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

[Padawanbater2]

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.

Sounds like a bullshit story to me. Judges don't have that kind of authority.

 

[ThickStemz]

Sounds like a bullshit story to me. Judges don't have that kind of authority.

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/08/12/woman-ordered-to-change-sons-name-from-messiah

Mother won her appeal.

I misspelled messiah.

 

[ChesusRice]

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/08/12/woman-ordered-to-change-sons-name-from-messiah

Mother won her appeal.

I misspelled messiah.

Judge got fired

 

[Padawanbater2]

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/08/12/woman-ordered-to-change-sons-name-from-messiah

Mother won her appeal.

I misspelled messiah.

So since you voted 'yes' in the poll, do you believe the judge should have that authority?

 

[Rob Roy]

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?

Smoky Bush??

Fuck!

 

[ThickStemz]

So since you voted 'yes' in the poll, do you believe the judge should have that authority?

I would distinguish between a judge and a legislator.

In this instance, pretending it isn't so obvious on its face for a moment, I would allow the legislator to get up, make his/her speech.... "people may not name their children after religious figures."

Suppose it's a more ambiguous religious subject and context. Even in this case, I wouldn't ban the speech. But I would do it just as we do it now. Let the legislator say his piece, then see what impact that religious expression has on the law before the legislative body, if it gets passed and someone is impeded or harmed based on religious beliefs of others, the law gets overturned.

Other than just making speech police, I can't think of a good way to police a ban on religious speech by lawmakers.

A judge is there to uphold the law and the moment she made that ruling her fate was sealed and the decision to fire her was correct.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I would distinguish between a judge and a legislator.

In this instance, pretending it isn't so obvious on its face for a moment, I would allow the legislator to get up, make his/her speech.... "people may not name their children after religious figures."

Suppose it's a more ambiguous religious subject and context. Even in this case, I wouldn't ban the speech. But I would do it just as we do it now. Let the legislator say his piece, then see what impact that religious expression has on the law before the legislative body, if it gets passed and someone is impeded or harmed based on religious beliefs of others, the law gets overturned.

Other than just making speech police, I can't think of a good way to police a ban on religious speech by lawmakers.

A judge is there to uphold the law and the moment she made that ruling her fate was sealed and the decision to fire her was correct.

You're telling me that if some elected official started making arguments based on Wahhabism, and so long as the rest of the legislative body didn't take issue with it, you would allow it?

 

[ThickStemz]

You're telling me that if some elected official started making arguments based on Wahhabism, and so long as the rest of the legislative body didn't take issue with it, you would allow it?

What choice do I have but to allow it?

Of course next election I'm going to throw all the effort I can into getting them defeated.

You see, I'm not a reactionary liberal or conservative. I try to hold to standards and principles. Eww, I don't like it is not reason enough to make something illegal.
But to continue with your hypothetical, if the Wahabi congressman said certian things that amounted to treason, or violated his oaths and security clearances, then sure, action must be taken.

But if he is simply saying things like "we must pass a law to prohibit the sale of bacon and all other pork products for the good of Allah and America" I would say let him say this crazy shit and enjoy his last term in office.

 

[KryptoBud]

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

You ever notice every piece of paper currency in the U S says "in god we trust"?

In criminal court cases why do witnesses have to put their left hand on a bible. raise their right hand "do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god" Seems silly to me cuz as long as you have your fingers crossed it doesn't count anyway.

 

[potroastV2]

No one has to take an oath that mentions god if they don't want to. Just ask for an Affirmation.

I guess Latinos who live in Appalachia cannot name their Son Jesus then.

 

[whitebb2727]

I've told my beliefs.

Yes, I'm christian.

No. Religion should not play a part of it. Nor should a atheist restrict religion.


Christians, please learn something. You believing in god does not give you right to tell people how to live.

You can't see the splinter in my eye for the log stuck in yours.

It's the very reason I don't go to church. I don't subscribe to organized religion.

Christians are some of the most hypocritical judgmental people I ever met.



Well that's where I stand. Church and state separate.

 

[schuylaar]

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.

Citation.

 

[fdd2blk]

How lazy do you have to be to ask for a citation when you're sitting on the interwebs?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=baby+named+messiah+ordered+to+change+name

 

[Padawanbater2]

What choice do I have but to allow it?

Not allow it, because that's crazy (and unconstitutional)

How far are you willing to go here, what if some congressman started making arguments based on his belief in scientology or child sacrifice through some ancient Mesoamerican religion? Your standard for allowing it so long as nobody objects seems like a pretty poor course of action to take when dealing with issues of such importance because as we already know, many people in society, including congressmen that make up the legislative bodies, aren't what we would call 'of sound mind' (ignoring special interests for the sake of argument). At least half the public is made up of complete zombies, and it doesn't take Johnny Cochran to convince people of dumb shit.

You see, I'm not a reactionary liberal or conservative. I try to hold to standards and principles. Eww, I don't like it is not reason enough to make something illegal.

Making legal arguments based on religion can lead to obstruction of equal civil rights as we've seen with many different cases; Obergefell v. Hodges, Roe v. Wade, religion based arguments were even presented in cases like Plessy v. Ferguson and Loving v. Virginia, so whether you like it or not is irrelevant

But to continue with your hypothetical, if the Wahabi congressman said certian things that amounted to treason, or violated his oaths and security clearances, then sure, action must be taken.

But if he is simply saying things like "we must pass a law to prohibit the sale of bacon and all other pork products for the good of Allah and America" I would say let him say this crazy shit and enjoy his last term in office.

