Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Bachmann - Tea Party - Constitution
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Here is a quote from a description of an interview with Bachmann by a conservative commentator (see http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2010/12/09/gingrich-bachmann-speak-to-brody-file-about-new-gop-congress.aspx):
I understand that there are different ways to interpret the First Amendment, but for someone to act as though the Constitution is a clear common sense guide for governing, and at the same time to take such a non-standard approach to separation of religion and government, strikes me as intellectually dishonest. I am raising this hoping that someone who sympathizes with her point of view can explain it to me, not as an excuse to dump on Bachmann -- I could do that on my own. |
Anonymous
|
I guess I am not so much troubled by the idea of being mindful of Constitutional principles. But it does trouble me that these elected officials need a weekly civics lesson.
I would expect my elected officials to have already studied their history and the Constitution and to have well-formed opinions on the relevant subjects. It's a bit scary that they have been spouting revolutionary war era slogans during the campaign without actually knowing much about what they are saying. |
Anonymous
|
Separation of religion and goverment?
1) Declaration of Independence ,,, all men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 2) "in God we trust" in all of the goverment printed currency. 3) Congress opens every day with a prayer. Is a creator religious? holy science...get that out of the Declaration. Is God religious? in the name of all things atheist, Get that crap off the currency. Is a prayer religious? In the name of the holy Global Warming I compel you evil congressmen to cease and desist this disgraceful act |
Anonymous
Anonymous
This is a facile understanding of the issue. You can easily look up the Supreme Court cases in order to see why "In God We Trust" is allowed without violation of the Establishment Clause. |
Anonymous
OP here. I guess I should have gone a step further than asking for serious answers rather than trashing Bachmann. I should have also requested that I not be trashed, especially since I granted that there are serious arguments about the meaning of the First Amendment. But I feel that I granted and you ranted. |
Anonymous
Religion and goverment do not have to be separated. The goverment is just not allowed to force people to worship a state sponsored religion. That is why the currency, the congress and the founding documents are so Judeo- Christian, but Muslims and Hindu's and Unitarians are allowed to worship freely. Additionally, the foundation of all our laws come from the Ten Commandments. Even people who aren't religious count on other people to be religious. If a person has no religious foundation, there is no reason that he can't put people in an oven like Hitler. As long as he can kill his enemies, his opinion of morality counts most. aknowledgement of the Creator is the foundation of human dignity. |
Anonymous
No, the foundation of our laws is derived from Locke's notion of the social contract and the history of Greece. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness was adapted directly from Locke who said LIfe, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property. Locke in turn derived these independently of the Ten Commandments. If there is any religious element to it all, he began with the idea that we are property of God and that as such we are required to do his bidding, which is to live. From this principle he derived the rest of the philosophy on rights and the social contract. Greece gave us the mechanisms for enabling these principles. The Supreme Court has allowed "In God We Trust" and the opening prayer because they are considered "ceremonial" in nature, not because our country is allowed to have a preferred religion. If you think that our laws derive from the Ten Commandments, I have to ask: Why has the Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in courtrooms? Before you answer, you might actually want to read the opinion. |
Anonymous
And now I see why the Tea Partiers need to watch Schoolhouse Rock before voting. OMG the ignorance. I hope the cover how a bill becomes a law.
|
Anonymous
OP again. Thank you. This is the kind of response I was hoping for. I can see that denying the government the power to establish a religion is not necessarily the same as barring any reference to God, although people will differ about what types of reference are allowable. Officially basing policy on Judeo-Christian beliefs seems to me to be over that line. Please note that I said "seems to me," accepting that others will differ. What I think is clear, which Bachmann misses, is that there is an issue here, and you cannot seriously call yourself a Constitutionalist and act as though the government can be taken, without a long serious national debate, as a Judeo-Christian institution. |
Anonymous
| Locke came well after the Ten Commandments. Somehow Locke just doesn't seem to have the authority to establish right and wrong. Hitler has as much or more authority than Locke. |
Anonymous
Are you really so lacking in character that you need God looking over your shoulder to keep you from killing people? Why is it so hard for one who has faith in God to accept that someone else can have faith in goodness? |
Anonymous
Locke came well after Nero. That doesn't mean he owes his philosophy to him. If you don't understand the social contract, as exemplified by Locke, you don't understand America. You don't know who our founding fathers were. They were religious, but they studied philosophy. Thomas Jefferson called Locke one of three greatest men who ever lived. His influence is undeniable. If you read the Federalist Papers and don't see Locke's (and to some extent Hobbes') fingerprints all over it, you are holding the book upside down. If the Ten Commandments were the foundation of our country, adultery would be illegal, officers would ticket people for taking the Lord's name in vain, backtalking your parents would get you detention, and Sunday church would be mandatory. None of this happens in America today. As for the rest, plenty of societies figured out that murder, theft, and lying are wrong, and they did this without God dropping some tablets on them. Behind this contention is the notion that without law handed down from God, we turn into Pol Pot. Well, it's not true. Plenty of political philosophers have enumerated rights and responsibilities that mirror modern society without invoking God's name. So the very fact that these philosophies exist defies your contention. Can an athiest choose to be evil? Yes. Can a being who believes in God commit atrocities? Absolutely. It has happened and will continue to happen. Belief in God is no guarantee of goodness. And non-religious philosophy is not necessarily a path to evil. |