Full Version: Religion
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Religion in Politics > Religion in Politics Issues Archive
What happened to the amenment for church and state? How can a canidate run on a platform that denonces stem-cell research, pro-choice, and same sex marriage? I'm not gay, but I believe these people(Americans) have the same protection under the law as any one else. If Geo.W. can run on the platform he's not for these basic rights, to please the Jerry Falwell followers, who is next, the people with red hair, or people with blue eyes maybe,? If they want to run on these issues, because they go agains't God and the bible, why did they fire that federal judge who wanted to keep the 10 conmamemts in the state house, in Alabama I think? It seems to me, they use it when it serves their purpose, and condemn it when it does'nt. We need to make sure, religion in the furture has no place in politics. I don't want to see any President praying in church, and then returning to the whitehouse to plan to invade another country that (on his word alone) is a threat to the U.S. And if need be, we should think about even taking them to court, to have IN GOD WE TRUST taken off all our money. It's about time we started acting just like them. We have to understand that GOD is not an American. He is of all people's every where. In this country we do not live by the bible, nor the 10 conmamments. Don't we live by the Bill of Rights? Or is it the Bill of the wealthly, and dirtiest people in politics, who have sold their souls to be re-elected?
QUOTE
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
U.S. Const. Amend. 1 Cl. 1 & 2.
U.S. Const. Amend. 1 Cl. 1 & 2.
These two clauses of the first amendment prohibit Congress from establishing a national church, as well as, inhibiting the choice to worship or not as, one choses.
Opposition to stem-cell research, abortion, and same-sex marriage is protected political speech. It does not matter that it is based on religious tenets. We are free to do what we chose and for wehom we chose.
President Bush had nothing to do with the firing of Alabama Supreme Court Jdge Roy Moore. This was completely the work of State Attorney General Troy King, who agrees with the display of the 10 commandments monument. However, a court had ordered Judge Moore to remove the monument. AG King, decided to follow the law and enforce the court order. THe monument was removed fromt he Courthouse grounds.
Our problem is with this President and his use of religion to justify things. Most politicians, while acknowledging their religion do not attempt to make us accept it.
Religion should not be expunged from the public square. Would you support removing the tax-exempt status of religious organizations that do not participate in politics. While I support tax-exempt staus for non political organizations such as chuirches and charities I do not think an organization liek the Chrisitian (who always causes a controversey with their voter guide) should recive such protection.
Some of our laws are based on the 10 Commandments. No we don't live by the Bible. We do live by the Bill of Rights.
The religious right is using the argument that the "liberals" will now demand removal of "in G-d we trust" from currency. While I think that it's statement that doesn't belong on US currency, I do not think it a battle worth fighting. I don't think people look at money and feel that religion is being forced upon them (mind you, some people think of money as their religion).
I was kind of ambivalent about the case to remove "one nation under G-d" from the pledge. From the time I was old enough to understand what I was saying (and was allowed to decided if I would say the pledge), I sat it out because I felt that making that sort of pledge to an inanimate object was contrary to my religion. The majority of my discomfort with the pledge is its use in public schools where they have a captive audience, much of which would not feel comfortable stating an objection. This being said, I don't think most primary school age kids pay any attention to it. . .it's one of those rote things that's now devoid of meaning. I DO think that the evolution of the pledge should be taught in civics classes (the G-d reference was only added during the cold war to set us apart from the "godless commies").
The argument for the 10 commandments in courthouses is that our laws are based on Judeo-Christian values and the commandments. Most of the commandments are not against things/acts that are illegal. Since the commandments are regarded as G-d's law and/or offered as something provided by G-d they do, in fact, serve to establish religion (they establish support for a belief in a G-d ergo they establish support of some sort of monotheistic religion and violates the separation of church and state) when posted in a publicly funded place such as a public school or courthouse in which many attendees are essentially a captive audience for the duration of their visit to the location.
Candidates can run on whatever platform they choose. This is covered by freedom of expression. The point Kerry was trying to make when questioned as to how a practicing Catholic could allow continued legalization of abortion or support gay civil unions is that whiel he personally would not engage in those activities and they are against his personal/religious convictions, he understands that there is no consensus among religious/non-religious convictions and he would not force his religion on those who do not subscribe to those views. It's kind of interesting that in countries that do have official religions, they keep religion out of politics and are totally confused by it's use as a weapon in US politics.
I was kind of ambivalent about the case to remove "one nation under G-d" from the pledge. From the time I was old enough to understand what I was saying (and was allowed to decided if I would say the pledge), I sat it out because I felt that making that sort of pledge to an inanimate object was contrary to my religion. The majority of my discomfort with the pledge is its use in public schools where they have a captive audience, much of which would not feel comfortable stating an objection. This being said, I don't think most primary school age kids pay any attention to it. . .it's one of those rote things that's now devoid of meaning. I DO think that the evolution of the pledge should be taught in civics classes (the G-d reference was only added during the cold war to set us apart from the "godless commies").
The argument for the 10 commandments in courthouses is that our laws are based on Judeo-Christian values and the commandments. Most of the commandments are not against things/acts that are illegal. Since the commandments are regarded as G-d's law and/or offered as something provided by G-d they do, in fact, serve to establish religion (they establish support for a belief in a G-d ergo they establish support of some sort of monotheistic religion and violates the separation of church and state) when posted in a publicly funded place such as a public school or courthouse in which many attendees are essentially a captive audience for the duration of their visit to the location.