Should we just let any elected member of congress make any arguments they'd like based on whatever crazy shit they can think up? Why do you think legally limiting the arguments they make to actual factual based or scientifically verifiable information impedes their 1st amendment rights?

 

[Rob Roy]

Not allow it, because that's crazy (and unconstitutional)

How far are you willing to go here, what if some congressman started making arguments based on his belief in scientology or child sacrifice through some ancient Mesoamerican religion? Your standard for allowing it so long as nobody objects seems like a pretty poor course of action to take when dealing with issues of such importance because as we already know, many people in society, including congressmen that make up the legislative bodies, aren't what we would call 'of sound mind' (ignoring special interests for the sake of argument). At least half the public is made up of complete zombies, and it doesn't take Johnny Cochran to convince people of dumb shit.

Making legal arguments based on religion can lead to obstruction of equal civil rights as we've seen with many different cases; Obergefell v. Hodges, Roe v. Wade, religion based arguments were even presented in cases like Plessy v. Ferguson and Loving v. Virginia, so whether you like it or not is irrelevant

Should we just let any elected member of congress make any arguments they'd like based on whatever crazy shit they can think up? Why do you think legally limiting the arguments they make to actual factual based or scientifically verifiable information impedes their 1st amendment rights?

Without meaning to, you just made a half decent argument why Panarchy is better than a "one size fits all, take it or else" government.

Good job.

 

[NEEDMMASAP]

I've told my beliefs.

Yes, I'm christian.

We all have heard the quote “ In God We Trust “ is it true or not ? Are we a bunch of really smart monkey’s or are we a bunch of people that were created special by God ? I’ll go with the created line of thought , Gods word tells us that marijuana is a food source for us , No One has the right to make a gift from God illegal ! Evil forces are alive and well in this country and they control both the government and the churches .

 

[ThickStemz]

Citation.

Read my next post after that one.

 

[ThickStemz]

Not allow it, because that's crazy (and unconstitutional)

How far are you willing to go here, what if some congressman started making arguments based on his belief in scientology or child sacrifice through some ancient Mesoamerican religion? Your standard for allowing it so long as nobody objects seems like a pretty poor course of action to take when dealing with issues of such importance because as we already know, many people in society, including congressmen that make up the legislative bodies, aren't what we would call 'of sound mind' (ignoring special interests for the sake of argument). At least half the public is made up of complete zombies, and it doesn't take Johnny Cochran to convince people of dumb shit.

Making legal arguments based on religion can lead to obstruction of equal civil rights as we've seen with many different cases; Obergefell v. Hodges, Roe v. Wade, religion based arguments were even presented in cases like Plessy v. Ferguson and Loving v. Virginia, so whether you like it or not is irrelevant

Should we just let any elected member of congress make any arguments they'd like based on whatever crazy shit they can think up? Why do you think legally limiting the arguments they make to actual factual based or scientifically verifiable information impedes their 1st amendment rights?

What if a religious president were in office, a Republican. A democratic Congress passed universal health care.

The president, as he signed it into law stated "my party has long opposed such measures, but I am compelled by my Christianity, to make sure we provide health care to the least of those among us."

Your way would then make the law invalid.

My way allows for the law because this religious statement, though the motive for it being passed, is not a part of the law. The law is totally secular. It happens to coincide with his version of his religion.

 

[Padawanbater2]

What if a religious president were in office, a Republican. A democratic Congress passed universal health care.

The president, as he signed it into law stated "my party has long opposed such measures, but I am compelled by my Christianity, to make sure we provide health care to the least of those among us."

Your way would then make the law invalid.

My way allows for the law because this religious statement, though the motive for it being passed, is not a part of the law. The law is totally secular. It happens to coincide with his version of his religion.

If making arguments based on religion were illegal, the president could very well use the economic argument that it's cheaper (it is), or the humane argument that healthcare is a right (it is). No one is forced to use religious justifications, and if they are, that means that no other justifications were valid, in which case of course the religious argument should be thrown out. In the case of universal healthcare, many arguments remain valid in the absence of invalid religious arguments. I wouldn't allow the religious to poison the well just to support or oppose a law, that's not how it works. If other arguments remain valid, you have to address those with either counterfactual evidence based on science or reason.

 

[ThickStemz]

If making arguments based on religion were illegal, the president could very well use the economic argument that it's cheaper (it is), or the humane argument that healthcare is a right (it is). No one is forced to use religious justifications, and if they are, that means that no other justifications were valid, in which case of course the religious argument should be thrown out. In the case of universal healthcare, many arguments remain valid in the absence of invalid religious arguments. I wouldn't allow the religious to poison the well just to support or oppose a law, that's not how it works. If other arguments remain valid, you have to address those with either counterfactual evidence based on science or reason.

It doesn't matter what other arguments are valid. The sole one that motivated the lawmaker is religious. Have to throw it out, for your point to be complete and consistent. You only bend here because it is something you agree with.

You can't do anything at the point of speech. Speech harms no one. He has to make a law. Then two conditions must be met, firstly that a religious concern is impacted, and secondly that religious concern is a part of the law and will affect others.

Might be able to tighten up the language, but that's the gist of it.

I don't care what the religious fool gets up there and says. I will not deny his right to express It. I will just try my best to take away his microphone next go round, and in the mean time make sure what he touches isn't poisioned by his foolishness.

Shutting him up would be too cumbersome, and give too much power to someone.