Phil Again wrote:
.... If anything, American culture and government
today are *less* religious than at any time in our history.
Which is a grand and glorious thing!!! I hope the Federal Government
keeps it up.
So at least you stipulate to the religious roots of our government.
That's progress.
There is no
Constitutionally enumerated power for the Federal government to fund
*any* education. Doing so is an arrogation of power to the Feds that
properly belongs in the hands of "the people and the states."
Ah, no, you are wrong. The Constitution gives Congress the power to pass
legislation, and if the President signs the legislation it is law. Any
Law Congress chooses to pass. The Federal Courts may review the
constitutionality of laws and regulation. Unless there is a
unconstitutionality decision by the courts, the statues stand and can be
enforced. The Congress has every *right* to fund education, sports,
parks, tree farms, oil rigs, whatever; unless a law is reviewed and
declared unconstitutional by the courts the law stands.
This power to legislate is supposed to be bounded by the list of
enumerated powers given the Federal government. All you've described
above is the prostitution of the system by using its inherent complexity
and corners to thwart the clear intent of the Framers.
...... Oh, and BTW, as a person of
pretty deep principle and conviction on the matter, you and yours are
violating *my* civil rights when you make me pay for your infanticide.
How? Your civil rights are divorced from you religious beliefs. Where is
your constitutional right to impose your religious beliefs on the society
Nowhere have I said I wish to impose my religious beliefs - if any -
upon anyone. I wish to not pay for infanticide. I don't care what
the "courts have found in the matter". I prefer not to be a party
to murder. This apparently doesn't bother you much, and I'm not
saying you can or should be entirely prevented from doing so. I'm
saying I ought not to have to pay for it.
I may be unable to understand this: the constitution was written my
humans, passed by humans, and amended by humans. No Divine inspiration
or intervention is claimed or declared. No Supreme court decision has
Utterly false. Virtually every Framer at some point spoke of their
belief in the Divine as animating their political ideals. No matter
how much you put your fingers in your ears and scream to the contrary
you are still wrong in this matter. Notice that I have not - anywhere
in this thread argued *for* more religion in politics. I have merely
argued that you and yours are - and remain - utterly wrong in your
understanding of our history because - apparently - it hurts your feelings.
a
been inspired by Divine intervention. The laws of the USA, and the
Federal courts are of the realm of Mankind; Mundane. When, or at what
stage a fetus acquires a soul is known only to the Deity that created
that soul(s.) No human has been granted an audience with any Deity to
receive an answer to the question, no one. Therefor all humans can do is
take their best shot at a guess. I will take the written decision of the
Right. And in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, a nation
built on individual liberty should at least have the good manners to
take as narrow a view of this matter of possible on the off chance we
might, just might, be murdering citizens. This is ultimately not a
religious matter. It is a matter of law - when does one become a
citizen and thus become entitled to the legal protections that accrue
thereto. You and yours seem to think that this doesn't happen till
well into the third trimester. This is nonsense. It is murder. You are
wrong (and evil for supporting such a system).
In fact, using your fine reasoning above, if enough people created the
necessary "human law", retroactive abortions would be legal. Oh, wait,
you're already headed that way with euthanasia. Just think, someday
you'll have your perfect world. When a child is born and turns out to,
say, have a profound learning disability not discovered until they
enter kindergarten, you'll be able to legally kill them. Absurd? It
should be, but it's not. It is the logical extension of the rationale'
you and others give for supporting the current abortion-on-demand
laws.
BTW, I am entirely consistent in this. I also wholly oppose the
death penalty on the same grounds. The state cannot legitimately
give the people or itself permission to murder its own citizens.
No amount of law making makes it OK - it just makes it legal.
US Supreme Court on this matter over anyone else's opinion. Because our
government is a rule of law; human laws.
Fine. So, if say, SCOTUS found that slavery was still legal,
that it was OK to silence liberals, that killing Muslims in
the street was fine, you'd have no problem with this? Your line
of argumentation is puerile and silly. All law is an encoding
of *somebody's* ethical/moral system. You seem to want to divorce
yourself form this or act like it doesn't matter.
.. But Obama is almost overtly Leninist in his hatred of wealth,
achievement, and success.
While you equate Obama to Lenin, I equate McBush with Mussolini.
Even if true (it isn't), Mussolini did far less harm than Lenin.
This is a lousy election. There are no good choices. Obama is
just the worst choice by a mile. He will further the collectivist/
socialist sewer that this country has wallowed in since FDR. He
will undermine the national safety and defence of the nation,
and he will pander to every slimy far left wingnut faction
far moreso than McCain will ever do on the right.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/