quote:Originally posted by katharina: How about you point to the section of the Constitution that forbids people with religious reasons for their opinions from voting.
If you can't, it's because you are making that part up.
Apparently your discernment superpower also goes backwards in time.
There isn't one. But pass a law that has no secular reason and don't be surprised if it gets struck down by an "activist judge" for violating the constitution.
There IS a bit in the Arkansas Constitution that keeps atheists from holding office or testifying on a jury. I love my home state... *sigh* http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm
But don't worry.. if there ever comes a time when atheists and agnostics are the majority, I'm sure we'll treat y'all just as sweetly as you've treated us.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You want to change the basis on which laws are made. In order to do that, you need to change the Constitution. In order to do that, you need to put it to a vote.
But you don't want to.
Wow. That's four wrong statements out of four. You're batting a thousand.
Did you not read what I wrote? I want to keep the way the laws are made, which is secularly, and protect it from those religious who wish to influence it to benefit themselves.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina, how do you get from "secular basis" to rule by committee? Talk about mind reading (not to mention straw men).
I don't think anyone suggested an abolishment of democracy. Rather, I think they were talking about the idea that religions shouldn't have a seat in government, and to the extent that legislators and executive authorities rely on their religions to guide their acts, they tend to undermine this concept.
Obviously the impact to citizens - and the degree to which those who aren't of the same or similar religions should care - varies.
Some extreme (fictional, as far as I know) examples that I hope should be easy to dismiss as too overtly religious and without a secular basis, not to mention violating the Bill of Rights in some cases: - Illegal to work on the Sabbath - Illegal to eat pork - Illegal to teach your child that God doesn't exist - Women required to wear a burka
You wouldn't say that if say 67% of the populace (and their representatives) voted for such laws, that they should stand, would you?
Well, that's what people are talking about. Keep your religion out of the government, because otherwise you end up making rules that infringe on others' rights.
Is there a law WITHOUT a substantial secular basis that you'd care to advocate for, here, that isn't already covered by the Bill of Rights and other guaranteed freedoms? That might provoke some interesting discussion. (For instance, whether such laws would abridge the rights of those who don't share the religious motivation.)
[FWIW I think there's a substantial secular argument against abortion, so we can skip that if you'd like.]
(If there isn't such a law, then your objections would seem odd.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, come to think of it.. The Lynch Mob is the incarnation of democracy. A group of people who are all in agreement about What Must Be Done and have the power and motivation to impose their will on the minority they dislike.
Were the people who shot and killed Joseph Smith justified because they were the majority? Was it ok for communities from New England to the Midwest to uphold their Community Standards and run those nasty polygamists out of their midst with fire and rifles?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to give an example, laws requiring public schools to give time to Intelligent Design in the classroom have no secular basis - they are religiously motivated - and seem to violate the spirit of freedom of religion. I think that's the sort of thing we are talking about, here.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you aren't talking about prayer in school. You are talking about things like experimenting with embryos and killing unborn children. Those things aren't the same as forcing everyone to make the sign of the cross - they are non-religious areas where people have opinions informed by their religions.
If the proposal was limited to things like not mandating prayer in school, there'd be no problem. But you want to extend it to everything - all adults with opinions informed by their religions no longer get a voice in their government.
posted
I don't understand the idea that religious people have to use the law to enforce their particular beliefs. If you think something is a sin then don't do it. Tell your children that you think it's wrong and that they should not do it. Write a book or give speeches as to why you believe it should not be done and generally lead by example. Once you start forcing others to follow your religious beliefs you have gone to far. I speak of "sins" that don't directly infringe on others rights here. Things that do such as murder, theft, rape etc can be banned for obvious secular reasons
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Reduce the foot of government on our necks so that the what the government does doesn't really matter in our daily lives so long as we're not hurting each other.
I agree with this, to an extent. Although I also think that this would require non-government institutions (like churches) and individuals to step up and do more. For instance, the government might not be the best institution to fight problems like teen pregnancy, but something needs to fill that role in our culture if not our government.
quote:Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
I don't think it is reasonable to expect universal agreement on the assumptions a law is based on, though. For instance (since it's Earth Day!) I don't think we should expect environmental activists to wait until everyone universally agrees on the validity of global warming before moving to get the government to act.
If the enviromentalists who are trying to pass such legisation can back up their ideas with evidense then I don't see the problem. now is they want to pass the laws because mother gaia says they should then they have crossed the line.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kath, can you really not think of secular arguments against abortion? If you like, I can help you come up with some.
