Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Santorum's take on church vs state

Tags:
  • Politics
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
February 27, 2012 5:39:45 PM
February 27, 2012 5:58:22 PM

The idea of seperation of church and state is a myth. It appears no where in any of our founding documents including The Federalist Papers. It was made up by secularist, history revisionists.

You know, the same people who made up the whole George Washington chopping down the cherry tree myth?

February 27, 2012 7:04:52 PM

Well, when you believe we just appeared from apes, and apes from semi rats and them from sea creatures, and that from scum, and the planet from nothing, add in alot of faith, throw in some hatred and intolerance, plus a complete ineptness as to understanding the bill of rights, the constitution etc, also cant forget the ongoing ineptness of understanding religion, what it means to followers, according to the constitution, the bill of rights etc.
Now, if ever there was direct quotes, and since we also have some from the current admin going against our history, its laws, it rights, God given or elseways, it seems as tho people are more afraid of this, these rights, and would rather see them squashed is a shame, a sham, destructive and so intrusive, accompanied with an alloofness that goes beyond description.
Now, what didnt we get when Mr B.O. crossed our lines of laws and history?
Related resources
February 27, 2012 7:28:11 PM

There is nothing wrong with Santorum's religious stance. Science does the exact same thing.

You take a hard stance on something until completely proven wrong. How long did E=MC2 last until it was proven wrong? Now that it no longer stands as an absolute, we can move further on. But in order to get there we had to accept it was an absolute.
February 27, 2012 7:51:48 PM

Separation of Church and State is derived from the first amendment of the constitution. My interpretation is that the government will not take religion into consideration when passing laws and that you can not pass laws saying that someone cannot belong to a particular faith. I completely agree with the first amendment in this regard. First off, you cannot take into account someones faith when passing laws because there are so many faiths. One law you pass might violate another faith's principles. Not to mention that religion can be used a tool of oppression and subjugation. It can lead to hatred for a person of another faith as well. When you look back at our history and see how religion has been abused its easy to understand why this is a step forward.

Our traditions have changed many times over the last century, and they will continue to do so. Our country is a melting pot of many different cultures and these will continue to influence each other. As far as I know, our history is unchangeable.

Can you imagine if we had all the different religions involved in our political process?

As far as evolution goes, it happened over millions of years. We humans cannot process that kind of time frame so I understand why you are skeptical. I find the concept of religion far more outlandish than evolution. At least with evolution we have evidence to support it.
February 27, 2012 8:50:13 PM

The relevant portion of the 1st Amendment states simply:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Lets break that down. It starts with 'Congress'. This refers specifically to the US Congress. It doesn't say government, it means Congress, the legislative body.

Now, compare that very simple text of the 1st Amendment to the text of my state's Constitution as it pertains to religion.

"Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion.

That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please."


Very much more detail. It even specifically mentions a creator and Christianity in the text. The language is very careful not to establish Christianity as the state religion though. However, I see nothing in the text that would prohibit the display of the ten commandments on a court building, or a cross in a state park honoring veterans. In fact I consider the prohibition of the display a violation of the free exercise thereof. Then again, it is never Congress that prohibits this, it's always a judge. In my opinion a judge's role is to uphold the law as written, not 'interpret' the law as they see fit which is what we've all been taught to accept.

I know that many judicial precedents can be cited that changes this interpretation. It is my opinion that these precedents are "bad law" and further illustrates my concern over the judiciary subverting the law rather than upholding it.
February 28, 2012 12:57:23 AM

riser said:
There is nothing wrong with Santorum's religious stance. Science does the exact same thing.

You take a hard stance on something until completely proven wrong. How long did E=MC2 last until it was proven wrong? Now that it no longer stands as an absolute, we can move further on. But in order to get there we had to accept it was an absolute.
Santorum is a weirdo and says things that are completely wacky. There should be the separation of church from the state.He is to fanatical with this religion of his and then denounces Kennedy when he said in his speech about his religion should be private from his presidency.This Santorum is a NUT!
February 28, 2012 1:19:22 AM

musical marv said:
Santorum is a weirdo and says things that are completely wacky. There should be the separation of church from the state.He is to fanatical with this religion of his and then denounces Kennedy when he said in his speech about his religion should be private from his presidency.This Santorum is a NUT!


