US Elections

[Stew]

I said that in the other thread 10 mins ago Starbucks

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Starbucks

First States in: George winning so far with 34 to Kerrys 3

Seen that big thread at the top, and read the first post?

Yah.

[Zar]

americans are the stupidest people on this planet.

the end

p.s how is everyone doing? havent been here for a while

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by Zar

americans are the stupidest people on this planet.

the end

p.s how is everyone doing? havent been here for a while

Nice grammer there Zar.

PS

http://img45.exs.cx/img45/1818/bushfinger.jpg

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

Nice grammer there Zar.

BURN FIRES HADES NOW

[acropolis]

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Zar

americans are the stupidest people on this planet.

the end

p.s how is everyone doing? havent been here for a while

Well if were the stupidest people on earth, and our country dominates yours that would make you...

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

Well if were the stupidest people on earth, and our country dominates yours that would make you...

just one iota less clueless than you.

[Deepflow]

i think to say you 'dominate' us is a little over egging it.

No country has ever dominated the world in my understanding of the word

[Event_Horizon]

hehe, I know, but saying we are the stupidest people on the earth because just over half of our country voted conservatively is an irresponsible, incorrect statement. The very existence of people being so upset over the election shows that you value our opinion and are upset that most of America just doesnt see the world as you see it, that doesn't make us stupid, just different visions and perhaps different goals.

PS> I love your avatar ;-)

[Deepflow]

i think when people call americans stupid, what they really mean is ignorant and to a lesser extent, culturally dead. Which is true for most countries in the world. But for the worlds premier western power to be in that situation is frankly shameful.

[DavinBrahm]

"However I would ask whether or not you think that there is a distinct danger of the original intentions of the founders of the United States, in terms of the separation of church and state, being lost if Bush continues his opposition to both gay marriage and abortion."

You do understand that the absolute seperation of Church and State was the vision of one single man, and is not a part of our constitution. People will always use religion as their moral compass, whether that religion is classical, nationaistic, or based in a faith in science. Whether or not there is a physical seperation of church and state, or not, people will vote based on their morals. Most people's morals are decided by what they believe in. Keep in mind 11 states, by a two to one margin, voted to ban gay marriage last night. That wasn't Bush's influence on the vote. The vote on the issue, influenced the vote on Bush.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by DavinBrahm

You do understand that the absolute seperation of Church and State was the vision of one single man

I assume you mean Madison here but it should be noted that the bill of rights, including Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion was passed by both houses of congress.

People will always use religion as their moral compass, whether that religion is classical, nationaistic, or based in a faith in science.

Faith in science is not a religion. Empiricism is a mode of thought. This is very different from a religion.

Keep in mind 11 states, by a two to one margin, voted to ban gay marriage last night. That wasn't Bush's influence on the vote. The vote on the issue, influenced the vote on Bush.

The fact you can vote on banning gay marriage at all is immensely disturbing to me.

[Summanus]

Springer/Winfrey for 2008

[DavinBrahm]

"I assume you mean Madison here but it should be noted that the bill of rights, including Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion was passed by both houses of congress."

No, I mean Jefferson, who wrote a letter about the seperation of church and state, which is where the phrase comes from. It is not in the constitution. The establishment of religion is very different than banning it from anything having to do with the state. One is the issue of church based groups using school property. These groups are not looking to establish a religion by law, but it is considered a violation of the seperation of church and state.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by DavinBrahm

No, I mean Jefferson, who wrote a letter about the seperation of church and state, which is where the phrase comes from. It is not in the constitution.

The intellectual history of the idea of the separation of church and state hardly began in 1802. Even Madison had written in 1785 about it.

Originally Posted by James Madison

Religion can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The religion, then, of every man, must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. In matters of religion no man's right is abridged by the institution of civil society; and religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance . . .

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority that can call for each citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of only one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment, in all cases whatsoever?

If "all men by nature are equally free and independent," they are to be considered as retaining an "equal right to free exercise of religion, according to dictates of conscience." While we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe, the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us...

Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution. Enquire of the teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect point to the ages prior to incorporation with civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive state, in which its teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks; many of them predict its downfall...

What influences, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.

I think we can agree it's pretty clear that Madison was against religious influences seeping into how the state was run.

Originally Posted by DavinBrahm

The establishment of religion is very different than banning it from anything having to do with the state. One is the issue of church based groups using school property. These groups are not looking to establish a religion by law, but it is considered a violation of the seperation of church and state.

