View Single Post
Old 05-18-10, 07:59 PM   #42
CaptainHaplo
Silent Hunter
 
CaptainHaplo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,405
Downloads: 31
Uploads: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve View Post
Haplo, I challenge you, or anyone, to find any mention of church, God or Christ in the constitution.
Please note how the Constitution was signed (underlined portion my emphasis):

"done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,"

Source: http://constitutionus.com/

Its in there - specifically as a reference to the religiously held birth year of Jesus no less - just not where you expected it. Yes - I am fully aware of the fact that was the normal language of the day - but that language IS religious, IS in the constitution - and IS in specific reference to God - and in fact IS in reference to the Xtian God at that.....

Now - to the question of what I would change. Simple - the 1st amendment would be used as it is listed. IF a person is elected as required by law to an office, he is not required to check his morals (which are bounded as much in his religion - or lack of it - as anything else) at the door. This means that its not the job of government to be involved in anything religious - but there is no prohibition on religion acting in accordance with its moral code and promoting that code within society PROVIDED that such action does not impinge on the rights of others. There shall be no establishment of religion, and no prohibitions on its free excercise - meaning that if I want to put up a billboard that says "God loves you" - the billboard isn't making everyone read it, its not violating anyone elses rights, and as such should not have the government ruling it must be taken down because it "offends" someone. That someone can just not look at it. Just like if I did that - an athiest that wanted to could put up a billboard down the road that says "Dog is love" or some other athiestic mantra (I live in a "very" progressive area - filled with such) and I don't have to look at it either.

Basically - the only thing that would change is that you couldn't use "Its religious" as an excuse to fight something just because you don't agree with it.

Yes - I am sure someone is going to come up with "what about education - you want GOD in that don't you!" - well - I simply have to point at the constitution and respond with "Its not the job of the US Government to be educating the kids of this nation - that falls to the States, and local governments, and the Department of "re"Education has no basis to exist and is an infringement on the rights of the States, and should be abolished. Let the states, locals and parents in the areas where their kids are make the determinations of what they want their kids taught. Its not the Federal government's job to be every kid's nanny." Thus - if parents want their kids taught "creation", or "intelligent design", or "evolution", its their tax dollars - they should have the say. If they want all three - then let em have it. Who made the people in Washington so smart that they know what works in Hoboken, NY or Boise, Idaho, or Los Angeles, when they are not there every day dealing with those areas and their respective challenges. The people on the ground can make those decisions better than some politician in Washington, and that means that they can decide what they want taught. Sure, you may get some hickville in West Virginia (and that is an example - not slamming WVA) that decides the only thing they are going to teach is from the bible. OK - well - if they want to not know how to add, or to teach their kids to do it, thats unfortunate. Or a school in Seattle that wants to teach some new theory of evolution that says that the moon really is made of green cheese and that no one else agrees with - that is their choice. Again unfortunate - but in every case where it "could" go wrong - don't you think that its much more likely that the idiocy will be seen by the public at large and be stopped? After all - opening up decisions to the people that are paying for stuff usually tends to make sure that money is spent wisely.....
__________________
Good Hunting!

Captain Haplo
CaptainHaplo is offline   Reply With Quote