What makes him a weirdo exactly? The fact he has been indoctrinated into Sun worship? (see a monstance)

At least he's consistent, for the most part, for a politician.
February 28, 2012 11:09:26 AM

So an invasive government is bad but invasive religion is our national history?

Is the billions in tax cuts to religious organizations count? I think thats a pretty large affirmation of how much the government cares about churches. They are all tax free.

Even the wacky ones like Scientology.

Ive heard some of you lash out at a Muslim based republics, but when Christians call for more, you just going to roll over and say why not?
February 28, 2012 11:36:04 AM

wanamingo said:
So an invasive government is bad but invasive religion is our national history?

Is the billions in tax cuts to religious organizations count? I think thats a pretty large affirmation of how much the government cares about churches. They are all tax free.

Even the wacky ones like Scientology.

Ive heard some of you lash out at a Muslim based republics, but when Christians call for more, you just going to roll over and say why not?


Please give some examples of how religion is trampling on your freedoms and liberties and is being so invasive into your life. I can give countless examples of government doing just that.

Church's are not taxed because they are maintained by voluntary donations from individuals. They do not have an "earned income" in the legal sense unless you count the occasional bake sale. They still pay property tax, and sales tax on anything they buy.

No one is arguing for a "Christian based republic". Not even Rick Santorum. It is the democrats that brought up contraception and abortion, not any of the republican cadidates. It wasn't even mentioned until George Stephanopolos asked Mitt Romney in a debate if states had the right to ban contraception. This was only a month or two before Obama passed his unconstitutional mandate requiring religious organizations to provide contraception.

It was all a setup and a political football to frighten people into thinking "the religious nuts are coming, the religious nuts are coming, run for the hills, ahhhhh!!"
February 28, 2012 11:46:48 AM

B.S. the dems dragged abortion into the spotlight. That's a republican talking point through and through.

Heres where religion steps into the worldview

Abortion
Gay Marriage
February 28, 2012 12:24:49 PM

wanamingo said:
B.S. the dems dragged abortion into the spotlight. That's a republican talking point through and through.

Heres where religion steps into the worldview

Abortion
Gay Marriage



BS right back at you. Not a single republican candidate was talking about abortion, contraception, or gay marriage. Not one. Contraception and a state ban was first brought up by George Stepanopolous in the debate and rightly called ridiculous by Mitt Romney.

Contraception was then brought into the spotlight when President Obama passed his unconstitutional mandate on religious organizations to provide contraception.

It was then trumpeted throughout all of the main stream media. It was the democrats that started all this talk of banning contraception and abortion, not the republican candidates.

Nice try on revising history mingo, but FAIL.

Over 60% of all African American pregnancies are aborted in New York City alone. I would say religion is doing a pretty poor job considering the millions of babies that are aborted across the country and the world.

Gay marriage, we've beat that horse already. States are passing their own laws allowing it like Washington state. I have no problem with it, that is the state's right to do so. It is not the role of the federal government though.


p.s. still waiting on you to find me an article from NPR covering the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 when Exxon was a sponsor of NPR.
February 28, 2012 12:31:46 PM

You are ******* nuts! Because the moderator of a debate asks a question about abortion (?!?) its a liberal / democratic plan to force the issue? what the *** is wrong with you?

I WAS ONE YEAR OLD WHEN EXXON CRASHED! Im not wasting my time here. See ya.
February 28, 2012 12:43:14 PM

Inform yourself mingo.

http://pohdiaries.com/george-stephanopoulos-is-a-politi...

Moderator my ass. It was staged question, designed to do exactly what it has done. Completely distract dupes like you from the real issues facing this country.