Candidates can run on whatever platform they choose. This is covered by freedom of expression. The point Kerry was trying to make when questioned as to how a practicing Catholic could allow continued legalization of abortion or support gay civil unions is that whiel he personally would not engage in those activities and they are against his personal/religious convictions, he understands that there is no consensus among religious/non-religious convictions and he would not force his religion on those who do not subscribe to those views. It's kind of interesting that in countries that do have official religions, they keep religion out of politics and are totally confused by it's use as a weapon in US politics.
QUOTE(so angry I could spit @ Nov 7 2004, 12:54 PM)
The religious right is using the argument that the "liberals" will now demand removal of "in G-d we trust" from currency. While I think that it's statement that doesn't belong on US currency, I do not think it a battle worth fighting. I don't think people look at money and feel that religion is being forced upon them (mind you, some people think of money as their religion).
I was kind of ambivalent about the case to remove "one nation under G-d" from the pledge. From the time I was old enough to understand what I was saying (and was allowed to decided if I would say the pledge), I sat it out because I felt that making that sort of pledge to an inanimate object was contrary to my religion. The majority of my discomfort with the pledge is its use in public schools where they have a captive audience, much of which would not feel comfortable stating an objection. This being said, I don't think most primary school age kids pay any attention to it. . .it's one of those rote things that's now devoid of meaning. I DO think that the evolution of the pledge should be taught in civics classes (the G-d reference was only added during the cold war to set us apart from the "godless commies").
The argument for the 10 commandments in courthouses is that our laws are based on Judeo-Christian values and the commandments. Most of the commandments are not against things/acts that are illegal. Since the commandments are regarded as G-d's law and/or offered as something provided by G-d they do, in fact, serve to establish religion (they establish support for a belief in a G-d ergo they establish support of some sort of monotheistic religion and violates the separation of church and state) when posted in a publicly funded place such as a public school or courthouse in which many attendees are essentially a captive audience for the duration of their visit to the location.
Candidates can run on whatever platform they choose. This is covered by freedom of expression. The point Kerry was trying to make when questioned as to how a practicing Catholic could allow continued legalization of abortion or support gay civil unions is that whiel he personally would not engage in those activities and they are against his personal/religious convictions, he understands that there is no consensus among religious/non-religious convictions and he would not force his religion on those who do not subscribe to those views. It's kind of interesting that in countries that do have official religions, they keep religion out of politics and are totally confused by it's use as a weapon in US politics.
I was kind of ambivalent about the case to remove "one nation under G-d" from the pledge. From the time I was old enough to understand what I was saying (and was allowed to decided if I would say the pledge), I sat it out because I felt that making that sort of pledge to an inanimate object was contrary to my religion. The majority of my discomfort with the pledge is its use in public schools where they have a captive audience, much of which would not feel comfortable stating an objection. This being said, I don't think most primary school age kids pay any attention to it. . .it's one of those rote things that's now devoid of meaning. I DO think that the evolution of the pledge should be taught in civics classes (the G-d reference was only added during the cold war to set us apart from the "godless commies").
The argument for the 10 commandments in courthouses is that our laws are based on Judeo-Christian values and the commandments. Most of the commandments are not against things/acts that are illegal. Since the commandments are regarded as G-d's law and/or offered as something provided by G-d they do, in fact, serve to establish religion (they establish support for a belief in a G-d ergo they establish support of some sort of monotheistic religion and violates the separation of church and state) when posted in a publicly funded place such as a public school or courthouse in which many attendees are essentially a captive audience for the duration of their visit to the location.
Candidates can run on whatever platform they choose. This is covered by freedom of expression. The point Kerry was trying to make when questioned as to how a practicing Catholic could allow continued legalization of abortion or support gay civil unions is that whiel he personally would not engage in those activities and they are against his personal/religious convictions, he understands that there is no consensus among religious/non-religious convictions and he would not force his religion on those who do not subscribe to those views. It's kind of interesting that in countries that do have official religions, they keep religion out of politics and are totally confused by it's use as a weapon in US politics.
I'am sorry, but I just don't think any person running for office, should be able to have it both ways. I know Bush was'nt the one directly that fired the judge in Alabama, but with his so called religious convictions, he did'nt help. He would have, if the election had depended on it. Any one who would do anything to get re-elected, can use the religion issue when it helps, and denonce(sp?) it when it suits them. It's sad, but I firmly believe things have to changein the future. I'm 53 years old, and I'm not sure what the religious right is, or what the left is, or what liberals are. When I vote, I truely try to vote for the man I think will do the best for our country. My party has very little to do with it. Maybe I should re-think my thinking. But then I remember what Geo.W. did to Sen. John McCain back in 2000 just to get on the ballot, and then Sen. McCain campains for him. That shows me, once you're in Washington, you do anything to stay, even at the cost of your own personal respect.(which I lost a great deal for Sen. McCain). I just wonder who we are going to invade next. Thats what the old USSR used to do. Now the world has a new country to fear, and with the leadership we now have, It's not going to be very pretty.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.