What's new
By:

Governor of Alabama wants to be your brother...by blurring the line

Isn't it spelled "*******"?
 
Just my .02 :

There are plenty of mormons who will, given the choice between a mormon candidate and a non-mormon candidate, vote for the mormon candidate, regardless of platform. Perhaps they feel like they can "trust" that person to legislate without having to do their own research. This has backfired a lot, IMO, but so it goes.

There are also plenty of mormons, myself included, who do not care about a candidate's religious leanings.

As a regular participant in the voting process, I don't recall many (any) candidates that actually used their religion as part of their platform, unless you count their campaign mailer with a picture of them and their huge family.
 
NUMBERICA said:
How much of your worldview is informed by political radio and/or KSL.com message boards? Serious question.
Click to expand...

Zero.

The only thing I use on KSL is to see the weather. I don't listen to the radio much. And when I do, it's to listen to the Red and Blue show or the Gordon Monson show.

Why?

I assume you disagree with me. Please explain.

Keep in mind the first amendment text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now educate me.

Where's the separation of church and state clause that I seem to have missed? Since I'm educated by political radio garbage and KSL message boards, I'll assume that you consider your knowledge and understanding on this matter somewhat elevated from those who you attempted to belittle or insult.

So please, enlighten me.
 
I already explained the origin of the separation of church and state above. It is a modern contrivance of interpretation of the constitution by partisan judges bowing to social criticism and political pressure to affect a hot-button topic.

Freedom OF religion, it says nothing of freedom FROM religion.
 
Sirkickyass said:
But it does mean freedom from any particular religion. That's the "establishment" part.
Click to expand...

The establishment part does not mean that everyone is guaranteed to be free from any particular religion, it means that the state shall not officially sponsor a religion and require people to be members of said religion. That is the definition of establish. It does not mean that no religion of any kind will ever be in evidence in public places. Is allowing a cross on a public road to commemorate a fallen policeman an "establishment of religion"? Some say yes, others say no. By the wording of the amendment then no, since it is not an officially announced establishment of a religion as the state religion of the United States.

But, of course, therein lies the debate.
 
LogGrad98 said:
The establishment part does not mean that everyone is guaranteed to be free from any particular religion, it means that the state shall not officially sponsor a religion and require people to be members of said religion. That is the definition of establish. It does not mean that no religion of any kind will ever be in evidence in public places. Is allowing a cross on a public road to commemorate a fallen policeman an "establishment of religion"? Some say yes, others say no. By the wording of the amendment then no, since it is not an officially announced establishment of a religion as the state religion of the United States.

But, of course, therein lies the debate.
Click to expand...

Immediately there are lines though. What if they allow crosses by the roads but not stars of david or crescents? What if they mandate prayer in schools but don't allow Muslim students to cease their learning at appointed times to face Mecca? At what point does it constitute "establishment" of a particular sponsored viewpoint?

Best to avoid the debate entirely.

For the record, present Supreme Court rules on this are pretty mixed. They seem to be in favor of keeping previously established government religious sites but prevent the creation of new ones. A moratorium if you will.

I remember I got yelled at in fourth grade when I asked my music teacher (in Utah) why the class was told to sing "Away in a Manger" during the holidays. In retrospect I was being a nine-year-old smartass, but there's no way that would fly some 18 years later.
 
When our Founding Fathers passed the First Amendment, they sought to protect churches from government interference. They never intended to construct a wall of hostility between government and the concept of religious belief itself.
Click to expand...

~ Ronald Reagan
 
Sirkickyass said:
Immediately there are lines though. What if they allow crosses by the roads but not stars of david or crescents? What if they mandate prayer in schools but don't allow Muslim students to cease their learning at appointed times to face Mecca? At what point does it constitute "establishment" of a particular sponsored viewpoint?

Best to avoid the debate entirely.

For the record, present Supreme Court rules on this are pretty mixed. They seem to be in favor of keeping previously established government religious sites but prevent the creation of new ones. A moratorium if you will.

I remember I got yelled at in fourth grade when I asked my music teacher (in Utah) why the class was told to sing "Away in a Manger" during the holidays. In retrospect I was being a nine-year-old smartass, but there's no way that would fly some 18 years later.
Click to expand...

Actually the lines are assumptions and what-ifs. What if they allow one and not the other. What if they MANDATE prayer in school. Obviously anything mandated or discriminatory is over the line. However, so far the loudest outcries have revolved around ANY show of any religion at any time in public view (hyperbole I know but still).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top