(I'm pro-choice, but generally against abortion. That is, having the choice is important, but make the right one.)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina, again, I think there can be substantial secular reasons to vote against embryonic experiments (some of them, anyway, I don't know exactly what you mean here), and abortion. If there weren't any, I don't think Roe v Wade would have been a very difficult decision.
A requirement (one that hasn't yet been well defined by a proposal in this thread, unless I missed something) that laws have a secular basis wouldn't mean you couldn't vote for laws against abortion. It probably would mean that laws that couldn't be shown to have such a basis would be struck down.
What other examples do you have?
here's a kind of law that I think would get struck down in Utah: Some municipalities make it illegal to sell alcohol on Sunday. I can't imagine a secular basis for such a law. Is this the kind of thing it's essential for the majority to be able to enact?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am saying that within the limits of the Consitution, it doesn't matter if people vote the way they do because they pull the lever with their eyes closed.
I don't believe in disenfranchising adults because I don't agree with their recreational activities.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That litmus test for laws - "non-religious people have to agree with it" - does not currently exist in the Constitution.
If you manage to pass an amendment that puts it in, more power to you. Until then, you are trampling on the Constitution and advocating the disenfranchisement of citizens.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're making me laugh, katharina, because you haven't come up with any examples that actually demonstrate what you're afraid of. What kind of law are you afraid of being unable to pass?
I'm not trying to dismiss your concern out of hand, I'm trying to understand it so we can discuss it. If you're just going to repeat that you don't want people to be disenfranchised, you're missing the point. Nobody said "can't vote for" religiously based laws.
Whether to raise the taxes on pharmaceutical companies is unlikely to have a religious basis, but if there is one I'd like to hear about it.
Drinking age might have a religious basis, but I'm not aware of one. Is there one?
posted
kath: people can vote however they like, but if the law they pass doesn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny it will get tossed.
And more and more, as we have grown into maturity as a society, we have tossed more and more discriminatory laws. Slavery - gone, Suffrage - gained, Segregation - gone, Miscegenation laws - gone, laws preventing atheists from holding office - gone, anti-sodomy laws - gone... Which side of these issues would you have been on in the decades they were fought?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:if the law they pass doesn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny it will get tossed.
That's what happens now. So you're good with the way it is now?
quote:Which side of these issues would you have been on in the decades they were fought?
What? Do you really feel the need to demonize me in your head in order to justify disenfranchising me?
I could list the stands of Mormons on all those issues, but I suspect that you don't have give a crap what the actual stands were and would, of course, make up something else in your head to justify stealing my vote.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you do want to throw out any vote I have unless you deem it made from non-religious reasoning.
Of course, you can't prove it either way, which means you'd throw out any vote that doesn't agree with what you think it should be. You'd justify it by saying that because I'm happily Mormon, of course it shouldn't be respected.
Voting rights isn't just symbolic. As long as it is within the limits of the Constitution, you can't toss out the results of votes because you don't like how it came out.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:if the law they pass doesn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny it will get tossed.
That's what happens now. So you're good with the way it is now?
quote:Which side of these issues would you have been on in the decades they were fought?
What? Do you really feel the need to demonize me in your head in order to justify disenfranchising me?
I could list the stands of Mormons on all those issues, but I suspect that you don't have give a crap what the actual stands were and would, of course, make up something else in your head to justify stealing my vote.
katharina you are the only person in this thread arguing to change how things are done. The rest have been arguing to keep the government secular.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The government is secular now. So, you're good with the way it is now?
What they are arguing is that all laws must have a justification that is not informed at all by any religious views and no votes may count if their were influenced by the voter's religious views. That is an entirely different thing, and that's what would change our government from a republic to something much uglier.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kath: I'm not trying to throw your vote out. I'm trying to get you to Think, not Believe.
You make a law, it gets challenged, you can't come up with anything better than "God says so" and it gets struck down.
Your last sentence sounds like we're in agreement. You could bring a drunken monkey into the poling place with you, pull all the levers for you and unless you voted for something unconstitutional, the courts would have no say.
But it wouldn't be an ethical thing to do. Any more than a Muslim voting to keep women locked indoors without a related male escort would be an ethical thing to do.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you do want to throw out any vote I have unless you deem it made from non-religious reasoning.
No. You can use religious reasoning all you want. But I do expect laws that have no compelling secular interest to be scarce and for the courts to correctly overturn them.
A law that is *only* justified religiously is a de facto endorsement by the government of the religion whos doctrine justifies the law.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The government is secular now. So, you're good with the way it is now?
What they are arguing is that all laws must have a justification that is not informed at all by any religious views and no votes may count if their were influenced by the voter's religious views. That is an entirely different thing, and that's what would change our government from a republic to something much uglier.
