Palin is another Jesus Freak

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

If an adult in a leadership position in this country wishes to believe in Santa Claus that is fine by me ..however when that belief impacts my life by their legislating how they think I should live my life according to the teachings of Santa Claus then I have a problem .By you stating you don't think an atheist or agnostic should be in public office you are doing exactly what you are accusing us of..major discrimination.I think people should be allowed to believe or worship how they wish ..ie: I could care less if Obama is indeed a Moslem ..I like his policies so I'll vote for him as long as his beliefs don't affect his policies in a way that curtails the freedom of others..I or most non believers are not trying to thearten your religious freedom..we just don't want your religion threatening our freedom ..If you want to see how a theocracy works I'd suggest a trip to Iran.

Well I'm not going out and voting against atheist and hunting down agnostics wherever they may hide! hahaha...that would be silly. It's simply my own personal belief. But I'm not going to go out stomping all the God-hatin' politicians. That would be the "major discriminating." Thoughts and actions are what we're talking about here.

I could get into a bigger argument over what "religion" and God are but I think I've made the mistake of going down that road before and it's an argument that seemingly is just for arguments sake. I can't make anyone see it, or feel the way I feel about it. We're all in our own comfort zone bubbles.

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

On edit - you edited - may I keep this in?

Of course. I can't figure out the quoting thing on here half the time. I'm clueless on occasion. I like your signature by the way. Gandalf is the man.

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

This was the tenor of the times when these were the big issues. My point was public opinion rarely is for change



No. America is guided by the rule of law, which stems from the Constitution, which expressly prohibits the establishment of a religion.



Well, no. At least no in the sense that the fiber of your being cannot be against the law, which is that the govt. cannot establish a religion.

Again, I think you, like many, confuse this with me or anyone else telling you it is not okay to be a Christian. Put it this way, what if a Wiccan took office? Would it be okay for them to vote as a Wiccan on every issue? Of course it would not be okay. So, why is it okay for a Christian to do that?

Note - I am not slamming you - just pointing out why America is governed by the rule of law, which often is contrary to public opinion. The alternative is a mob rules mentality, which is great when it goes your way

On edit - you edited - may I keep this in?

I thought the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a "nationalized" religion? You know, one that everyone is forced to follow..? I don't see that happening at the moment.

I understand fully what you are saying...and I see your point made in the Wiccan comment. However most of the issues that people are voting on cannot be made to "Vote Christian" or "Vote Muslim"...however if your religious belief is affect your voting one way or the other...then we have no laws against that. See the fine line we're riding here?

[David]

I support a town ordinance here requiring all businesses & individuals to keep the Sabbath.

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by David

I support a town ordinance here requiring all businesses & individuals to keep the Sabbath.

Hey, so does Chik-Fil-A!

[Mad4stevie]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

With respect, I think you are incorrect.

I think one more conservative Justice and Roe is gone. Can you honestly say that Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts are not going to vote to overturn Roe? I suppose it is fair to say the last two are somewhat untested in the USSC (but not elsewhere). But, Scalia and his lapdog Thomas have clearly demonstrated they want Roe and the entire Right to Privacy gone and they have consistently votes as such

I have no qualms in admitting that if Scalia had his way, Roe would be overturned. However, I don't see Alito and Roberts in quite the same way, as they did not join in the concurring opinion in the Gonzales case, which provided for a much more rigid stance on abortion. They certainly could have taken more of a stand in that case, but in the end did follow the current precedent as outlinned in the Casey case of the early 1990's.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

I thought the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a "nationalized" religion? You know, one that everyone is forced to follow..? I don't see that happening at the moment.

The establishment clause of the First Amendment and just about all of the docs surrounding the formation of the US Cont. specifically prohibit the Govt. from establishing a national religion. This means that the govt. cannot put religion into law. In other words, what is the difference between having a nationally sanctioned religion and having various laws based solely on religious ideals with no nationally sanctioned religion. There is no difference.

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

I understand fully what you are saying...and I see your point made in the Wiccan comment. However most of the issues that people are voting on cannot be made to "Vote Christian" or "Vote Muslim"...however if your religious belief is affect your voting one way or the other...then we have no laws against that. See the fine line we're riding here?

