New Government

The First Amendment applies to all, including idiots, racists, bigots, etc. It would be pretty friggin' pointless to enact a law guaranteeing freedom of speech only for those who agree with the views of the "powers that be", or even the majority of people. Under our current systems, fallacious arguments fail on their merits because others promptly have the chance to denounce them. Ku Klux Klanners have their freedom of speech, but nowadays the only place you see them is on Springer and a few websites.

If Cletus P. Yokel knows nothing about atomic weapons, except that he likes them because "they done make a purdy big cloud," I don't think he should decide whether or not we drop an atomic bomb on Tehran. And that goes back to my original point, which you distorted into some rant on how bigotry is wonderful and how I want to violate free speech: I don't trust average Americans to lead this country. That's why I'm a staunch opponent of direct democracy on a national level. If most Americans don't know enough about the issues they're voting on, then they shouldn't be allowed to make a crucial decision in a life-or-death situation.
 
Throw out the fallacious "separation of church and state" precedent that is more often than not, used against the religiously inclined.
.

You know why it's used against the religiously inclined? Because the religious zealots who have hijacked this country have been using their religious views to justify laws which have nothing to do with religion in the first place. Separation of church and state means that the federal government can't regulate the church, and vice versa. And yet, lawmakers stand on their pedestal and shout about how issues like abortion and gay marriage go against religion, that they are an abomination and that because there are good moral institutions out there that oppose it, they should be illegal across the board. Nevermind the fact that at least four religious denominations in this country-- three of which are Christian--have come out in favor of homosexual marriage and involvement in the church community. Nevermind the fact that abortion is not mentioned in the Bible whatsoever, that is a completely different practice then going out and slaughtering your neighbor. As for the marriage debate, I tend to agree with the argument that marriage should be up to the church, but... when lawmakers say it goes against the churches' wishes, and when several churches say "hey, we want equality, too" and let gay folks get married... their wishes are automatically ignored.

Religion should never, ever enter into decisions which affect an entire group of people and how they live, especially in a country which prides itself on equality. If those who wear their religion on their sleeve use their faith to cram their crap down non-believers' throats, then they're no better than the Islamic extremists and other terrorists who thrive on oppression, too. That's why separation of church in state is enacted. To the religiously inclined who don't screw everything up, sorry, but a few overzealous crackpots ruined it for the rest of you.
 
True Democracy = 2 wolves and 1 sheep.
 
Two things that I would do: abolish presidential term limits and once again giving the state legislatures the ability to pick Senators.
 
The current government is like a lake covered in algae. The algae is the really gross part no one likes and is disgusted with, a lot like to partisan bickering and legislative gridlock. But underneath that, there's so much that works, so much that does what it's suppose to. And obviously, someone like me--who not only studies this every day, but actually works in our government-- understands this.

good analogy, although I respected your opinions before you told me you were in government
 
Two things that I would do: abolish presidential term limits and once again giving the state legislatures the ability to pick Senators.
I do not have a problem with States picking their representatives. But, abolishing presidential term limits I'm not sure of. So, let's comprimise, you can have Unlimited Presidential Term limits, but they have to have a Super Majority of Delegates at Elections?
 
good analogy, although I respected your opinions before you told me you were in government

So... I don't understand what you're saying... are you saying that you respected me before I admitted I worked for our government, and that you still respect my opinions? Or that you respect my opinions less because I'm in government?
 
So... I don't understand what you're saying... are you saying that you respected me before I admitted I worked for our government, and that you still respect my opinions? Or that you respect my opinions less because I'm in government?
What do you do for us? Might I ask? A Postal Carrier works for our government, a Ticket Maid works for a our Government, as do many other menial jobs.
 
good analogy, although I respected your opinions before you told me you were in government
I wish there were more people in government whose opinions I respect. That should be what we all pray for. To be led by people we can respect.
 
