New Election 2008 thread

[EL the Famous]

I may be confused but being somewhat familiar with the constitution and having read the Federalist Papers numerous times, I don't recall the "seperation of church and state" section. I've seen something about the government shall not legislate a state relegion, i.e. the Church of England being the official religion of well, England.

 

and that is the tenant of the whole 'separation of church and state' thing i can get behind...i don't think that any certain religion be mandated by government to anybody. nor do i think that any one religious faith be allowed to a direct influence to public policy affecting those who don't follow it.

 

problem is, nobody wants to believe there is happy medium somewhere there.

[Good Old Neon]

I may be confused but being somewhat familiar with the constitution and having read the Federalist Papers numerous times, I don't recall the "seperation of church and state" section. I've seen something about the government shall not legislate a state relegion, i.e. the Church of England being the official religion of well, England.

 

Wikipedia -

 

"In the United States the "Separation of Church and State" is generally discussed as a political and legal principle derived from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." The concept of separation is commonly credited to the combination of the two clauses: the establishment clause, generally interpreted as preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax money in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally; and the free exercise clause, ensuring that private religious practices are not restricted by the government. The effect of prohibiting direct connections between religious and governmental institutions while protecting private religious freedom and autonomy has been termed the "separation of church and state."

[Good Old Neon]

Not going to explain this one, then?

 

Well, based on previous conversations and posts, your outlook on life seems to be more scientific in nature

[bobbob1313]

Total atheist. Doesn't mean I need to put down other people's beliefs at every turn.

[JUDE]

Wikipedia -

 

"In the United States the "Separation of Church and State" is generally discussed as a political and legal principle derived from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." The concept of separation is commonly credited to the combination of the two clauses: the establishment clause, generally interpreted as preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax money in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally; and the free exercise clause, ensuring that private religious practices are not restricted by the government. The effect of prohibiting direct connections between religious and governmental institutions while protecting private religious freedom and autonomy has been termed the "separation of church and state."

 

So by quoting this Wiki article how did you prove the framers of the constitution intended for a total seperation of church and state when drafting the constitution?

[sweetheart-mine]

(1) whenver i get involved in these debates...it's really more grounded in how things are being said versus what is being said.

 

 

(2) just seems like we, dpending on your personal beliefs, can be awfully selective when it comes to how we rally against or run to certain policies...

(1) well, i think that's a good thing. too often the "how" gets out of hand or ignored.

 

(2) true, and it sounds a lot like human nature. in fact, i think it is!

 

damn i wish i could figure out how to organize multiple quotes and answers.

[uncle wilco]

i do wish people who otherwise should know better would limit the size of their families. government should have no hand in this, but it would

help if people used a little common sense. here is an extreme case: my doctor nephew and his wife, both very nice people, decided

when they got married that they wanted to have (give birth to) 8 children, and so far they're up to 5. it would be funny if it weren't so alarming! i mean,

who's going to pay for the parents' psychiatric hospital stays when they go crazy? a doctor's salary goes only so far!

 

this is more than little offensive to me. i'm the oldest of 10 kids. we are all doing just fine and my parents as well. we are all self-sufficient and contribute to society in a variety of occupations (including education). we have never needed assistance from a meddling government to get by and we were on the lower end of what would be considered middle-class growing up. basically, my parents worked their asses off and had no regrets whatsoever in doing so. they are the most down to earth people i know.

 

this is a problem with the liberal mindset. it is always well-meaning, but completely condescending to those who do not share their point of view. despite their assumptions, government hand-outs should be an exception and not an expectation for people. the government has no business sticking their nose where it doesn't belong and certainly the same goes for well-meaning liberals. they should mind their own damn business.

 

as a conservative and a christian i'm aware of the "meddlers" who share both my political philosophy and faith. and i'm sorry that their ego driven grand-standing tends to paint the rest of us in a negative light with those of opposing views. there are some liberals on this board who i have the utmost respect for because they acknowlege the validity of the opposing points of view. we are all human, therefore we are flawed. this especially extends to political philosophy. there is no perfect system of government or perfect political movement. professing otherwise makes you part of the problem.

 

things don't have to be all or nothing. there should be room for civil debate and compromise. there should be civility in these discussions and not dismissive arrogance. in other words (in regards to this particular issue), it's none of governments damn business (or anyone elses for that matter) how many kids parents have.

[MrRain422]

including holidays? and, why even when it's non-denominational? are your replacing mandatory w/ organized? not on the attack, i'm just really interested.

 

I don't mind teaching about holidays, but I don't think that any particular ones should be promoted or celebrated necessarily.