They are arguing that laws need a secular basis. Thats how it is now. You are the one who wants to use your religion as a basis for law. No one is saying you can't hold you beliefs and use them to live your life. No one is saying that you an't vote. What they are saying is that you can't force people of other religions or those without any religion to do things simply because of your religious beliefs.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:What they are arguing is that all laws must have a justification that is not informed at all by any religious views and no votes may count if their were influenced by the voter's religious views. That is an entirely different thing, and that's what would change our government from a republic to something much uglier.
Nobody argued for this, you see. Pixiest's reduction was far more accurate:
"You make a law, it gets challenged, you can't come up with anything better than "God says so" and it gets struck down."
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you see how condescending you are? That because I'm Mormon, you automatically define me as someone who doesn't think? How dare you - and how dare you style yourself as a defender of anything good when it is your intention to infantalize a large portion of the adult population because they may disagree with you.
---
If you want all votes by adult citizens to count, and you want to keep the Constitution as the standard for what laws are allowed without adding anything to it, then why are you clamoring for this extra litmus test?
You want to add an amendment to the Constitution that only laws that are acceptable to non-religious people can be allowed. Good luck with the passing of that one.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you see how condescending you are? That because I'm Mormon, you automatically define me as someone who doesn't think? How dare you - and how dare you style yourself as a defender of anything good when it is your intention to infantalize a large portion of the adult population because they may disagree with you.
This is precious. I don't know who you're addressing, but though I certainly wasn't being condescending before, I'm going to jump all over this opportunity. It's kind of cute how when you're up against an argument you can't cope with, you up the ante and accuse everyone of being condescending and using your religion to dismiss your arguments. Run along now.
That was condescending.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What extra litmus test? They are arguing that laws need a secular basis. THATS HOW IT IS NOW. Sorry for caping that but you don't seem to actually be reading what anyone is saying.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
kath: You're just so intent on getting offended aren't you?
Look, Think with your head, not your soul. You think with your soul and pass something that hurts people with no good reason beyond what your impotent(*) God says, and an honest court will strike it down.
If I thought with my anger instead of my head, I could vote for some truly horrible things. And they would get struck down too.
I guess it boils down to Think with your Head. Not with your soul or your anger or your drunken monkey.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest - I can't believe you are repeating the evil slander of Javert where you imagine the stupidest possible motivations for me.
Are you really so blinded by your bigotry you can't see your own condescension and the lack of democracy or respect that you are showing?
How dare you decide for yourself that because I'm religious, I don't think. This is proof enough of what a terrible thing power in your hands would be - you can't even participate in a discussion in a discussion without perpetuating an injustice.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You want to add an amendment to the Constitution that only laws that are acceptable to non-religious people can be allowed.
Nope. We want the existing constitutional amendment regarding establishment to be honored. I think Pixiest is also asking that when you vote that you consider whether you are attempting to compell others to follow your religious dictates rather than being free to follow their own. That's what a purely religious justification of a law does. Sort of a God's plan/Satan's plan thing.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest doesn't get to dictate on what basis I vote. She especially doesn't get to codify into law what are and aren't acceptable reasons for my voting the way I do.
Can you see what an evil thing it would be to reject someone's vote because you imagine they might have reasons for it you don't agree with?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The Constitution doesn't say "Everything not permitted is forbidden." It is "Everything not forbidden is permitted (to the states).""
"Laws don't have to justify themselves on a secular basis. They are struck down when they are proven to be unacceptable on a Constitutional basis."
And because laws that are justified by religious doctrine are forbidden, laws have to be justifiable on a secular basis. Otherwise the laws are respecting of an establishment of religion. Which is forbidden.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If that's how it is now, what are you so upset about?
And the thing is, it isn't that laws are automatically not allowed unless they are justified on a secular basis.
The Constitution doesn't say "Everything not permitted is forbidden." It is "Everything not forbidden is permitted (to the states)."
Laws don't have to justify themselves on a secular basis. They are struck down when they are proven to be unacceptable on a Constitutional basis.
Your proposal would switch that. Fah. How dictatorial.
Passing laws based only on religious grounds is unconstitional. The constitution ensures that our government is secular. If you can't come up with a single reason for a law other than the being I believe in but can in know way prove says so..then guess what It's unconstitutional. That is how it currently is in the US. You are the one trying to change that.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kath: No, I'm saying you're thinking with your soul, not your head.
Maybe I shouldn't speak in metaphor...