Here's a hint. Banning contraceptoin and abortion is a NON-ISSUE! Nobody freaking cares about it. People are losing their homes, can't put gas in their car, can't afford food. Contraception and abortion is least of peopl's worries.

Gas in California has jumped $0.26 in a week. 66 million Americans are on food stamps for crying out loud!

But you go ahead and be distracted by this orchestrated circus you dupe!
February 28, 2012 2:08:06 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
The relevant portion of the 1st Amendment states simply:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Lets break that down. It starts with 'Congress'. This refers specifically to the US Congress. It doesn't say government, it means Congress, the legislative body.

Now, compare that very simple text of the 1st Amendment to the text of my state's Constitution as it pertains to religion.

"Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion.

That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please."


Very much more detail. It even specifically mentions a creator and Christianity in the text. The language is very careful not to establish Christianity as the state religion though. However, I see nothing in the text that would prohibit the display of the ten commandments on a court building, or a cross in a state park honoring veterans. In fact I consider the prohibition of the display a violation of the free exercise thereof. Then again, it is never Congress that prohibits this, it's always a judge. In my opinion a judge's role is to uphold the law as written, not 'interpret' the law as they see fit which is what we've all been taught to accept.

I know that many judicial precedents can be cited that changes this interpretation. It is my opinion that these precedents are "bad law" and further illustrates my concern over the judiciary subverting the law rather than upholding it.


"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever" If a person must go to the courthouse to pay a fine or something like that, then they are forced to observe an article of worship. That seems to be a violation of this clause.

"or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination" They would have to put up other pieces of religious text to represent the other religions as well.

Those are just the two that stuck out to me, there are a couple of other parts in that section that could also be used to argue against having the religious text in plain view at a courthouse.

By the way, the legislative body is just one part of our government and that's mostly who I was referring to. The judicial branch could still strike down the legislation at anytime.

If you truly think that precedents are the judiciary branch's way of subverting law, then you my friend should either find yourself a new country or get used to it. This is how our legal system has worked since it was created. Precedents are one of the key factors taken into consideration in almost every step of the judicial process. If we had to retry or go over every case individually without referring to previous cases on the matter, our judicial system would collapse. Why argue over something that has already been decided numerous times?

February 28, 2012 2:26:16 PM

riser said:
There is nothing wrong with Santorum's religious stance. Science does the exact same thing.

You take a hard stance on something until completely proven wrong. How long did E=MC2 last until it was proven wrong? Now that it no longer stands as an absolute, we can move further on. But in order to get there we had to accept it was an absolute.


There was at least a method and evidence behind E=MC2. I can't say the same about religion, and Santorum's stance is ludicrous at best. Lets have it so that religion is above the rules that every person in the country is bound by. Lets make it so that any religion can do anything they want and answer to no one but God. Let's make the United States of America a country ruled by the Churchs. Yes, this sounds like a great idea. All you have to do is look at what drove our forefathers here in the first place to understand that this is a horrible idea.

By the way, nothing is proven as an absolute in the scientific process. It is only accepted as fact and even then there are always people trying to prove it wrong. It doesn't matter if you have 1000 experiments and they all point in the same direction. Nothing can ever be PROVEN to be true, only accepted as fact until evidence suggests otherwise. If only religion or our political process worked the same way.
February 28, 2012 2:49:07 PM

johnsonma said:
"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever" If a person must go to the courthouse to pay a fine or something like that, then they are forced to observe an article of worship. That seems to be a violation of this clause.

"or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination" They would have to put up other pieces of religious text to represent the other religions as well.

Those are just the two that stuck out to me, there are a couple of other parts in that section that could also be used to argue against having the religious text in plain view at a courthouse.

By the way, the legislative body is just one part of our government and that's mostly who I was referring to. The judicial branch could still strike down the legislation at anytime.