I see that. However, I also think an elected official should be able to say "You know I do not personally believe in that, but I realize I have no right to put my personal beliefs into law because doing so would violate the rights of Americans who think and believe differently than I do." I mean how hard is that

[Mad4stevie]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

. . . subject to Federal Review and existing Federal law. Without this Federal Law, clearly the majority of states would ban abortion and the right to privacy. Women will die as a result. Civil Rights will diminish as a result.

With respect, are you actually believing this? I know you are pretty conservative, but clearly you know the law better than this

Also, how are ya?

Of course, subject to federal review . . . that is how the Casey case made it to the SC - based on the PA spousal and parental notification provisions in the law.

Yes, I am conservative, and I do come from a religious upbringing, but I have learned to separate my personal opinion from what I think the Constitution provides for, especially in this instance. I personally do not agree with abortion and do feel that it is a life that is being terminated, and I could never personally have one; HOWEVER, I do feel that it is a privacy right that is protected by the Constitution and it should never be outlawed. I do believe in some restrictions, however, such as the ban on partial birth abortions.

On the other note - I am busy getting back to teaching my law classes. Still love it three years later and still much happier than when I was practicing family law.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

I have no qualms in admitting that if Scalia had his way, Roe would be overturned. However, I don't see Alito and Roberts in quite the same way, as they did not join in the concurring opinion in the Gonzales case, which provided for a much more rigid stance on abortion. They certainly could have taken more of a stand in that case, but in the end did follow the current precedent as outlinned in the Casey case of the early 1990's.

I sort of agree with you regarding Alito, but Roberts has repeatedly said that Roe was incorrectly deceided and it should be overturned

In Gonzales, Kennedy assumed for the purposes of that opinion that the principles of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Caseywere applicable and then he applied them. Moveover, the Court in Gonzales found Congress had the power to ban the partial birth abortion procedure.

So, while Alito and Roberts did not join in the concurrence of Scalia and, of course Thomas (does Thomas ever have an original thought ) -- they did not really have to. Personally, I see their vote as a political move.

And, speaking of precedent and the willingness to adhere to it on the parts of Alito and Roberts, read Justice Ginsberg's dissent.

On edit - I actually agree for the most part with the Cort's holding in Gonzales because most partial birth abortions are performed after the first trimester, which makes them outside of the scope of Roe and, if I am not mistaken, there was an exception in the law allowing the procedure to be performed to save the life of the mother.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

. . . I personally do not agree with abortion and do feel that it is a life that is being terminated, and I could never personally have one; HOWEVER, I do feel that it is a privacy right that is protected by the Constitution and it should never be outlawed. I do believe in some restrictions, however, such as the ban on partial birth abortions.

Me too - that exactly is my position. Which, BTW, makes us hated by all sides I mean who in their right mind thinks a 12 year old ought to be able to trot on up to the local abortion clinic one afternoon and undergo surgery without some kind of consent (judicial is good enough for me) being present.

Note - I feel the same way about gun control as well. I am all for the freedom to own a firearm, but there must be some reasonable restrictions or the massacres at places like VA Tech and Columbine will be repeated. Thus, both sides hate me on this issue as well

Maybe we ought to start a club

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

On the other note - I am busy getting back to teaching my law classes. Still love it three years later and still much happier than when I was practicing family law.

Glad to hear it. Lord Child, what a difference three or so years makes

[Mad4stevie]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I sort of agree with you regarding Alito, but Roberts has repeatedly said that Roe was incorrectly deceided and it should be overturned

In Gonzales, Kennedy assumed for the purposes of that opinion that the principles of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Caseywere applicable and then he applied them. Moveover, the Court in Gonzales found Congress had the power to ban the partial birth abortion procedure.

So, while Alito and Roberts did not join in the concurrence of Scalia and, of course Thomas (does Thomas ever have an original thought ) -- they did not really have to. Personally, I see their vote as a political move.

On edit - I actually agree for the most part with the Cort's holding in Gonzales because most partial birth abortions are performed after the first trimester, which makes them outside of the scope of Roe and, if I am not mistaken, there was an exception in the law allowing the procedure to be performed to save the life of the mother.

I can agree that Alito is less likely to overturn it than Roberts.

I do think the more moderate conservatives on the Court can recognize what overturning Roe and obliterating the right to privacy would do to our judicial system, so I still am less apt to think that they would blindly follow Scalia on that point (of course Thomas rides piggy-back on Scalia ).

I do think Gonzales was correct in that it did not hamper any rights during the first trimester, and put restrictions in place starting with the second trimester. The one thing it did do was blur the line between the pre-viability and post-viability language of Casey.