What do you do for us? Might I ask? A Postal Carrier works for our government, a Ticket Maid works for a our Government, as do many other menial jobs.

I think that he's actually Paul Wolfowitz.
 
What do you do for us? Might I ask? A Postal Carrier works for our government, a Ticket Maid works for a our Government, as do many other menial jobs.

I work in the Senate for a Senator who has to remain nameless on the forum for professional reasons. It's kind of like an internship, but better.
 
I do not have a problem with States picking their representatives. But, abolishing presidential term limits I'm not sure of. So, let's comprimise, you can have Unlimited Presidential Term limits, but they have to have a Super Majority of Delegates at Elections?

What do you mean by a super majority of delegates? You lost me there.
 
You know why it's used against the religiously inclined? Because the religious zealots who have hijacked this country have been using their religious views to justify laws which have nothing to do with religion in the first place. Separation of church and state means that the federal government can't regulate the church, and vice versa. And yet, lawmakers stand on their pedestal and shout about how issues like abortion and gay marriage go against religion, that they are an abomination and that because there are good moral institutions out there that oppose it, they should be illegal across the board. Nevermind the fact that at least four religious denominations in this country-- three of which are Christian--have come out in favor of homosexual marriage and involvement in the church community. Nevermind the fact that abortion is not mentioned in the Bible whatsoever, that is a completely different practice then going out and slaughtering your neighbor. As for the marriage debate, I tend to agree with the argument that marriage should be up to the church, but... when lawmakers say it goes against the churches' wishes, and when several churches say "hey, we want equality, too" and let gay folks get married... their wishes are automatically ignored.

Religion should never, ever enter into decisions which affect an entire group of people and how they live, especially in a country which prides itself on equality. If those who wear their religion on their sleeve use their faith to cram their crap down non-believers' throats, then they're no better than the Islamic extremists and other terrorists who thrive on oppression, too. That's why separation of church in state is enacted. To the religiously inclined who don't screw everything up, sorry, but a few overzealous crackpots ruined it for the rest of you.

One of the biggest issues concerning this argument is the public display of the Ten Commandments. Okay, I understand that if you don't believe in a Supreme Being, or believe in a different one than Christ and the God of Abraham, you could take issue with numbers one through four. But who could object to everything between "Honor your father and your mother" to "You shall not covet your neighbor's stuff"? Every religion has the same basic rules of morality, like "You shall not murder" and "You shall not commit adultery."
 
Besides, "separation of church and state" isn't even in the Constitution.

As for the gay marriage and abortion issues, most religious people I know don't want to "cram our beliefs down your throats", as many like to say, but wish the issues voted on by the people and the legislatures instead of having Supreme Court Justices "cram their opinions down our throats," because they have legitimate concerns over these issues. Then, if you want to allow or disallow abortion or gay marriage, you may simply vote yes or no.

I do agree with you on this: Everyone makes a big deal about low voter turnout, but I'm glad that those with no interest and no knowledge of the issues usually stay home on Election Day. Except when you have the "Rock the Vote"-type promotions, in which MTV and its ilk encourage ignorant, stoned teenagers to vote "because it's cool".
 
One of the biggest issues concerning this argument is the public display of the Ten Commandments. Okay, I understand that if you don't believe in a Supreme Being, or believe in a different one than Christ and the God of Abraham, you could take issue with numbers one through four. But who could object to everything between "Honor your father and your mother" to "You shall not covet your neighbor's stuff"? Every religion has the same basic rules of morality, like "You shall not murder" and "You shall not commit adultery."

I object to it. Yeah, we're all against murder. But you know what? I don't think society should be told to honor their parents. I don't think society should be told not to covet their neighbors goods. And I certainly don't think society should be told to worship the Christian God and only the Christian God.

That's where the flaw is. The Ten Commandments are religious commandments that cater to only a select few religions. Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Deists, Taoists and others don't need to have Christian propaganda crammed down their throats at places which are supposed to be impartial to all that nonsense anyway.
 