If you truly think that precedents are the judiciary branch's way of subverting law, then you my friend should either find yourself a new country or get used to it. This is how our legal system has worked since it was created. Precedents are one of the key factors taken into consideration in almost every step of the judicial process. If we had to retry or go over every case individually without referring to previous cases on the matter, our judicial system would collapse. Why argue over something that has already been decided numerous times?



I uderstand, but don't you see a problem with the free exercise thereof part of the 1st amendment? What if the judge wants to put up the 10 commandments in his courtroom? The atheist walking into the courtroom is not being forced to follow those commandments simply by them being displayed. Now, if the judge threatened jail time or torture if the atheist didn't accept the commandments then I would agree with your argument.

It seems to me, that this mythical "freedom from religion" violates the 1st amendment at its most fundamental core.

The basic tenet being you can not exercise your right or freedom if in doing so you deny someone else's free exercise of their right or freedom. This is why when Dick Cheney is giving a speech and someone stands up in the auditorium and begins shouting him down they can be tossed out. The shouter is denying someone else their right to free speech by exercising their own. You can't do that.

I understand judicial precedents, I'm just saying I don't necessarily agree with precedents that are based on opinion rather then the letter of the law.

What I see happening as it pertains to the 1st amendment is not an establishment of a state religion but more of an assault on the free exercise therof. I know the atheists and the secularists will disagree, but take a look around. I don't see a huge push to establish a state religion but I do see a constant assault on peoples' freedom to worship as they see fit and where they see fit.
February 28, 2012 5:19:03 PM

wanamingo said:
B.S. the dems dragged abortion into the spotlight. That's a republican talking point through and through.

Heres where religion steps into the worldview

Abortion
Gay Marriage


On Abortion, it is because many people do not want to fund it. Remove Federal money from being supplied to locations that do abortions and the issue on a political scale would disappear.

Gay marriage. Can't force a church to do what it doesn't want to do. Let gay people have civil unions or whatever they want to be recognized by the government as together. From the standpoint of the Church/Religion, the term "marriage" to sacred to them. It is a simple as making the exact same rights but calling it something else.. that would remove the issue again. Politics as usual.
February 28, 2012 6:19:44 PM

wanamingo WTFPWND Rage Quit. :) 
February 28, 2012 7:19:26 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I uderstand, but don't you see a problem with the free exercise thereof part of the 1st amendment? What if the judge wants to put up the 10 commandments in his courtroom? The atheist walking into the courtroom is not being forced to follow those commandments simply by them being displayed. Now, if the judge threatened jail time or torture if the atheist didn't accept the commandments then I would agree with your argument.

It seems to me, that this mythical "freedom from religion" violates the 1st amendment at its most fundamental core.

The basic tenet being you can not exercise your right or freedom if in doing so you deny someone else's free exercise of their right or freedom. This is why when Dick Cheney is giving a speech and someone stands up in the auditorium and begins shouting him down they can be tossed out. The shouter is denying someone else their right to free speech by exercising their own. You can't do that.

I understand judicial precedents, I'm just saying I don't necessarily agree with precedents that are based on opinion rather then the letter of the law.

What I see happening as it pertains to the 1st amendment is not an establishment of a state religion but more of an assault on the free exercise therof. I know the atheists and the secularists will disagree, but take a look around. I don't see a huge push to establish a state religion but I do see a constant assault on peoples' freedom to worship as they see fit and where they see fit.


I do agree that politics play too much of a role in the judicial process. It is suppose to be an impartial process but when you are put into your position by democrats or republicans, because you think along the same lines as they do, then I cannot agree with that process. If there is a republican majority in the supreme court and an abortion law comes up for debate, then they rule against it and set the precedent, then is that fair? Luckily precedents from previous cases can be retried for a different outcome, but on the whole our judicial system would be chaos without them.

If you are an atheist or belong to another religion that does not accept the 10 commandments as text relating to your religion and then you are forcing them to observe religious text from another religion, that is a violation of your rights to not have another religion imposed on you. Also it just sets a bad example for our justice system. It is suppose to be impartial with no relation to any religion or any other factor. I would expect a country like Iran to do this. Not because they are followers of Islam, but because they are a nation ruled by the church.