If we wish to teach our children facts and reasoning faith has no place being taught in the education system.

[DavinBrahm]

"If we wish to teach our children facts and reasoning faith has no place being taught in the education system."

There is more to education than facts and reasoning. An entire generation of scientists does us no good. There have to be people willing to take a statement on faith. There have to be people willing and able to make moral judgements. There have to be people who are willing to use gut instinct to make tough calls and then stick to them in the face of hard evidence for a greater good. The world is not black and white. It does not fit into the emperical world of the scientific mind.

You forget that religion has brought a great many good things to society. If you steal my property, why shouldn't I kill you? You have never done anything for me. You do not affect my existance. There is evidence you will do the same thing again. All the evidence says you are detrimental to my existance. I have the power and the ability to reomve you from it. Why shouldn't I? Because of morals. Because it is wrong. This moral compass would not exist without religion, at least not as we understand ourselves today. Compassion is another example. Why should I hurt my own chances of survival to help someone I do not know? Because it is right.

People are quick to decry religion becasue they feel it hampers progress. I prefer to think of it as a system of checks and balances. Science run amuck is just as dangerous as people putting blind faith in the human leaders of their religion, without contemplation.

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by Summanus

Springer/Winfrey for 2008

Springer was once a Mayor, FYI.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The fact you can vote on banning gay marriage at all is immensely disturbing to me.

How is that handled in Ireland then?

The reason that Americans can vote to ban (or allow) gay marriages is that the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage. Absent a Constitutional amendment it falls on the states.

(Personally, I'd like to see the government--state and federal--out of the marriage business and treat them as private contracts; but there currently isn't much in the Constitution to prohibit states from regulating marriage).

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

Springer was once a Mayor, FYI.

I know. He has political experience, and he'll get the Jewish vote. Oprah brings some compassion to the ticket, as well as cars for some lucky voters.

I can hardly wait to see "Scandalous Democrat Strippers Revealed!" and "Republican Incest Feud 9"

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

How is that handled in Ireland then?

Poorly. There was a constitutional review requested (the Taoiseach, Prime Minister, can't demand these things) last month over the issue of family rights. Hopefully this will lead to progress in the issue of gay marriage but bureaucracy moves slowly everywhere in the world.

[quote]The reason that Americans can vote to ban (or allow) gay marriages is that the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage. Absent a Constitutional amendment it falls on the states.

(Personally, I'd like to see the government--state and federal--out of the marriage business and treat them as private contracts; but there currently isn't much in the Constitution to prohibit states from regulating marriage).

Has anyone ever brought a case before the supreme court over the issue of marriage? Can divorce be banned by states?

Originally Posted by DavinBrahm

There is more to education than facts and reasoning. An entire generation of scientists does us no good. There have to be people willing to take a statement on faith. There have to be people willing and able to make moral judgements. There have to be people who are willing to use gut instinct to make tough calls and then stick to them in the face of hard evidence for a greater good. The world is not black and white. It does not fit into the emperical world of the scientific mind.

There is no more to official education than facts and reasoning. It is up to parents to instil a sense of duty or honour or morality in them. I can make moral judgements without religion. If christianity ever got one thing right it is the precept "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". However this should not necessarily mean that we should accept all christian ideas because one of them is valid. The concept of individual rights does not depend on god or religion. It depends on the belief that we are all human beings and by virtue of being human beings we all have certain rights. I agree that it is a good thing that some people are willing to use gut instinct (but how these people can only use gut instinct if they're religious is beyond me). Sticking to their original ideas in the face of hard evidence is not a good idea though. That is the sort of thinking that leads to repression. That is the sort of thinking which restricted material and scientific progress in the western world for centuries. Empiricism is not about "black and white". Empiricism concerns learning from evidence presented and experience, ie that the only source of knowledge is the senses.

You forget that religion has brought a great many good things to society. If you steal my property, why shouldn't I kill you? You have never done anything for me. You do not affect my existance. There is evidence you will do the same thing again. All the evidence says you are detrimental to my existance. I have the power and the ability to reomve you from it. Why shouldn't I? Because of morals. Because it is wrong. This moral compass would not exist without religion, at least not as we understand ourselves today. Compassion is another example. Why should I hurt my own chances of survival to help someone I do not know? Because it is right.

I should not steal your property. You have a right to it, if it is in fact your property. If your rights are infringed the punishment should be in response and proportion to the infringement. I quite agree that the moral compass would not exist as it does today without religion, but this does not mean that religion has to be involved in our moral compass. It is not involved in mine but I do not go around killing people who offend me. As for compassion I believe that comes under freedom of choice. I would not support forcing people to help others. We are individuals, we can decide ourselves.

