Making Sense of the Issue of the Day - RBG

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

In a large society of diversity — laws based in logic and reason should be equal to all inhabitants.

Individual beliefs should stay with the individual or like kind.

Quite the vague answer. Let's see what I can infer from the vagueness.

Should I be allowed to say a prayer within earshot of another person?

Should I be allowed to congregate with others in a church?

Should I be allowed to use the words "God," "Jesus," etc., in public?

I'm pretty sure I should never be allowed to hold any kind of public office in your world.

Should I be allowed to send my children to a religious school?

Sounds like you have a pretty good list going yourself. Maybe just exile all Christians and be done with it. Or, we could always toss them in ovens...

TheRedneck

I’m not responsible for your interpretation of what I said.

originally posted by: Annee
Religious freedom is not America’s first freedom. Christian Nationalists love this line, but it simply reflects a lack of reading comprehension. The First Amendment does not begin by guaranteeing a right to religious worship, but a right to a secular government: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The two rights are intimately connected. There is no such thing as the freedom of religion without a government that is free from religion.

Do you know that our forefathers did not want to keep religion out of politics, but to keep politics out of religion? None of it was about removing religion, but they wanted to make sure there wasn't a state run religion like there was in England.

Whether your moral values are driven by the Bible, Quran or Kant the Goverment doesn't care as long as the Goverment doesn't mandate what religion you will have.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee
Religious freedom is not America’s first freedom. Christian Nationalists love this line, but it simply reflects a lack of reading comprehension. The First Amendment does not begin by guaranteeing a right to religious worship, but a right to a secular government: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The two rights are intimately connected. There is no such thing as the freedom of religion without a government that is free from religion.

Do you know that our forefathers did not want to keep religion out of politics, but to keep politics out of religion? None of it was about removing religion, but they wanted to make sure there wasn't a state run religion like there was in England.

Whether your moral values are driven by the Bible, Quran or Kant the Goverment doesn't care as long as the Goverment doesn't mandate what religion you will have.

Depends on who you read.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Nope. It could be a conflict of interest. It could be citations of support of causes that don't resonate well. It could a display of bias. It could be any number of things that the President or Senators see as disqualifying.

I keep typing words... they show up on my screen... but apparently you can't see them...

Where did I say anything about other disqualifiers? I stated that the Constitution says religion cannot be used to qualify (or disqualify) an individual from public office. I never said a person could not be disqualified for bad judgement or any of those other things.

Is your screen broken?

There is absolutely no mention of monuments, public or otherwise.

Where is the mention of public office holding?

Where, Sookie? I read the whole thing twice. Where does it say anything about holding public office while religious?

I mentioned public monuments because they tie in with the open prayer and having the word "God" existing in public. That was a whole push that was attempted back then. Scalia focused on the word "God" on coins and in the Pledge of Allegiance as well as open prayer. I focused on the monument thing. Different parts of the same agenda: remove any and all references to religion from anywhere they might be seen by others, thereby removing religion entirely. Heck, there were some people demanding that the phrase "Merry Christmas" be outlawed!

Scalia thought that, and so do his acolytes, one of which is most likely Trump's nominee.

So you are channeling ghosts and spirits. Very well. You've fooled me once already this thread so what did I have for supper? Should be an easy one for you to figure out...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
As the President and the GOP Senators are clearly stated that their power allows them to decide what qualification they want in a SCOTUS justice. In this case they all want a pro-life Christian, that will favor evangelical Christian values over secular values.

You know Sookie... F * C K Roe vs Wade...this is coming from someone who doesn't appose abortions. It was a very bad decision by the SC and one that was well out of bounds for the SC to make, but hey it is now legal precedent and both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have said whether they agree with it or not it is now legal precedent and they would not touch it, so the whole "the sky is falling I'll lose my right is total BS". If Barrett is picked, and she is most likely the one, she would be doing the country a disservice not to look at everything with the Constitution in mind. I can't say the same for the liberal judges who in some cases are more activist than Constitutionalist have done. We don't need activist on our highest court...they need to get back to their real job.

a reply to: Annee

Then don't give me a reason to interpret. Be more precise.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Annee

Depends on who you read.

Like our freaken forefathers who except for one were very religious? Geez give me a break... They came from a country with a state sponsored religion, they wanted ALL religions to be free from Goverment influences because of this..

Does this even make any sense to you?

As I said the Goverment doesn't care where you get your moral foundation from its just that they will not dictate what that would be.

Be a GD Druid on the SC the Goverment will not get involved as it should be.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

Then don't give me a reason to interpret. Be more precise.

TheRedneck

You don’t make sense to me.

You reach for the extreme. It’s exhausting.