When you think, consider how you would justify your arguments to people who don't follow your religion. How would you convince them without falling back on "Well, it's in the New/Old Testement/BOM." If you can't think of anything compelling, maybe it's not such a good idea to vote that way. Because not everyone believes as you do. And you don't want them voting their faith on you.
It's the whole "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You," type thing. You know, The Golden Rule.
It's not a law. It's just a good idea to follow. You know, for Nice people!
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest, are you even talking about me personally? What on earth are you talking about? And this is the nth time you have accused me of not using my head. To say the least, it's condescending and patronizing.
I completely applaud your efforts are preaching responsible citizenship as you see it. It's when you want to bring the power of the government to work according to your own wishes and disenfranchise everyone you disagree with that you become an unConstitutional, undemocratic, power-hungry dictator.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Pixiest, are you even talking about me personally? What on earth are you talking about? And this is the nth time you have accused me of not using my head. To say the least, it's condescending and patronizing.
I completely applaud your efforts are preaching responsible citizenship as you see it. It's when you want to bring the power of the government to work according to your own wishes and disenfranchise everyone you disagree with that you become an unConstitutional, undemocratic, power-hungry dictator.
Pixiest is making a very simple statement. Why not just respond to it instead of getting defensive and saying that she said something completely different from what she actually said?
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are perfectly clear: You believe that by striking down and disallowing any law not in line with your belief system, even if it is passed in according by a majority and is allowed under the present Constitution, everything will be better.
Fortunately for democracy, the Constitution doesn't allow you to do that.
I am not answering the questions about how I would vote on individual laws because it has nothing to do with the central issue.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Other people in this thread: am I really this unclear?
I think you are clear, but I can understand Kat resenting the "think with your head" thing. She is thinking with her head, and her head is saying that she should do what God wants her to do. Suggesting that she's not thinking with her head comes across as suggesting that she's not thinking at all even if that's not your intent.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
kath: So you're fine if the majority starts voting to persecute Mormons again? Cuz, you know, Mormons aren't really Christians according to some of the larger sects...
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:her head is saying that she should do what God wants her to do.
Thank you Matt, but you are wrong about this. I have not made any statements about the way I might personally vote and my reasons for doing so.
However, under Pixiest's desired system, if she doesn't agree with my vote it would get tossed out anyway.
Also, I don't have to agree with someone voting with their gut/heart/toes/monkeypet in order to be in favor of preserving the right to vote however the voter sees best.
Pixiest: The same laws that protect me against your tyranny protect me against others'. The failure of the 19th century was that the laws that should have protected the Mormons were not enforced, not that they didn't exist.
It isn't bigoted Southern Baptists that want to take away my right to a vote. It's you.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kath: my desired system is the system we have. But instead of of answering my questions, you keep misstating what I said and acting all hurt and offended.
Does this work in real life? I only ask because I know you're very pretty and it's easy for pretty girls to get what they want.
But I can't see you on the internet and I'm too old and disillusioned to be screwed up by a pretty face anymore anyway.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The belief that is driving my argument here is a belief that a free country only stays free if adult citizens are able to vote the way they see best, and that their vote is not tossed out because someone somewhere else decided the imagined motivations for it weren't acceptable.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My argument is that a free country only stays free so long as people who aren't hurting anyone are protected from the tyranny of the majority. Cuz Utah is taken and there's no where left for us Pariah to run.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, that's so sweet that you think I'm pretty. I'm really not.
Pixiest - seriously, what part have I misunderstood? Because it seems like you are saying that there should be a litmus test for all laws and any that do not pass the litmus test of being acceptable to a non-religious arbitrer should be tossed out.
Is that not what you are advocating?
If you wish only to urge people to be responsible citizens and do not wish the bring the weight and power the government to enforce your views on what is responsible citizenship, then speak away. I'm a big fan of using free speech to try and persuade people to vote a certain way. I am not a fan of using the force of law to do so.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then I wish you luck in having laws you disagree with struck down. That's what the court of appeals are for.
However, "religious people voted for it" is not a Constitutional reason. And it never, ever should be. That would create a monstrous injustice and destroy democracy.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Laws are passed in this country, not on the weight of the arguments but by who has the better PR.
That's why money is so important. It's all about the marketing.
However, when a law is challenged, it has to be challenged based on a compelling state interest. And that has to be secular. To base it off anyone's faith would be a direct violation of the first amendment.
posted
Exactly - it has to be challenged on a secular reason, not made for secular reasons.
That's as it should be. The results of a vote should be respected unless compelling secular arguments are made otherwise. Not the other way - results of a vote should be DISrespected unless a compelling secular argument can be made for it.
It's a matter of respect for the votes of citizens. Votes should be respected by default, not tossed out by default.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
