm not issuing a blanket condemnation of religious people, as much as I dislike religion itself.  I'm just pointing out that radically religious people often don't think the way you or I do about the division of church and state, and I don't think you understand their perspective.

[lisagurl]

Then those people do not need to hold Government office or government jobs that require upholding the law.

See the title of this thread (Palin needs to study the Constitution) She needs to seriously probe her conscious to question the fact " Can she uphold the Constitution?"

[Kaitlyn]

Agreed, but the separation of church and state is not written into the Constitution or any other federal law.  The closest thing to it is the First Amendment, which is irrelevant to the executive branch, and thus Sara Palin. 

Honestly?  There's no law at all protecting Americans from a theocratic executive - nor even any legal grounds for impeaching the theocrat.

[tekla]

Agreed, but the separation of church and state is not written into the Constitution or any other federal law.  The closest thing to it is the First Amendment, which is irrelevant to the executive branch, and thus Sara Palin.

That is an incorrect reading of the Constitution, of American History, and of the law.

[Kaitlyn]

That's a literal reading of the Constitution - "Congress shall make no law".  Although America has a history of church/state separation, it's NOT a part of federal law.  If I'm wrong, I'd love for you to provide specific evidence.

[tekla]

When they wrote "Congress shall make no law" they thought that only Congress would write law in the first place.  To put it in that way, they were expressly forbidding the federal government - and all state governments also - from either advocating a religion, or prohibiting anyone from practicing religion.  The establishment refers not only to a state church, but also the preference of one religion over another. 

And, its not the only mention either, try Article 4, Section 3.

[Kaitlyn]

That may be original intent, but with both the executive and the judiciary having de facto law making power now, the only check is the interpretation of the Supremes.  Ergo, not law.

Article IV, section 3:

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but I just don't see the relevance.

[tekla]

Sorry, its 6/3 not 4/3, I've been working too much lately.  Its about the only thing that is out-right prohibited.

[Kaitlyn]

Article VI:

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

All that means is that you can't use religion as a basis for denying someone a government job.  It doesn't forbid exercising state power on behalf of a religion.

[tekla]

The State acting on behalf of a single belief (or, more to the point, a make believe) system is what the Founding Fathers called 'establishment.'   And you find very little of this nonsense before the 1960s.  Although Congress doing the Kowtow to the Knights of Columbus and putting "under god" into the Pledge, was an early starting point, what was that, early fifties, '54 or so.

[lisagurl]

Although Congress doing the Kowtow to the Knights of Columbus and putting "under god" into the Pledge, was an early starting point, what was that, early fifties, '54 or so.

It was to stand against Russia and atheist communism.

[tekla]

Yes, its a bit more complex than that, everytime the Gov gives the religious types something, its a trade for something bigger they want - in this case a nuclear weapons based military industrial complex, which many Catholics opposed.

It does not change the fact that 'under god' was not in the original pledge, does not belong there, and ought to be removed.  Good Americans do not say that part, skipping it and going from "one nation" straight to 'with liberty.'

If it were to be changed it ought to read "one nation, striving for liberty and justice for all.'