Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[Rhinox]

So since you seem to agree with this, tell me where the Government is allowed to tax people for creation of a socialized health care plan? Where is it that the Government can impose it's pro-choice doctrine on medical practitioners who are staunch pro-life supporters?

So it's OK in some situations to follow the 1st and 10th amendment but in other's its OK to throw them out?

Is it not the same thing? Or is it OK to just support the constitution in say a cafeteria ala carte way?

Didn't know Pro-life was a religion.

Fucking hypocrites. Death penalty is also against church doctrine yet people don't prance around yelling foul for them. People are not pro-life their anti-choice. call it as it is.

[Deftscythe]

So since you seem to agree with this, tell me where the Government is allowed to tax people for creation of a socialized health care plan? Where is it that the Government can impose it's pro-choice doctrine on medical practitioners who are staunch pro-life supporters?

So it's OK in some situations to follow the 1st and 10th amendment but in other's its OK to throw them out?

Is it not the same thing? Or is it OK to just support the constitution in say a cafeteria ala carte way?

Wait... the government forces pro-life doctors to perform abortions? Cause it sounds like that's what you're saying.

[Valisk]

So since you seem to agree with this, tell me where the Government is allowed to tax people for creation of a socialized health care plan?

Amendment XVI
(Ratified February 3, 1913)

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Government is allowed to tax people and use the money as they see fit. How they see fit depends on what senators and representatives you elect to Congress. If people don't want a socialized health care plan, then they need to vote on senators and representatives who are against it. Usually, Congress can't do shit without 2/3s vote in both chambers.

[Dimmauk]

I always laugh at the "we need less Government" chant, but not when it comes to certain social issues that the government has no business being a part of.

[Seraph]

Didn't know Pro-life was a religion.

Fucking hypocrites. Death penalty is also against church doctrine yet people don't prance around yelling foul for them. People are not pro-life their anti-choice. call it as it is.

Pro-Death, and Anti-Choice. I like it. Fire up the protest sign making machine...

[Plow]

That is what I just said in the quoted text. Many politicians that were elected have tried to instill their values in the people based on their religious beliefs and I think that is wrong. How hard is that to understand?

Well, that wasn't what I was getting at, but I disagree there.

If the majority of the people believe a certain thing should be allowed/disallowed, well, that's what democracy is about.


Separation of church and state absolutely 100% does not mean laws cannot be decided by a person's religious beliefs... not only would that be just plain silly, it would be utterly and completely impossible to police.

What it means, essentially, is that it can't be illegal to follow your religious beliefs within reason.

[Rhinox]

fascist.

[Plow]

Pro-Death, and Anti-Choice. I like it. Fire up the protest sign making machine...

Nah, you'd have to make it pro-infanticide, most of the pro choice people are anti-death penalty.

[aurik]

Government is allowed to tax people and use the money as they see fit. How they see fit depends on what senators and representatives you elect to Congress. If people don't want a socialized health care plan, then they need to vote on senators and representatives who are against it. Usually, Congress can't do shit without 2/3s vote in both chambers.

Actually the right to tax the people is derived from the original constitution, this amendment just reinforces the fact that they can use it in a disproportionate manner.

We could start calling it the SOCIALIST AMENDMENT lol.

[aurik]

Well, that wasn't what I was getting at, but I disagree there.

If the majority of the people believe a certain thing should be allowed/disallowed, well, that's what democracy is about.


Separation of church and state absolutely 100% does not mean laws cannot be decided by a person's religious beliefs... not only would that be just plain silly, it would be utterly and completely impossible to police.

What it means, essentially, is that it can't be illegal to follow your religious beliefs within reason.

Once upon a time, a majority of people believed slavery should be allowed. And, much more recently, believed that racism was an a-ok thing.

There is a reason that the bill of rights exists: there are some rights that not even a majority decision can take away.

[Plow]

Once upon a time, a majority of people believed slavery should be allowed. And, much more recently, believed that racism was an a-ok thing.

There is a reason that the bill of rights exists: there are some rights that not even a majority decision can take away.

I'm not sure what you're getting at >.>


I'm just saying people's beliefs are what makes the laws, if the beliefs are based in religion, so be it. It's not like you can say "murder is only wrong because the bible/whatever religious book says so, therefore it can't be a law."