People should be able to worship in their houses and on their property however they please. Also if they establish a church, then they should be able to worship there whenever they want. However, the second their worship is imposed on someone else in a median that does not pertain to a church or their private residences or land, then you run into problems. I don't have to go to your church or house, but I am legally obligated to go to the courthouse in certain situations. In other words I am inadvertently being forced to observe religious text against my will.
February 28, 2012 7:23:24 PM

Such a liberal argument. Liberals first need to learn to be tolerant. Second, they need to understand that not everyone will be happy. Third, they need to understand that most of the time "not everyone will be happy" will likely be them.
February 28, 2012 7:25:03 PM

riser said:
On Abortion, it is because many people do not want to fund it. Remove Federal money from being supplied to locations that do abortions and the issue on a political scale would disappear.

Gay marriage. Can't force a church to do what it doesn't want to do. Let gay people have civil unions or whatever they want to be recognized by the government as together. From the standpoint of the Church/Religion, the term "marriage" to sacred to them. It is a simple as making the exact same rights but calling it something else.. that would remove the issue again. Politics as usual.


Agree with the abortion comment. If people don't want tax money spent on certain government programs then their claims are legitimate. As far as marriage, a church cannot force a government to not do something. If two gay people want to go to the city hall and get a marriage license, let them. Their rights in no way interfere with yours and you cannot deny them based on religion or the fact that you don't like it.
February 28, 2012 7:30:38 PM

riser said:
Such a liberal argument. Liberals first need to learn to be tolerant. Second, they need to understand that not everyone will be happy. Third, they need to understand that most of the time "not everyone will be happy" will likely be them.


You dismiss my argument by saying it is liberal and that not everyone will be happy? Gotcha, good point!
February 28, 2012 7:35:04 PM

Just because you are exposed to religious text does not mean you are being forced to accept it. If its mere presence offends you, you can always just not look at it, just like you don't have to stand with your hand over your heart during the playing the national anthem.

What is your opinion on someone standing on a public street corner, speaking the gospel for whatever religion or handing out religous pamphlets? It is in public and not in ones house or established church.

Can one proselytize any given religion or against any given religion in the public square?
February 28, 2012 7:36:39 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
wanamingo WTFPWND Rage Quit. :) 


Yep. The internet is a large place, no reason to wast time here. Im off! Maybe ill find out where Gulli went or the other 20+ people you have ostracized.
February 28, 2012 8:00:43 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Just because you are exposed to religious text does not mean you are being forced to accept it. If its mere presence offends you, you can always just not look at it, just like you don't have to stand with your hand over your heart during the playing the national anthem.

What is your opinion on someone standing on a public street corner, speaking the gospel for whatever religion or handing out religous pamphlets? It is in public and not in ones house or established church.

Can one proselytize any given religion or against any given religion in the public square?


You are not forced to go to the public square or accept the pamphlet. You can also hand out your own pamphlet or speak your own gospel. In the end, the main reason the people in the public square can do this but the courtroom cannot is because the courtroom is an extension of the government and they cannot promote any religion.

Why does the 10 commandments have to be in the courtroom anyways? At the simplest level its absurd, it conveys all the wrong messages about our legal system. Its almost like the judge is going to base his or her judgement on religious text. You don't see anything wrong with that? You might as well have a priest up there handing out judgements. No one can base the judgement of a fellow man or woman based on their beliefs in their religion. Only their God can do that, the thing we can base judgement on is the laws that a collection of us passed to govern ourselves and the evidence brought against us.
February 28, 2012 8:19:27 PM

wanamingo said:
Yep. The internet is a large place, no reason to wast time here. Im off! Maybe ill find out where Gulli went or the other 20+ people you have ostracized.