 

And I object to non-denominational prayer too because, well, there are athiests in public schools too, as well as people of other religions who will inevitably be excluded even in instances where attempts are made not to cater to any one religion. And organized prayer may as well be mandatory among smaller children -- they'll feel compelled to just to fit in, even if they aren't officially forced into anything.

[MrRain422]

I may be confused but being somewhat familiar with the constitution and having read the Federalist Papers numerous times, I don't recall the "seperation of church and state" section. I've seen something about the government shall not legislate a state relegion, i.e. the Church of England being the official religion of well, England.

 

The Federalist Papers are only written by three of the framers (James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay). And the point of the Federalist Papers generally focused on other areas of the Constitution in their attempts to sway people to support its adoption. Hamilton was actually opposed to the Bill of Rights, so he certainly wasn't on board for the First Amendment itself (although his objections were actually because he felt that the inclusion a Bill of Rights would eventually lead to the exclusion of other rights not innumerated).

 

The actual term "Separation of Church and State" comes from another framer, though: Thomas Jefferson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jeffer...hurch_and_State

[dannygutters]

Why is it offensive to consider the impact of exponential population growth? Because it questions the responsibility of that choice?

[sweetheart-mine]

this is more than little offensive to me. i'm the oldest of 10 kids. we are all doing just fine and my parents as well. we are all self-sufficient and contribute to society in a variety of occupations (including education). we have never needed assistance from a meddling government to get by and we were on the lower end of what would be considered middle-class growing up. basically, my parents worked their asses off and had no regrets whatsoever in doing so. they are the most down to earth people i know.

 

this is a problem with the liberal mindset. it is always well-meaning, but completely condescending to those who do not share their point of view. despite their assumptions, government hand-outs should be an exception and not an expectation for people. the government has no business sticking their nose where it doesn't belong and certainly the same goes for well-meaning liberals. they should mind their own damn business.

 

as a conservative and a christian i'm aware of the "meddlers" who share both my political philosophy and faith. and i'm sorry that their ego driven grand-standing tends to paint the rest of us in a negative light with those of opposing views. there are some liberals on this board who i have the utmost respect for because they acknowlege the validity of the opposing points of view. we are all human, therefore we are flawed. this especially extends to political philosophy. there is no perfect system of government or perfect political movement. professing otherwise makes you part of the problem.

 

things don't have to be all or nothing. there should be room for civil debate and compromise. there should be civility in these discussions and not dismissive arrogance. in other words (in regards to this particular issue), it's none of governments damn business (or anyone elses for that matter) how many kids parents have.

whoa. there's a good tone for your very first post to me.

 

your family sounds great and i'm happy for you. what was condescending in my concern about overpopulation? you seem to have taken it personally, which it wasn't meant to be. by the way, i don't fit into the category of "liberal."

 

i agree there is no perfect system of government or perfect political movement, and nowhere did i profess otherwise.

 

i agree things don't have to be all or nothing. in fact, they can't. and i certainly agree with civility in discussion. to be honest, i'm not sure you just practiced what you preach here.

 

of course it's none of the government's "damn business" how many kids parents have. i said so myself, if you'll go back and read it calmly.

 

thank you.

[Good Old Neon]

this is more than little offensive to me. i'm the oldest of 10 kids. we are all doing just fine and my parents as well. we are all self-sufficient and contribute to society in a variety of occupations (including education). we have never needed assistance from a meddling government to get by and we were on the lower end of what would be considered middle-class growing up. basically, my parents worked their asses off and had no regrets whatsoever in doing so. they are the most down to earth people i know.

 

this is a problem with the liberal mindset. it is always well-meaning, but completely condescending to those who do not share their point of view. despite their assumptions, government hand-outs should be an exception and not an expectation for people. the government has no business sticking their nose where it doesn't belong and certainly the same goes for well-meaning liberals. they should mind their own damn business.

 

as a conservative and a christian i'm aware of the "meddlers" who share both my political philosophy and faith. and i'm sorry that their ego driven grand-standing tends to paint the rest of us in a negative light with those of opposing views. there are some liberals on this board who i have the utmost respect for because they acknowlege the validity of the opposing points of view. we are all human, therefore we are flawed. this especially extends to political philosophy. there is no perfect system of government or perfect political movement. professing otherwise makes you part of the problem.

 

things don't have to be all or nothing. there should be room for civil debate and compromise. there should be civility in these discussions and not dismissive arrogance. in other words (in regards to this particular issue), it's none of governments damn business (or anyone elses for that matter) how many kids parents have.

 

I understand where you

[uncle wilco]

I understand where you

[Good Old Neon]

are you speaking in regards to the united states? because that's where i live.

 

china is already forcing their population to comply with a one-child rule. i don't see that as a necessary or ethical choice in a free society.

