Should lawmakers legally be allowed to use religious justifications in government?

[Padawanbater2]

Watch this clip;

Do you think elected officials should legally be allowed to make arguments that are based on religious justifications while fulfilling their obligations to their constituents?

Why/why not?


1st Amendment

"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."


Both freedom of religion and freedom of speech are guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, but I think it's clear by placing the establishment clause before the guidelines to the rest of the amendment, the founders felt that keeping a solid wall between church and state was necessary and essential to protecting all the rights that follow.

 

[UncleBuck]

gay space colonies?

no thank you!

 

[JCS57]

Since their religious justifications are usually based on their preferred interpretation of their beliefs think Westboro Baptist church and you can see why this is a bad idea.

 

[OddBall1st]

Watch this clip;

Do you think elected officials should legally be allowed to make arguments that are based on religious justifications while fulfilling their obligations to their constituents?

Why/why not?


1st Amendment

"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."


Both freedom of religion and freedom of speech are guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, but I think it's clear by placing the establishment clause before the guidelines to the rest of the amendment, the founders felt that keeping a solid wall between church and state was necessary and essential to protecting all the rights that follow.

No.

But the attack on Gay space stations wont be Religious motivated. Or, equipt.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Since their religious justifications are usually based on their preferred interpretation of their beliefs think Westboro Baptist church and you can see why this is a bad idea.

Exactly, WBC is a great example. Another good example is fundamentalist Islam. If we say it's OK for Louie Gohmert to basically preach to congress about why his religion says that transgendered people don't deserve equal civil rights as the rest of us and that's why he's going to vote against them, how could someone argue against some future Muslim member of congress' interpretation of Sharia law?

It should be against the law to invoke religious doctrine during arguments in government because it clearly violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment

 

[ThickStemz]

I think that anyone who would is an absolute blithering idiot.

But two things. They have freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. I have asked this question on here before. My first inclination was no, this should not be allowed.

Since then I have evolved my thinking. Allow it, but if there is any religious overtones in the passing of a law, it must immediately be reviewed by the supreme court to see if it has any violations.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Allow it, but if there is any religious overtones in the passing of a law, it must immediately be reviewed by the supreme court to see if it has any violations.

Then what would be the point of allowing religious arguments in the first place?

 

[ThickStemz]

Then what would be the point of allowing religious arguments in the first place?

Because it might be unconstitutional to bar them. It would also be unconstitutional to base law off of them. But it isn't necessarily the case that religiously motivated laws are unconstitutional.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Would we allow a religious argument from a Muslim fundamentalist who managed to get himself elected to congress? If somebody said they're voting against LGBT rights because according to their faith and what they believe, it's wrong, why should we allow that? What if some congressman wants to argue on behalf of his unicorn and mother goose beliefs? Should we allow that too and take that seriously?

 

[ThickStemz]

Would we allow a religious argument from a Muslim fundamentalist who managed to get himself elected to congress? If somebody said they're voting against LGBT rights because according to their faith and what they believe, it's wrong, why should we allow that? What if some congressman wants to argue on behalf of his unicorn and mother goose beliefs? Should we allow that too and take that seriously?

Yes I think we have to allow that. Why? Because making a law that said religious people were not allowed to express their beliefs then we would be making a law that violated the first amendment.

The constitution is the highest law. Congress is free to make any law it sees fit. It is the courts job to see if these laws violate the highest law.

Plenty of people have voted against LGBT issues because of their religious beliefs.

 

[Ace Yonder]

Yes I think we have to allow that. Why? Because making a law that said religious people were not allowed to express their beliefs then we would be making a law that violated the first amendment.

The constitution is the highest law. Congress is free to make any law it sees fit. It is the courts job to see if these laws violate the highest law.

Plenty of people have voted against LGBT issues because of their religious beliefs.

Absolutely not. When you are a member of government you must abide by the separation of church and state. Religion should have 0% say in government, and lawmakers using religious justifications should be stripped of their posts for violating one of the basic tenets of our government. Think about it like a professor at a university. They can believe/say whatever they want on their own time, but if they discuss/advocate for them when they are teaching class they can be fired for bringing their personal beliefs into the classroom. Government should be the same way. Free speech does not mean that you have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want. Otherwise you could be in the hospital giving birth and if your wife gets a little loud during a contraction the doctor could just be like "Shut the fuck up you stupid cunt! You are a dirty whore and this is all your fault so shut your fucking whore mouth and let me do my job in peace!" and no one could fire him or anything because "free speech dude! 1st amendment, bitchesss!". If you think I'm wrong, try saying that to a customer at your job and see how it goes. Clearly free speech doesn't, and shouldn't, cover all kinds of speech, and advocating religious ideas as a lawmaker is absolutely one of those situations where free speech doesn't apply.

 

[Slipup420]

If money is the root of all Evil then why do churches ask for money ???

Quiz what is or was in every hotel room or motel room and no is not ?? 2 - 4 years ago and is not anymore ???

The bible next time you rent a room go look for one its not there and for good reason Cause one could argue ok the bible is there where my Bible of freedom of religious choice

 

[ttystikk]

Isn't it funny how man uses God to justify being inhuman, nevermind Godly?

Separation of church and state means something. The politician can be as sectarian as s/he likes when out stumping, but in session it must be forbidden.

 

[ThickStemz]

If money is the root of all Evil then why do churches ask for money ???

Quiz what is or was in every hotel room or motel room and no is not ?? 2 - 4 years ago and is not anymore ???

The bible next time you rent a room go look for one its not there and for good reason Cause one could argue ok the bible is there where my Bible of freedom of religious choice

If you're going to argue against something get it right.

It doesn't say money is the root of all evil.

It says the love of money....

A huge difference. Money is necessary to get shit done.

 

[UncleBuck]

If you're going to argue against something get it right.

It doesn't say money is the root of all evil.

It says the love of money....

A huge difference. Money is necessary to get shit done.

why are you trying to deny that you were bignbushy/smokeydan?

 

[ThickStemz]

why are you trying to deny that you were bignbushy/smokeydan?

Because besides geographical proximity, and related vocabulary you've not presented any evidence that I am either of those people.

Furthermore, until the geography came to light, a fact I didn't hide, you were dead certain I was nichescheeken.

If I admit it will you shut up about it? It really makes no difference to me. Fine, I'm SmokeyBush. Does that make you happy?

 

[UncleBuck]

Because besides geographical proximity, and related vocabulary you've not presented any evidence that I am either of those people.

Furthermore, until the geography came to light, a fact I didn't hide, you were dead certain I was nichescheeken.

If I admit it will you shut up about it? It really makes no difference to me. Fine, I'm SmokeyBush. Does that make you happy?

thanks for admitting that, dogfucker.

 

[ChesusRice]

Would we allow a religious argument from a Muslim fundamentalist who managed to get himself elected to congress? If somebody said they're voting against LGBT rights because according to their faith and what they believe, it's wrong, why should we allow that? What if some congressman wants to argue on behalf of his unicorn and mother goose beliefs? Should we allow that too and take that seriously?

Judge Roy Moore?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Judge Roy Moore?

Perfect example

 

[ThickStemz]

Perfect example

A judge locally recently forced a woman to change the name of her child. She named her daughter "Mesiah." The female judge said that "there is only one mesiah and you can't name your child that."

She was dealt with harshly. But she was allowed to make the decision first.