Too bad, you might have eventually learned something. ;) 
February 29, 2012 1:07:11 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
What makes him a weirdo exactly? The fact he has been indoctrinated into Sun worship? (see a monstance)

At least he's consistent, for the most part, for a politician.
He is not consistent like you say one time he says he was for Romney years ago and now he says no. His concepts are really weird about his religious beliefs and education. He is a fanatic about this religious beliefs of his and his accusations are also not really logical. Education is indoctrinated by Obama talking
about college . Forgot this weirdo!
February 29, 2012 2:53:25 AM

Hey......

Guess what, freedom is an ethereal thing.
Ot is enjoyed and shared until someone attacks it. Tears it down. Makes it a bad thing.
Do we just start giving these things up?
Handing out decisions about how, what and why were supposed to think?
I trust no one more than our founding fathers whove set up a constitution thats been and will go down in all of human history as the best, or one of the best ever written.

After 200 plus years, its starting to be torn at, reinterpreted.
People say, its outdated, people say it no longer fits today.
The only thing thats changed from now since then is a few inventions which allow us to worry about getting fat and lazy, and these same that attack our understanding of, and the very value of our constitution our now wanting us to eat what they want us to eat, as we slowly get fatter and lazier.

Some doll this up, as now man is close to having his chance at a utopia, where need and strife are no longer a part of life.
Where our very thoughts and hearts should change for a greater whole to achieve these goals.
Smacks of communism to me.
The state was too important to allow God into it
Reminds me of this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3YFmpSFJ40
February 29, 2012 11:46:42 AM

musical marv said:
He is not consistent like you say one time he says he was for Romney years ago and now he says no. His concepts are really weird about his religious beliefs and education. He is a fanatic about this religious beliefs of his and his accusations are also not really logical. Education is indoctrinated by Obama talking
about college . Forgot this weirdo!



He endorsed Romney in the 2008 elections, so what? Would you rather he endorsed McCain or Obama? Sorry, I don't see a problem there.

Which of his 'concepts' as you say are weird about his religiouss beliefs? That he is a devout catholic? Sorry, but we have freedom of religion in this country. You can believe and worship any way you want. You can even be Satan worshipper if you want.

I'm not familiar with his weird 'concepts' on education. Can you provide some examples and educate me on this?

I've heard many of his speeches. He doens't really come across as a fanatic to me but then again he is a politician and maybe he just hides it really well. Remember what Obi-wan said, "politicians can not be trusted".

I'm not really sure whay you mean by "education is indoctrinated by Obama talking about college". Can you elaborate?
February 29, 2012 11:53:26 AM

johnsonma said:
You are not forced to go to the public square or accept the pamphlet. You can also hand out your own pamphlet or speak your own gospel. In the end, the main reason the people in the public square can do this but the courtroom cannot is because the courtroom is an extension of the government and they cannot promote any religion.

Why does the 10 commandments have to be in the courtroom anyways? At the simplest level its absurd, it conveys all the wrong messages about our legal system. Its almost like the judge is going to base his or her judgement on religious text. You don't see anything wrong with that? You might as well have a priest up there handing out judgements. No one can base the judgement of a fellow man or woman based on their beliefs in their religion. Only their God can do that, the thing we can base judgement on is the laws that a collection of us passed to govern ourselves and the evidence brought against us.



I do see your point there. What if the judge wore a visible crucifix or star of david around his neck over his robes. Since it is on his body and not actually displayed in or on the government building does that count as an endorsement or establishment of religion? Or what if the judge has a portrait of jesus displayed on his bench?

I don't mean to harp on the court/judge thing but it seems to be a good medium to discuss this topic.

Well, our laws and hence our legal system stems from Judeo/Christian laws and values, so I think the ten commandments are very relevent to our legal system. People are typically judged by a jury of their peers, unless they are too stupid to have a lawyer or ask for a jury trial and then they are tried under admiralty law instead of statutory law.

Understand that religion provides a moral compass for many, including judges.
February 29, 2012 1:54:26 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I do see your point there. What if the judge wore a visible crucifix or star of david around his neck over his robes. Since it is on his body and not actually displayed in or on the government building does that count as an endorsement or establishment of religion? Or what if the judge has a portrait of jesus displayed on his bench?