Besides, "separation of church and state" isn't even in the Constitution.

You're obviously wrong and unable to read the Constitution. And even if the language is "flawed," then I still think its terroristic for Christians to pass laws in the name of God and use God as a way to beat down other people.

As for the gay marriage and abortion issues, most religious people I know don't want to "cram our beliefs down your throats", as many like to say, but wish the issues voted on by the people and the legislatures instead of having Supreme Court Justices "cram their opinions down our throats," because they have legitimate concerns over these issues. Then, if you want to allow or disallow abortion or gay marriage, you may simply vote yes or no.

So, only terroristic Christians have legitimate concerns over gay marriage? Because they believe society will cave in because two men will get married, that makes their concerns more legitimate? What about the hundreds of thousands of gay people who want to be left alone? Like me? I don't want those morons dictating how I live because their Magic Finger in the sky thinks it's icky for two men to be in a loving relationship together.

Your Supreme Court argument is flawed too. The Supreme Court declared that a law in Texas which criminalized homosexual behavior was unconstitutional. Surely, you wouldn't argue against that. And you also wouldn't argue that the Supreme Court, which has a right-wing, terroristic Christian sway to it these days, is too liberal, right? Because that would just prove your blindness to contemporary politics.

And I don't think the American people should decide whether abortion should be legal or not. Why? Because half the pro-lifers out there are religious wingnuts who think that babies are taken out of the mother's womb alive and cut into teeny tiny pieces in front of the mother, and then flushed down a toilet. Or something similar to that. I want people who have a thorough knowledge of laws and precedent to decide on these issues. Abortion is a legal matter. Gay marriage is a religious matter. These issues aren't like approving budget grants for school districts or deciding on whether or not to build a new library in the middle of town. These are legal matters which should be decided by experts or the institutions they affect-- not Cletus P. Yokel and the Yokel clan.
 
What do you mean by a super majority of delegates? You lost me there.
If someone is elected to president and after two terms, they want to run again, they have to win by a super Majority of the delegates of our Electorial College to become president again.

Lets say, you have a Very Successful President. The Economy is Great, blah, blah, blah. That President runs and wins reelection on his 2nd term. Reelection comes up again, now, he would have to win by at least 3/4 of the Country would have to vote him in to win election again.
 
You're obviously wrong and unable to read the Constitution. And even if the language is "flawed," then I still think its terroristic for Christians to pass laws in the name of God and use God as a way to beat down other people.

Uhhhh . . . he's right. "Separation of church and state" does NOT appear in the U.S. Constitution. I've read the entire thing, and it isn't in there. The closest you'll get to it is the First Amendment.
 
Separation of Church and State is a rule of thumb if anything
its not listed as far as I know in any of the law docs.
 
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
I believe Tom Jefferson once said something like it is as though there is a separation of church and state. Nevermind, here it is:

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.


http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
 
I would get rid of the electoral college and have the people vote directly for their president. I would also make the organisation that runs the elections independent, rather than controlled by the party in office.
 
I would get rid of the electoral college and have the people vote directly for their president. I would also make the organisation that runs the elections independent, rather than controlled by the party in office.

I agree with the second, but not the first. Although I would make some reforms to the college.
 
If someone is elected to president and after two terms, they want to run again, they have to win by a super Majority of the delegates of our Electorial College to become president again.

Lets say, you have a Very Successful President. The Economy is Great, blah, blah, blah. That President runs and wins reelection on his 2nd term. Reelection comes up again, now, he would have to win by at least 3/4 of the Country would have to vote him in to win election again.

I see. Its definately not a bad idea, but I don't know if there should be an exception like that in the Electoral College for a two-term President running for reelection. I think a simple majority would be enough.
 
I see. Its definately not a bad idea, but I don't know if there should be an exception like that in the Electoral College for a two-term President running for reelection. I think a simple majority would be enough.

The President only needs a simple majority of EC votes now.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"