People are quick to decry religion becasue they feel it hampers progress. I prefer to think of it as a system of checks and balances. Science run amuck is just as dangerous as people putting blind faith in the human leaders of their religion, without contemplation.

What do you mean by science run amok? I believe that religion, if forced on us, hampers our ability to be free. This is fairly self-evident. I believe in choice not argumentum ad baculum (the appeal to force).

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Poorly. There was a constitutional review requested (the Taoiseach, Prime Minister, can't demand these things) last month over the issue of family rights. Hopefully this will lead to progress in the issue of gay marriage but bureaucracy moves slowly everywhere in the world.

OK, then I'm somewhat confused by your comment that you found Americans voting on gay marriage to be "immensely disturbing".

It seems to me that a system where the people can vote on the issue of gay marriage (either pro or con) is preferable to one where they cannot (given that gay marriage started out being illegal pretty much everywhere).

I don't think new rights spring up out of the ground, fully formed. People didn't just wake up one day and say, 'Hey, women should be allowed to vote!' Arguments had to be made, people had to be convinced, and--ultimately--votes had to be taken. Eventually there were enough votes and laws and Constitutions were changed. How else would you do it?

I expect--and hope--that gay rights/marriage will go the same way; but it will take time. The fact that people are even voting on such issues today would have been unthinkable even a few years ago.

Has anyone ever brought a case before the supreme court over the issue of marriage?

Yes, but the Supreme court usually defers to the states on the basic issues. Only when some Constitutional issue is involved will the Supreme Court act. For example, state laws banning interracial marriages were struck down on the basis of violating the 14th Amendment.

Can divorce be banned by states?

I don't know. Divorce has been legal in all the states (at least in some form) since the Constitution was adopted. The transition to "no-fault" on-demand divorce laws occurred in all the states in the 1960s and '70s, largely without federal intervention.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

OK, then I'm somewhat confused by your comment that you found Americans voting on gay marriage to be "immensely disturbing".

It seems to me that a system where the people can vote on the issue of gay marriage (either pro or con) is preferable to one where they cannot (given that gay marriage started out being illegal pretty much everywhere).

I don't think new rights spring up out of the ground, fully formed. People didn't just wake up one day and say, 'Hey, women should be allowed to vote!' Arguments had to be made, people had to be convinced, and--ultimately--votes had to be taken. Eventually there were enough votes and laws and Constitutions were changed. How else would you do it?

I expect--and hope--that gay rights/marriage will go the same way; but it will take time. The fact that people are even voting on such issues today would have been unthinkable even a few years ago.

I find my own country's system of facing this issue highly disturbing as well. I think that it should be changed by the courts to better accord with the principles of individual rights. It's all based on the idea of personal liberty, as you well know. It's fairly self-evident where it leads in this case. I am not an impractical man though. I merely feel that it is wrong that "gay marriage" is illegal and that people can decide by simple majority whether or not it should be allowed.

Yes, but the Supreme court usually defers to the states on the basic issues. Only when some Constitutional issue is involved will the Supreme Court act. For example, state laws banning interracial marriages were struck down on the basis of violating the 14th Amendment.

So has anyone brought a case to them on the grounds that say banning homosexual marriages is in violation of the 19th amendment because you're denying me as a man/woman the right to marry a man/woman due to the fact I am a man/woman? Also as I'm reading the amendments here I was wondering exactly which bit of the 14th amendment says that interracial marriages cannot be banned. The 15th says that people cannot be denied their vote on grounds of race. Is that the one you're referring to?

I don't know. Divorce has been legal in all the states (at least in some form) since the Constitution was adopted. The transition to "no-fault" on-demand divorce laws occurred in all the states in the 1960s and '70s, largely without federal intervention.

I suppose it's a bit of a non-starter issue over there.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

So has anyone brought a case to them on the grounds that say banning homosexual marriages is in violation of the 19th amendment because you're denying me as a man/woman the right to marry a man/woman due to the fact I am a man/woman? Also as I'm reading the amendments here I was wondering exactly which bit of the 14th amendment says that interracial marriages cannot be banned. The 15th says that people cannot be denied their vote on grounds of race. Is that the one you're referring to?

No, the 15th and 19th Amendments refer only to the right to vote (on the basis of race and sex, respectively). Laws prohibiting interracial marriage were overturned on the grounds that such laws violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.