New anti-gun legislation
- Thread starter Roper
- Start date
- Status
Charles Sullivan
Active Member
What happens when a deeply religious Christian justice has to rule on something such as the death penalty? Though shalt not kill seems pretty unambiguous. if they rule for the death penalty aren't they complicit in violating that commandment? Does that supersede her secular interpretation of the constitution? Can the two truly be compartmentalized?
I am not sure that the human mind can truly separate faith completely when making judgements. Further, which comes first, ones faith or human made law? I think for the truly faithful it is always faith.
Go Sox,
cds
Last edited:
Charles Sullivan
Active Member
I'm not sure what this is meant to mean. It's a C&P meme/ t-shirt so I don't know what bearing it has on my attempt to have a discussion of the reality of Heller etc. Could you explain? Is it an attempt at an insult or an odd misogynist style belittling meme?
Go Sox,
cds
Don’t worry Rob, the thread went off the rails long ago.
O' Clarkii Stomias
Active Member
So, basically, christians are incapable of following the constitution, and we need to implement affirmative action to the selection of supreme court justices.
Rob Allen
Active Member
What makes you think our founding documents are secular? They aren't at all..
"Endowed by our creator"
The whole concept of our constitution is that there are moral/natural rights that people have apart from an untouchable by government.
Whether you believe those rights are granted by a specific God or are just natural in nature is irrelevant, it's a deeply religious stand to take.
Also given the original languages a better translation is thou shalt not commit murder. That also is a better fit contextually for the rest of the Bible.
The constitution does not speak to the death penalty and is therefore a state matter.
Also secular humanism is a religion...
Charles Sullivan
Active Member
I think this conversation would be much better if you did not interoperate my words. I do not believe that anyone can completely divorce their beliefs or even lack of beliefs from their professional lives. I did not say that religious people were incapable of following the constitution.
As far as affirmative action goes, I contend that having a belief in God has been a litmus test for justices. The fact that there are no atheist or agnostic judges is indicative of that.
Those are all my words.
Go Sox,
cds
O' Clarkii Stomias
Active Member
I don't agree. What I've found in my life is the most exemplary citizens of this society are capable setting their personal beliefs aside. As a bit of a disclaimer, that's not me.
O' Clarkii Stomias
Active Member
Yeah, that's where the whole " one nation under God......" thing comes in, but I see what you're saying.
Charles Sullivan
Active Member
Interesting take. That is consistent in some ways. If your conscience is ok with that then good for you.
My take is that the very 1st amendment to the constitution was to keep church and state seperate, for the betterment of both institutions. So while the documents don't read as 100% secular having been written in the language of the day, the government they create should be. This would be for the betterment of both church and state.
One great thing about being an atheist is that I don't have to do any mental gymnastics to marry my religious faith with anything. The downside is that I am 100% responsible for my conclusions and actions. I can't defer to a religious text.
Go Sox,
cds
Charles Sullivan
Active Member
The "under God " portion was added to the pledge as an anti-communist statement. Personally, I do not recite that part for the sake of honesty.
Go Sox,
cds
Rob Allen
Active Member
Z
But you are referring to a religious text. The thing is is that it exists only in your mind, truth be told that us true for everyone to one extent or another because no two people believe identically.
The first ammendment exists to ensure that the government doesn't interfere with a person's relationship with God. It doesn't dictate secularism. It dictates that the government is inferior to religious rights, written in the context of one Christian sect not dominating another one legally. But it certainly applies to all religions/ non-relligions too. Again secularism is a religion and therefore also cannot force undue influence over laws or it violates the establishment clause.
But you are referring to a religious text. The thing is is that it exists only in your mind, truth be told that us true for everyone to one extent or another because no two people believe identically.
The first ammendment exists to ensure that the government doesn't interfere with a person's relationship with God. It doesn't dictate secularism. It dictates that the government is inferior to religious rights, written in the context of one Christian sect not dominating another one legally. But it certainly applies to all religions/ non-relligions too. Again secularism is a religion and therefore also cannot force undue influence over laws or it violates the establishment clause.
Merle
Active Member
No, fortunately not. But at the beginning of this thread there was a proposal by some lawmakers to take away peoples’ gun rights, which is why we started the discussion.
bhudda
heffe'
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh thanks Merle! How’s that going? .......the proposals, from the start of this thread, I missed that, page 1? Glad nothings been taken from you, I mean your rights haven’t been taken away,.................yet.
Dave Maddock
Active Member
- Status
Similar threads
Support WFF | Remove the Ads
Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works.
Info