To read the Gonzales opinion, with all the details on how these partial birth abortions are performed, makes me sick to my stomach. I cannot imagine how it can be justified that it is legal to deliver an intact child (everything but the head), and then insert a knife into the base of the skull to make an opening so the brains can be sucked out, all the while the child (yes, CHILD) is kicking and flailing arms and legs.

Repulsive to me.

[Mad4stevie]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Me too - that exactly is my position. Which, BTW, makes us hated by all sides I mean who in their right mind thinks a 12 year old ought to be able to trot on up to the local abortion clinic one afternoon and undergo surgery without some kind of consent (judicial is good enough for me) being present.

Note - I feel the same way about gun control as well. I am all for the freedom to own a firearm, but there must be some reasonable restrictions or the massacres at places like VA Tech and Columbine will be repeated. Thus, both sides hate me on this issue as well

Maybe we ought to start a club

I am right there with you on both! Yeah, alot hate us because of it! But we are used to being looked at "evil" anyway due to our bar membership.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

I am right there with you on both! Yeah, alot hate us because of it! But we are used to being looked at "evil" anyway due to our bar membership.

Lord Child - ain't that the truth.

And, you get the double whammy because you must have not been able to cut it the real world, so you teach at some liberal university (all are aren't they)

Actually, I want to retire -- SOON!!!!!!!!!!!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

. . . (of course Thomas rides piggy-back on Scalia ).

It really makes me think they are lovers

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

. . . The one thing it did do was blur the line between the pre-viability and post-viability language of Casey.

I suppose to a degree, but the Court specifically applied Casey. So, it could be argued that any blur as dicta.

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

To read the Gonzales opinion, with all the details on how these partial birth abortions are performed, makes me sick to my stomach. I cannot imagine how it can be justified that it is legal to deliver an intact child (everything but the head), and then insert a knife into the base of the skull to make an opening so the brains can be sucked out, all the while the child (yes, CHILD) is kicking and flailing arms and legs.

Repulsive to me.

I know. I never really got where that procedure would be performed outside of some rare instance when the life of the mother was at stake. If that is the only way to terminate the pregnancy in that rare instance which the Act covers, then I would not be against it. But, seemingly there are more humane ways after the first trimester.

I suppose that the lower courts' rulings of Unconstitutionality due to the exception being for the life of the mother as opposed to the "health" of the mother had a point. But, I think that choice of terms in application is a dinstinction without a difference despite popular thought. I think that a doctor can find something that is life threatening if the mother really wants to abort and has only a health reason. I also think that this change in language is a good example of the ridiculousness of the R strategy. If a woman's health is threatened, she should be able to terminate the pregnancy; it is her body. It should not just be for a life threatening situation. But, the R's play to the far right every time no matter how inconsequential the change in terminology is in application

Interestingly and somewhat surprisingly, Kennedy deferred to Congress's findings that this intact dilation and extraction procedure is never needed to protect the health of a pregnant woman and, therefore, found that a health exception was unnecessary. That language is troubling to me because a rare situation could occur when the health or life of the mother happens and the partial birth abortion is the only way to terminate the pregnancy. An academic argument I grant you, but to me, Congress has no business telling doctors how to operate in that situation.

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The establishment clause of the First Amendment and just about all of the docs surrounding the formation of the US Cont. specifically prohibit the Govt. from establishing a national religion. This means that the govt. cannot put religion into law. In other words, what is the difference between having a nationally sanctioned religion and having various laws based solely on religious ideals with no nationally sanctioned religion. There is no difference.


I see that. However, I also think an elected official should be able to say "You know I do not personally believe in that, but I realize I have no right to put my personal beliefs into law because doing so would violate the rights of Americans who think and believe differently than I do." I mean how hard is that

See I take "the government cannot establish a national religion" to mean they cannot form something along the lines as, say, the Church of England and then enforce everyone to go to that church, and to practice that faith.

As for the 2nd part...well, we can dream on and hope for a president that says something like that. No politicians are perfect. We all are witness to that. If anything, politicians seem to be crooked as they come right? Faith based or not.

It also popped into my mind that every president I can recall in my lifetime (Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr) have all been Christian presidents. As a figurehead they seemingly have more sway and influence. I recall any of them going out of their way to say that their faith had no bearing on any of the important decisions they had to make.