And that there's a difference between making your decisions about law based in religion and actually trying to go out and teach religion, and that's where the problem comes in, i.e. "where is that line?"

[Kuya]

He's saying that not everything should be up for change at the hands of the majority. IE : the law as sovereign.

[Plow]

right but I'm not seeing how that applies to what we're talking about

I mean that's kind of where the discussion is based on, the fact that it protects the minority from being subject to the majority's wishes.

[aurik]

I'm not sure what you're getting at >.>


I'm just saying people's beliefs are what makes the laws, if the beliefs are based in religion, so be it. It's not like you can say "murder is only wrong because the bible/whatever religious book says so, therefore it can't be a law."


And that there's a difference between making your decisions about law based in religion and actually trying to go out and teach religion, and that's where the problem comes in, i.e. "where is that line?"

And what if religion says "<insert religious/ethnic group here> are only fit to be slaves and have no rights"? Should we create laws that enforce this? CAN we create laws that enforce it, if enough people refuse to repudiate it?

This question isn't hypothetical: a lot of religions actually have this kind of text in their holy books, and there were many places in history where it was actually practiced.

[Kuya]

If the majority of the people believe a certain thing should be allowed/disallowed, well, that's what democracy is about.

I thought he was referring to this. And you're right, that IS what a democracy is about, but we aren't a democracy.

[Plow]

And what if religion says "<insert religious/ethnic group here> are only fit to be slaves and have no rights"? Should we create laws that enforce this? CAN we create laws that enforce it, if enough people refuse to repudiate it?

This question isn't hypothetical: a lot of religions actually have this kind of text in their holy books, and there were many places in history where it was actually practiced.

Hence...

Separation of church and state is for the good of churches other than the one with the most power, and the people outside the church with the most power.

That's why I'm not sure what you're getting at, I've already said exactly what it appears you're saying.

[aurik]

If the majority of the people believe a certain thing should be allowed/disallowed, well, that's what democracy is about.

This is at odds with the bill of rights, I'm just pointing it out.

[zoobernut]

A good example of what I am talking about would be gay rights. The majority of people I have talked to believe that gays should not have equal rights due to their religious belief that being gay is wrong.

The idea that gay marriage should be banned has numerous times been stated that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman in "insert religion here". I have not once heard an argument against equal rights for gays and the allowance for gay marriage that did not involve a religious belief or writings.

This is a perfect example of people and politicians trying to enact government control over others lives and rights based on a religion.

As soon as marriage became a legally recognized term and a government recognized institution the religious argument fell out the window, or it should have.

Edit: and I agree with Aurik about the majority doesn't necessarily rule thing. There are times when it has not and will not work in this country.

[Plow]

I agree too, sorry I guess I'd thought I made that clear already and didn't need to add "within reason" to every sentence.


I'm basically just pointing out that where "within reason" draws the line is the controversial issue.

[Kuya]

A good example of what I am talking about would be gay rights. The majority of people I have talked to believe that gays should not have equal rights due to their religious belief that being gay is wrong.

The idea that gay marriage should be banned has numerous times been stated that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman in "insert religion here". I have not once heard an argument against equal rights for gays and the allowance for gay marriage that did not involve a religious belief or writings.

This is a perfect example of people and politicians trying to enact government control over others lives and rights based on a religion.

As soon as marriage became a legally recognized term and a government recognized institution the religious argument fell out the window, or it should have.

Edit: and I agree with Aurik about the majority doesn't necessarily rule thing. There are times when it has not and will not work in this country.

The reason for the opposition is more than just religious dogma dictating that being gay is wrong. The argument can easily be defeated in regards to religious dogma as the real opposition to "gay rights" is the sin of sodomy, however any research into what sodomy really is pretty much ends the argument. Now the real problem is the gender issues that this brings up along with an argument that marriage is meant to be an institution of rearing children hence "gay marriage" would corrupt it, which of course ignores a few facts that also make it invalid.

But anyway, the point is that opposition to "gay rights" goes a little deeper than some bible saying it's wrong, especially because it does not implicitly say so.