Does logic and reason really dictate you can’t say Grace at a table in a restaurant?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee

Depends on who you read.

Like our freaken forefathers who except for one were very religious? Geez give me a break... They came from a country with a state sponsored religion, they wanted ALL religions to be free from Goverment influences because of this..

Does this even make any sense to you?

As I said the Goverment doesn't care where you get your moral foundation from its just that they will not dictate what that would be.

Be a GD Druid on the SC the Goverment will not get involved as it should be.

I think your choosing what you want to believe.

Why all the argument?

The Constitution states that there can be no religious test for a Supreme Court appointment.

So any candidate for the job, their religion is a moot point and really none of anyone's business.

The Senate can only go by how they have ruled, what they have ruled on.

I now have to get the kid to bed. In case you wonder where I went. Pre-teen, high functioning Autistic. Every nights a little different.

originally posted by: Annee

I think your choosing what you want to believe.

I'm speaking logic her old gal... I'm not even religious.

a reply to: Annee

Does logic and reason really dictate you can’t say Grace at a table in a restaurant?

I suppose that would depend o who you ask. Some people take offense to something that simple. I was asking what offended you, what you thought was too much religious freedom.

You answered with a subjective response, so I inferred worst case. Would you care to answer with a more objective one?

What rights do you think Christians should be denied because of their religion?

TheRedneck

So, his 6th trip outta bed was to show me my jar of skin cream was almost empty and I needed to get more.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You and I are never going to see eye to eye — there’s too much of a cultural divide.

Which makes the point in itself.

Logic and reason should be the only factor in society laws.

What people believe (or not) should be personal to them.

If you tried to shove your religious belief into my space — I would have the right to object. You would not.

Many (most) people are accepting of others if you stay in your own space.

California is very big on personal space. Ya don’t get up in other people’s business.

a reply to: Annee

You and I are never going to see eye to eye — there’s too much of a cultural divide.

No, we're not. I tend to have a hard time agreeing with people who won't even answer my questions.

A great deal of that is because I have learned over the years that people who dodge direct questions do not want to give a direct answer, and that because the direct answer is pretty heinous. Hence my assumptions earlier.

I noticed you have not yet stated you are against removal of any of those rights from me. I guess I'll have to take that as an answer.

Logic and reason should be the only factor in society laws.

Which of course is subjective in itself. I logically arrived at my conclusions, and you are apparently claiming you logically arrived at yours. Yet, we are chasms apart. So whose logic? Whose reason? I daresay you don't think it should be mine.

What people believe (or not) should be personal to them.

Again, is that a polite way of saying "keep that religious nonsense away from public spaces where people can see it!"

If you tried to shove your religious belief into my space — I would have the right to object. You would not.

An interesting point. Has Amy Coney Barrett shoved her religious views into anyone else's space? It seems to me Diane Feinstein et. al. are the ones delving into her personal space. Does she have the right to object? No? Why?

What constitutes your personal space? If I am praying at a ball game you attend, is that your personal space? Is my church in your personal space because you can see it from the road? If I erect a small cross alongside a highway to commemorate the death of a loved one, did I violate your personal space?

Many (most) people are accepting of others if you stay in your own space.

Yes, they seem to be around here anyway. We don't tend to care what someone does religiously. The phrase "none of my business" comes to mind. We do tend to care when people start trying to legally suppress our rights over religion.

California is very big on personal space. Ya don’t get up in other people’s business.

Unless someone smokes in their own home... or makes noise... or makes home improvements without approval... or parks their car in the wrong place... or has a cross in their own yard...

Then something seems to change. From what I have seen (and yes, I have been there) Californians like to get in other people's space whenever they feel someone is not doing something "right."

In other words, you guys wouldn't know how to respect personal space if it came with instructions on a flashing neon sign.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

No God in government is pretty clear.

But, you won’t accept that.

Question always asked: As far as having a moral base, I’ve found since becoming non-religious, I am far more aware. I m fully 100% responsible for my own thoughts and choices. There is no one but me, no other “go to guy” to give credit to, make excuses for, etc.

This is on topic IMO — because of who (reportedly) Trump is considering. She is uber religious.

a reply to: Annee

You're more patient that any one deserves here Annee. You get lashed with every fallacy in the book, dispensed with ignorant arrogance ... and you still keep stating the facts clearly.

I wish you luck.

Good thing we have a Supreme Court that can settle "differences of interpretation" 😎

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Annee

You're more patient that any one deserves here Annee. You get lashed with every fallacy in the book, dispensed with ignorant arrogance ... and you still keep stating the facts clearly.

I wish you luck.

Thank you.

I do try to keep it short, plain, and simple.

I do realize people are complicated — but, “No God in government” is not.