swva wrote:Issues of laws regarding morality should be left up to the people themselves through referendum instead of letting the 'tail wag the dog'. Let the constituents decide it for themselves, by ballot.
100% - we'd probably have far less problems if constituents voted instead of so-called "representatives" that are bought off for the highest dollar.
swva wrote:What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is no concern of mine or the government's.
agreed ... it's none of their business, but when it is pushed on our kindergarteners in an attempt to desensitize them, then that's a different story altogether.
It has no more place in kindergarten than sex-ed does, but I cant answer the question of "when" either.
djackman wrote:There should be a 100% separation of church and state, period.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there mention of a "separation of church and state", and if you read Jefferson's correspondance in which this phrase is mentioned, it was said with the meaning of protecting the church from the government so that government couldn't restrict individuals from religious freedoms they had the God given right to.
True, it is not in the Constitution. Re: Jefferson, I do assume you're referring to the "Wall of Seperation Letter"?
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God;"
I'm aware of the religious interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment, but I tend to take things at face value. I can go for the concept of preventing establishing a state religion but I do not see the validity of the argument that Christian values are supposed to pass into government. Goverment should not tell religions what they can and cannot say, at the same time religions should not be influencing the goverment. It goes both ways, not one.
The argument that if a government does not legislate from a biblical moral perspective it is therefor an immoral system automatically excludes any non-Christian ideals. The 1st amendment is almost as debatable as the 2nd
(for the record, I'm pro-gun ownership - guns do not kill anything)
swva wrote:everything else was witchcraft or what not. Liberals like to spin this and use it to their advantage saying that the government is promoting a religion by allowing the Ten Commandments (a historical artifact/document) to be displayed or by allowing our school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it has the word "God" in it, and etc.
The Pledge of Allegiance didn't have "under God" added until the early 1950's. The 1st 3 changes to the Pledge were to clarify it's original meaning, not add meaning, which "under God" does. The majority of challenges to compulsory participation in the Pledge of Allegiance revolve around the "under God" phrase -- not someone's loyalty or love of their country. Nowhere does it say you must belive in God (or a god) to be a proud American, and I would prefer the Pledge not have a religious overtone to it.
I will argue to the end for someone's right to express and practice their religion, ANY religion, as long as that expression or practice is not influencing government policy or harming anyone.
swva wrote:Dare I say most conservatives are more tolerant and more rational than most liberals on issues of morality are religion?
If you mean TRUE conservatives, eg the types that are for personal freedom, liberty, and accountablity, less govm't interference in our lives, a non-Corporate or Social welfare state, then ABSOLUTELY 100% YES.
If by "conservatives" you mean the modern Republicans, no. They've allowed the infiltration of religious views into government policy - "Faith Based Initiatives", private (religious and nondenominational) school vouchers, funding abstinence only sex ed in public schools while promoting restrictions on abortion, allowing publicly funded schools to teach Creationism, etc. They are anything but small govm't
I'm glad that we agree there is no one to vote for this fall
... they're both as corrupt as can be and are not capable of straightening out this economy.
What's your solution? I'd like to hear from someone who realizes "none of the above" is the answer.