I don't mean to harp on the court/judge thing but it seems to be a good medium to discuss this topic.

Well, our laws and hence our legal system stems from Judeo/Christian laws and values, so I think the ten commandments are very relevent to our legal system. People are typically judged by a jury of their peers, unless they are too stupid to have a lawyer or ask for a jury trial and then they are tried under admiralty law instead of statutory law.

Understand that religion provides a moral compass for many, including judges.


If the judge did decide on wearing the crucifix or star of david, I doubt that anything could be done about it. Why they would feel the need to wear it on the outside, instead of tucked in, is another matter. I think the portrait of jesus on the bench would be along the same lines as the 10 commandments. The judge comes and goes but the bench stays in the courthouse.

I won't deny that our legal system has roots in religion, its just that if I were up for trial and was innocent, I would want people to look at the evidence and nothing more. I wouldn't want them to judge me based on faith, nor would I want them to be influenced by the judge having religious text in the courtroom. I guess some people would want the exact opposite though.
February 29, 2012 2:12:17 PM

Imagine if people we unaware that the ten commandments were of religious origins, what then would people think of them?
February 29, 2012 4:30:48 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Imagine if people we unaware that the ten commandments were of religious origins, what then would people think of them?


I would think that the guy that wrote them was pissed that his neighbor screwed his wife.
February 29, 2012 4:48:02 PM

Yeah, "honor thy mother and father"

What if my father was in prison for muder and my mother was a crack whore?? ;) 
February 29, 2012 5:13:46 PM

So, isnt it you saying the worlds upside down?
February 29, 2012 5:33:33 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
So, isnt it you saying the worlds upside down?



It sure is jaydee, it sure as heck is. :) 
February 29, 2012 6:03:01 PM

Well, if people assume a foundation is after anything else, then I guess it is.
Having things like the ten commandments are great foundations, and arent meant to be use in conjunction with corruption, but, obviously the worlds upside down, so we must look at it this way

PS If we dont look at it this way, we will not only not be able to understand some people, but never be able to help them
February 29, 2012 7:26:19 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Well, if people assume a foundation is after anything else, then I guess it is.
Having things like the ten commandments are great foundations, and arent meant to be use in conjunction with corruption, but, obviously the worlds upside down, so we must look at it this way

PS If we dont look at it this way, we will not only not be able to understand some people, but never be able to help them



How true. I am not a Christian or a Jew. When I look at the 10 commandments specifically I can not possibly see why anyone would have a problem with them, even if they were on a wall in a courtroom or outside on a building facade. Unless of course someone is trying to remove God from society all together then it makes perfect sense why they would have a problem with it.
February 29, 2012 8:59:36 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
How true. I am not a Christian or a Jew. When I look at the 10 commandments specifically I can not possibly see why anyone would have a problem with them, even if they were on a wall in a courtroom or outside on a building facade. Unless of course someone is trying to remove God from society all together then it makes perfect sense why they would have a problem with it.


Why does anyone feel the need to display the 10 commandments out in public anyways? What does it accomplish besides create controversy? Do people not feel complete in their faith unless they are reminded of it every time they go to court, or in the judge's case work? Sounds selfish to me that someone would need to display their faith to feel good about themselves, or maybe it's just a ploy to earn God's favor? If people feel the need to express their religious beliefs to other people, then do it with people that share the same sentiment, in church or other religious venues. There is a place and time for everything.

If someone was trying to remove god from society all together, they should go after churchs first.
February 29, 2012 9:12:22 PM

Remove any religious ideals someone could extract from them.
Then, reread them.
Why have drunk driving ads?
Pregnancy ads?
Anti smoking ads?
If theyre ineffectual, then the government is once again wasting tons of money.
If they are efective, this is a good thing, and tho they are words from the bible, doesnt mean we shouldnt use them.
I can give various examples where words from other writings are used in many varying ways, and again, are used for the betterment of the people.
We tear down certain things, we leave vacuums.
So, either quote no others, be original, or quit spending our money.

