DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Eromaveabeara** · 10-22-2005, 12:59 PM

Though I despise legislating from the bench ... I see nothing unconstitutional about Roe.

Okay ... maybe that's contradictory ... ...

What I mean is, as long as the newly conceived is not recognized by the SCOTUS as a "legal" person, even though the newly conceived is most definitely a human being, then there's nothing Constitutionally wrong with including abortion is Roe's list of privacy behaviors.

To my understanding, there is no 'right to privacy' enumerated in the constitution.

I should very much like to see a 'right to privacy' enshrined in the US Constitution, but I don't see one there now. That's why the decision is an abomination of law (or legislating from the bench).

The Constitution cares not one way or the other. Legislation can be at either level.

Not necessarily. If powers not explicitly deliminated to the Federal branch are reserved to the States, then the Federal government has no authority in such an 'unmentioned' policy area.

Nope -- wrong.

The 1st Amendment makes it clear that the fed can't make religion relevant.

No, it specifically denies establishment.

But religion is rightly defined as a philosophy that reflects the two tenets of 1) souls and, 2) before/after life.

No, religion has a wider definition than the one you permit - philosophically or otherwise. Your inclusion of "rightly" betrays your subjective bias.

There is nothing about "God" or "A Higher Power" or the like that makes a philosophy a religion, as hard as this simple fact is for most to comprehend.

No that is technically true, but only one specific religion prays in this specific way to these specific conceptions (Christianity) and thus, for the State or organise or mandate a 'prayer session' through the Public School system, it is organising and mandating a specific and identifiable religion, and this is a violation of the principle of separation.

Indeed, I shall also draw upon the right of free association (which is listed as a right in the Constitution) to assert that any citizen ought to have the right to associate with all public organs and institutions of the State without being required to submit to 'forced prayer' (or 'citing a pledge' for that matter).

Thus it is okay to simply pray to God in school ... providing Jesus or Mohammed or the like, as with specific other religion's other specific identifying reference isn't made ... even if it pisses-off atheists.

I emphatically disagree.

This is because God is not owned by religion.

"Jesus" and "Mohammed" are specific religious terms, etc. that are owned by religion, but God is not.

This argument is spurious.

That's why "In God We Trust" is okay on money ... but why it is not okay to swear the President in on the Bible.

Not quite. It can be on the coinage because coinage originates and technically operates as a private enterprise in the USA. Thus there is no violation here on the strict legal terms that coinage is not explicitly a creation of the State.

I'll finish with you later.

No doubt.

10-22-2005, 12:59 PM	#1
Eromaveabeara Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 510 Senior Member	Though I despise legislating from the bench ... I see nothing unconstitutional about Roe. Okay ... maybe that's contradictory ... ... What I mean is, as long as the newly conceived is not recognized by the SCOTUS as a "legal" person, even though the newly conceived is most definitely a human being, then there's nothing Constitutionally wrong with including abortion is Roe's list of privacy behaviors. To my understanding, there is no 'right to privacy' enumerated in the constitution. I should very much like to see a 'right to privacy' enshrined in the US Constitution, but I don't see one there now. That's why the decision is an abomination of law (or legislating from the bench). The Constitution cares not one way or the other. Legislation can be at either level. Not necessarily. If powers not explicitly deliminated to the Federal branch are reserved to the States, then the Federal government has no authority in such an 'unmentioned' policy area. Nope -- wrong. The 1st Amendment makes it clear that the fed can't make religion relevant. No, it specifically denies establishment. But religion is rightly defined as a philosophy that reflects the two tenets of 1) souls and, 2) before/after life. No, religion has a wider definition than the one you permit - philosophically or otherwise. Your inclusion of "rightly" betrays your subjective bias. There is nothing about "God" or "A Higher Power" or the like that makes a philosophy a religion, as hard as this simple fact is for most to comprehend. No that is technically true, but only one specific religion prays in this specific way to these specific conceptions (Christianity) and thus, for the State or organise or mandate a 'prayer session' through the Public School system, it is organising and mandating a specific and identifiable religion, and this is a violation of the principle of separation. Indeed, I shall also draw upon the right of free association (which is listed as a right in the Constitution) to assert that any citizen ought to have the right to associate with all public organs and institutions of the State without being required to submit to 'forced prayer' (or 'citing a pledge' for that matter). Thus it is okay to simply pray to God in school ... providing Jesus or Mohammed or the like, as with specific other religion's other specific identifying reference isn't made ... even if it pisses-off atheists. I emphatically disagree. This is because God is not owned by religion. "Jesus" and "Mohammed" are specific religious terms, etc. that are owned by religion, but God is not. This argument is spurious. That's why "In God We Trust" is okay on money ... but why it is not okay to swear the President in on the Bible. Not quite. It can be on the coinage because coinage originates and technically operates as a private enterprise in the USA. Thus there is no violation here on the strict legal terms that coinage is not explicitly a creation of the State. I'll finish with you later. No doubt.
	Quote