 

To some degree, yes, overpopulation is beginning to have an impact here as well. Also, Americans use more resources than the citizens of any other country, with the exception of China perhaps (where families are limited to one child). So yes, our behavior, our numbers can have a drastic negative impact on countries most of us will never step foot in.

 

But I agree, I

[JUDE]

But I agree, I

[fatheadfred]

Population control from the gov't...whatever. China is doing really well with their environment. Maybe they should focus more on gov't regulation of industry than procreation.

 

The US has an assload of land. If our society wasn't industrialized and populations concentrate we could handle a lot of bastards. I think. shit, I don't know. Maybe our progress has digressed. shit, i don't know.

 

Let me do some calculations. I'll return.

[ZenLunatic]

How should our government determine who can have children and who can't? When the time come of course.

 

Not about control but education.

They should educate people in the value of human life and the effects of overpopulation. More focus on quality of life than quantity.

[Good Old Neon]

How should our government determine who can have children and who can't? When the time come of course.

 

Good question, I don

[fatheadfred]

2,000,000,000 acres

300,000,000 bastards

 

6.67 acres/person. Assuming some lands are barren, dogshit, incapable of producing food, maybe, shit I don't know, nevermind. Take 6 acres and shut it.

 

 

at least I found this site.. pretty cool http://www.statemaster.com/statistics

[Good Old Neon]

The US has an assload of land. If our society wasn't industrialized and populations concentrate we could handle a lot of bastards. I think. shit, I don't know. Maybe our progress has digressed. shit, i don't know.

 

It

[uncle wilco]

whoa. there's a good tone for your very first post to me.

 

your family sounds great and i'm happy for you. what was condescending in my concern about overpopulation? you seem to have taken it personally, which it wasn't meant to be. by the way, i don't fit into the category of "liberal."

 

i agree there is no perfect system of government or perfect political movement, and nowhere did i profess otherwise.

 

i agree things don't have to be all or nothing. in fact, they can't. and i certainly agree with civility in discussion. to be honest, i'm not sure you just practiced what you preach here.

 

of course it's none of the government's "damn business" how many kids parents have. i said so myself, if you'll go back and read it calmly.

 

thank you.

first of all, i owe you an apology. i stand by what i said, however in regards to your post in particular, personalizing my response towards you wasn't proper and i realize that you had made your views more clear than i originally recognized. sometimes i need to stop for a few and gain some perspective before firing off a reply.

 

again, please accept my apology. the topic of your post just struck a nerve with me.

 

uw

[austrya]

So it's ok have 1 kid and live in a 3000 sq ft house, but it's not ok to have 4 and live in a 1700 sq ft house?

 

If it's about the environment, I'm happy to report that most people with big families are very socially responsible when it comes to that.

 

Yes they drive SUVs and vans, but they're full, it's not like they're out driving an SUV with one kid strapped in the back.

 

Most grow huge gardens and most do it organically.

 

Most recycle and compost

 

Most wear second hand clothing

 

Most live in homes that are in most people's eyes, too small.

 

Most don't live on government assistance

 

So what's so wrong with that?

 

This is a very sensitive issue for me and I don't think it's anyone's business how many children I have as long as they are all healthy and well taken care of. What happens if I get pregnant again? Even though I have the means and the sanity to care for another child, I'm supposed to get an abortion or give my baby up for adoption just because someone else thinks I have too many children? That's fucked up.

[fatheadfred]

It

[Good Old Neon]

So it's ok have 1 kid and live in a 3000 sq ft house, but it's not ok to have 4 and live in a 1700 sq ft house?

 

If it's about the environment, I'm happy to report that most people with big families are very socially responsible when it comes to that.

 

Yes they drive SUVs and vans, but they're full, it's not like they're out driving an SUV with one kid strapped in the back.

 

Most grow huge gardens and most do it organically.

 

Most recycle and compost

 

Most wear second hand clothing

 

Most live in homes that are in most people's eyes, too small.

 

Most don't live on government assistance

 

So what's so wrong with that?

 

This is a very sensitive issue for me and I don't think it's anyone's business how many children I have as long as they are all healthy and well taken care of. What happens if I get pregnant again? Even though I have the means and the sanity to care for another child, I'm supposed to get an abortion or give my baby up for adoption just because someone else thinks I have too many children? That's fucked up.

 

With all due respect, where did you come by this information?

[ZenLunatic]

2,000,000,000 acres

300,000,000 bastards

 

6.67 acres/person. Assuming some lands are barren, dogshit, incapable of producing food, maybe, shit I don't know, nevermind. Take 6 acres and shut it.

 

 

at least I found this site.. pretty cool http://www.statemaster.com/statistics

 

You cant live on most of the land and we shouldnt populate every place we can anyways. What about other living animals and plants? We need to concentrate population to a certain point to create a society. You're numbers dont mean much.