There are two issues in most of these hot button disputes. The first is the best policy. The second is who makes that determination. Our system of government was set up to encourage decisions to be made at as low a level of government as possible. That way the average voter gets the most input. You can stand up and say your piece at a local school board. You can vote to elect new members if you don't like the result. When a federal Department of Education is making the decisions, you have little input or remedy. When a federal judge is deciding, you have none. "Enlightened" thinkers have encouraged the idea that the federal judiciary should take over deciding difficult issues. They distrust the average voter, who they view as ignorant, backward, bigotted and vulnerable to emotional appeals based on dangerous notions of patriotism, religion, family values, etc. Thus, all kinds of issues get decided by judges and we, the people, have nothing to say about it. If we object or protest, we are criticized for not respecting the Constitution and the tradition of law and justice. Left unsaid is the fact that most of these "precious constitutional rights" were somehow not discovered until the last 25 years or so. We were able to function quite well as a country for 90% of our existence without the help of judges telling us how to run our lives. Do not tell me we have a "Living Constitution." I've seen it and it's a piece of paper. The words on it haven't changed. Do we say the Tax Code is a "Living Tax Code" and what we owe as taxes somehow magically changes every year based on evolving notions of fairness? We would never accept that because it would mean exchanging a government of laws for a government of men. Yet some welcome it with our most important law, the Constitution.
I concur AAA and the point about my answer is that the system is ass backward because it is in transition. The reshapers of our society are trying to take out right and wrong from public life bit by bit. School prayer, public displays, then buildings, then in God WE TRUST then the pledge, later it will be the chaplain in congress, then the walls then the declaration , then the churches. It is a slow plan to get us to the same mindless state that communism attempted when the russians and Chinese banned religion. If there is no compass for what is right, after you kill the lawyers and the leaders you do what you want to the people. We were religious and now the reshapers are trying to force us to change. If they win we will be in trouble, they have already ruined are schools-- which is part of the plan.
AAA, A fundamentally problematic excogitation But you are advocating what, that the judiciary not get involved on small matters of Law? When the people cannot decide upon the "dangerous notions of patriotism, religion, family values" etc, who else do you suggest should decide? That the Judges get involved too early may be a valid point... but at the breakdown of mutual agreement or compromise outside a courtroom, what better place or way would there be to fight out the peoples' strongly held views whether they appear small to some or not. Hand it over to jem and his god for instance, the same one that at the time the Constitution was being drawn-up were condoning the burning of witches. Or perhaps one that institutionally conceals and does nothing to stop the abuse of children ? Should it not ideally be a majority of accountable fair and just minded Judges free of prejudice, upholding the rule of Law which decides the correct outcome for such actions in the end? May be you want to bring to task the judiciary for getting too involved too quickly ....but it was the peoples' representatives who gave them the power to do so. Get them to adjust things so it works a little less proactively, but to whom do you hand back the "small" decisions to, the people who are then the lynch mob? In that case why have rule of law at all? A better professional judicial system, better judges, who represent the meanings of the words fair and just, who not only practice the application (against government too if appropriate) but display and are answerable for their decisions.... would be best desirable surely? Or perhaps to some so called "enlightened" thinking Judge, who wants to shove his religion at everyone that enters his courtroom, against the wishes of those who think it detrimental to the idea of a display of fair mindedness to do so. If the peoples' perceived culture of a Nation is to stand as a religious one, and of a specific religious one at that, then why would the early settlers of this great land have fled from such a thing, and from the oppression that such a society causes.
Stu - Your previous post comes from the secular religion which you seem to want to have in place in the judiciary rather than the theist one. So you are suggesting that your secular religion is better at judicial decisions than the theist one. Secular religion , having man as god, does not have a very good history in the judicial area or any other area either.
Stu you are way off base with your assumptions about what I am in favor of in terms of the the 3 branches of governement. I am actually hoping that the tort lawyers go after the Catholic church and clean out the rotten priests and bishops at least in this country. I have tought about it myself but it has been since 1997 since I have been in court. I just believe there is right from wrong. There is a whole nother step as AAA pointed out about how that gets determined and who gets to decide what that is and how in fits in to U.S. law. But leave it reactionary liberals to misunderstand anothers thoughts and make judgments.
So you are over 200 years behind the European Enlightment. Why don't you simply read up on these issues? Why reinvent the wheel? Religion is a personal issue. The state should guarantee its freedom, but at the same time, the state should not be associated with any religion whatsover. If it does, it singles out one religion over another, which obviously is not fair. You are not that different from those that would argue that whites are superior to blacks and so should be treated preferentially. It's the same way of thinking.
First of all our first amendment freedoms are protected because we believe firmly in the marketplace of ideas. Now, when you say keep religion out of government what the heck do you mean. Where does my religion start and where does your view become righteous. What if 85% of America agreed with the veg heads and said no killing cows. Is that democracy in action. Should that be our law. Now what if most of that 85% was Hindu. Now what. If not cows how about LSD, pot peyote, smoking, lobster catching, boxing drag racing. Premarital sex, abortion, infanticide, killing old people, sick people, gays rights, minority rights, religious rights. Who decides when it is ok to vote my religion. What is your religion. What is the space program. What is the point of democracy if I can not demand that the public does not fund murder. What law do we appeal to, to define murder. Keep religion out of politics is just a cynical evil way to approve your agenda and belittle mine. I find it rude and disgusting. And the people preaching it are either pawns or . I watched this drivel go on for a long time, this summer was slow so I got involved, generally I have been of the opinion that the minorities interests and concerns should be considered and at times protected, but now we are starting to see very small groups attempt to radically reshape society and I am starting to want to get involved to protect the status quo. I am particularly concerned about our schools. Why couldn't the schools have been left alone. The radicals are going to cause a huge movement among the majority to squash the "everyone is right but the majority movement". And it will swing hard the other way. I am not for that but I am predicting it. This radical fringe power grab is gonna cause a great big back lash.
Doubter, As far as I have ever been aware, secular does not mean "having man as god". I have never come across 'secular religion' as an entity before. I understand the word secular - when applied as a general description, as in 'secular government' - to mean free from religious influence and/or having members of government who do NOT belong to a clergy. If religion is a strong belief in a supernatural power, how is secular a religion? jem, Just how far off base was I? Not much it seems. You want lawyers (the law) to go after the rotten priests and bishops and although 'the church' as an institution hid these people from justice, you think it a good idea to have religious institutions guiding what should be the law??? So you admit it. You want to keep the status quo. You don't want any change. You seem to be offended by the idea that the formation and application of the law would be subjected to change. Because some 'stupid' law threatens to alter what happens in the schools.... is it that you don't even consider if it might be fair, or that you may not have heard both sides of an argument as the Court will have, or that if it is soooo bad a decision it cannot be appealed against.... it's simply that you don't want anything to change. It probably slipped your mind that only because of change did slavery become illegal, or is that a different kind of change? ps: your remark "But leave it reactionary liberals to misunderstand anotherâs thoughts and make judgments." is a classic lol. You assume(infer) that I am a "reactionary liberal" therefore you have made a judgement about me and it is likely from that you will misunderstand my thoughts. heehee. you are a card!