If people lose track its only because of being from the bible, then I guess we need to blame ourselves, if you so believe, and God, even if you dont
March 1, 2012 1:10:55 AM

riser said:
Such a liberal argument. Liberals first need to learn to be tolerant. Second, they need to understand that not everyone will be happy. Third, they need to understand that most of the time "not everyone will be happy" will likely be them.
And Republicans must learn not to be afraid of everything they are confronted with in life.They do not have one proposal
to lift up the economy and create jobs. They know one thing to kiss the ass of the rich and corporations and banks!
March 1, 2012 1:23:48 AM

Start opening up federally owned or controlled land to oil drilling, I think Ive heard every one of them say this.
Obama claims so much oil is coming now, but our federal contributions are severely lagging behind what they once were, and way behind even more of what they can be.
The oil being pumped now come from private or pre existing fed wells
March 1, 2012 11:16:41 AM

Plenty of Federal land is open for oil exploration and drilling... it just happens to be the land that doesn't have any oil under it. :)  The current administration says they have milions of acres of land open.. but they don't mention it is worthless for oil exploration/drilling.
March 1, 2012 2:01:23 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
My question is, if gas prices are on the rise, expected to hit $4.00/gal. by summer why are we exporting so much of it. I am talking about refined gasoline not crude.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2...

/scratches head

Sorry for the derail. Here's a great column from Ann Coulter on Rick Santorum and I happen to agree with most of it concerning ol' Ricky.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49879


I hope that you don't agree that higher education is for democrat indoctrination. We will never be able to provide a cheaper unskilled workforce than say, india or china. We can however, have the best skilled workforce out there. It would be our niche in the global economy.
March 1, 2012 2:07:27 PM

Not all higher education, but most Universities are nothing more than indoctrination centers for the youth, absolutley I agree with that. I've experienced it first hand when I finished my degree as an adult. And that was at a local community college even. My professors were so freakin liberal and they could not tolerate opposing points of view. I even had to modify my papers to fit with their view in fear of getting a failing grade. It royally sucked!
March 1, 2012 2:26:28 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Not all higher education, but most Universities are nothing more than indoctrination centers for the youth, absolutley I agree with that. I've experienced it first hand when I finished my degree as an adult. And that was at a local community college even. My professors were so freakin liberal and they could not tolerate opposing points of view. I even had to modify my papers to fit with their view in fear of getting a failing grade. It royally sucked!



There are two kinds of professors, the ones you have to agree with and the ones that you have to disagree with. Once you figure that out you can pass any class. I know that some professors may have liberal point of views, but you cannot judge all of the universities on this alone. My higher educational experience was the other way around, many of my professors were conservative. One of my finance professors was a ridiculously attractive blonde from Sweden, but she had no political affiliation(I didn't learn much in that class and I'm not even sure if she could vote). My business ethics professor was a retired air force pilot who served on carriers during the first Iraqi War, he was a conservative. You cannot judge something by only seeing a sliver of it or by taking someone's word for it.

Besides all that, anyone with half a brain will not blindly buy into what people tell them and become "indoctrinated". If they do become indoctrinated, they were probably an idiot to begin with and no harm done. Idiots will be idiots even if they are liberal or conservative. People that come to their reasoning by their own means, are the ones worth listening to.
March 1, 2012 2:34:32 PM

I get that, I do. That's why I was able to pass all my classes with flying colors. But, like I said I went back to school in my early 30's after becoming a father at age 22, and working in the private sector since the age of 15. I had a much different perspective on the country than say an 18 year old skull full of mush just coming out of high school. They are far more easily swayed to the professor's opinions than I would be simply because of my experience and maturity.

Here is an example of indoctrination at the middle school level. I watched this story last night and my heart broke for this young lady. She is being persecuted by the education establishment for simply telling the truth of what she learned.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/tearful-eighth-grader-d...
!