|
Replies: 59
| visibility 2821
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Establishment of religion
1
Nov 4, 2024, 9:51 AM
|
|
Would voting based on your religious values, in our country that would obviously be Christian values and from the Bible, be attempting to establish your religion? A large portion of our population seems to vote this way. Am I off base by calling this unconstitutional?
|
|
|
|
 |
Solid Orange [1347]
TigerPulse: 92%
28
|
Re: Establishment of religion
1
Nov 4, 2024, 10:02 AM
|
|
The answer to your question is yes, you are off base
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1347]
TigerPulse: 92%
28
|
Re: Establishment of religion
Nov 4, 2024, 10:02 AM
|
|
The answer to your question is yes, you are off base
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Legend [12227]
TigerPulse: 100%
47
Posts: 10132
Joined: 2002
|
Everyone votes based on their own reasons...
1
Nov 4, 2024, 10:10 AM
|
|
None of which are unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [28510]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 14853
Joined: 2014
|
Re: Establishment of religion
2
Nov 4, 2024, 10:13 AM
|
|
I think it means you don't understand the 1st amendment at all, and probably don't understand English very well either.
Message was edited by: p6fuller®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Re: Establishment of religion
Nov 4, 2024, 10:22 AM
|
|
That's very christlike of you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [28510]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 14853
Joined: 2014
|
Re: Establishment of religion
Nov 4, 2024, 10:24 AM
|
|
Thank you - I have the Spirit of Truth
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [4054]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: Establishment of religion
Nov 4, 2024, 10:15 AM
|
|
I read your post several times. I keep asking the same question. How in the world is voting for the values you believe in unconstitutional?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [28510]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 14853
Joined: 2014
|
Re: Establishment of religion
1
Nov 4, 2024, 10:21 AM
|
|
Trying to control religious thoughts in the voting booth is about as anti 1st amendment as it gets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Re: Establishment of religion
Nov 4, 2024, 10:23 AM
[ in reply to Re: Establishment of religion ] |
|
I don't see it as voting FOR your values, as your values are not being impeded upon. You are voting to force your values on others, at least from my perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [61511]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 47826
Joined: 2000
|
There is no way to avoid ones values being reflected and possibly
Nov 4, 2024, 10:26 AM
|
|
influencing our laws and our society in general; it is expected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Re: There is no way to avoid ones values being reflected and possibly
Nov 4, 2024, 10:32 AM
|
|
I disagree. A person can willingly lay down their values and vote based on the freedom from them, and it seems that would be the most American way to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [28510]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 14853
Joined: 2014
|
Re: There is no way to avoid ones values being reflected and possibly
1
Nov 4, 2024, 10:38 AM
|
|
Well, that would be voting on a certain set of values
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3778]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: There is no way to avoid ones values being reflected and possibly
Nov 4, 2024, 12:56 PM
[ in reply to Re: There is no way to avoid ones values being reflected and possibly ] |
|
I disagree. A person can willingly lay down their values and vote based on the freedom from them, and it seems that would be the most American way to do it.
One that can willingly lay down their values has no true values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [61511]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 47826
Joined: 2000
|
I don't think it's possible, nor desirable.
1
Nov 4, 2024, 1:38 PM
[ in reply to Re: There is no way to avoid ones values being reflected and possibly ] |
|
Are you saying that if peace and love are values that my religion teaches, and I therefore vote for the candidate that I think most embodies peace and love, that's unconstitutional?
Craziest thing I've ever heard.
Would it be okay to vote for such a candidate if religion was not a motivating factor?
I don't think the founders intended to remove religion as a personal influence which may be reflected in our society. They only kept the government from endorsing or establishing praticular religion. Huge difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Re: I don't think it's possible, nor desirable.
Nov 4, 2024, 3:20 PM
|
|
Do peace and love 'impede on the rights of others'?
I've clearly made that distinction time and time again.
Impeding on the rights of others.
THAT is what is unconstitutional.
"You can't abort that baby because the bible says life begins in the womb"- unconstitutional
"You can't marry him because the bible says a man should marry a woman"- unconstitutional
Now on the flip side if I were to say that I believe someone should have the freedom to marry who they want, that is a value that looks out for freedom, which is what being an American is about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [28510]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 14853
Joined: 2014
|
Re: I don't think it's possible, nor desirable.
Nov 4, 2024, 3:44 PM
|
|
I'm with you that individual liberty should be paramount in making laws, but there are a whole host of societal laws that impede a certain level of freedom. See helmet law example from below. You may have good reason to impede on the motorcyclists freedom to ride without a helmet, but you are still taking away someone's freedom in that situation.
Another example would be federal income tax. There may be good reason to have a FIT, but the government is still taking away a portion of someone's financial freedom.
Neither of the above examples are unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [61511]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 47826
Joined: 2000
|
Exactly - if they unfairly impede on the rights of others - that's what makes
Nov 4, 2024, 8:23 PM
[ in reply to Re: I don't think it's possible, nor desirable. ] |
|
them unconstitutional or at odds with the ideal of personal freedom, not voters voting based on their values, which they are free to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [4054]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: Establishment of religion
Nov 4, 2024, 10:26 AM
[ in reply to Re: Establishment of religion ] |
|
When you go into the booth and vote for your values, whatever they are, are you forcing them on me? By your logic does this work both ways or only if Christians vote for candidates who will represent their values?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Re: Establishment of religion
Nov 4, 2024, 10:35 AM
|
|
If I were to vote in favor of some type of policy that impedes on your rights absolutely that would be attempting to force them on you. The "values" of Christians do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1347]
TigerPulse: 92%
28
|
Re: Establishment of religion
Nov 4, 2024, 4:14 PM
|
|
If I were to vote in favor of some type of policy that impedes on your rights absolutely that would be attempting to force them on you. The "values" of Christians do that.
And there it is, the real reason for OP’s post. The anti-Christian point
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13595]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 10031
Joined: 2006
|
Not trying to get too far ahead here
Nov 4, 2024, 10:20 AM
|
|
BUT.
I think you should explore our “Freedom OF religion” and stay away from the manipulated interpretations that correspond with freedom FROM religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [4054]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: Not trying to get too far ahead here
Nov 4, 2024, 10:21 AM
|
|
Bingo!! That’s something most people just don’t understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Re: Not trying to get too far ahead here
1
Nov 4, 2024, 10:26 AM
[ in reply to Not trying to get too far ahead here ] |
|
No one is attempting to force you to have an abortion or marry someone of the same sex which would go against your religion. Those are just a couple popular examples.
You on the other hand are voting to not allow someone to do something based on your religion.
To me that is not voting to keep your values, as you have and always will be able to practice them as an individual but rather voting to make others practice your values, and therefor unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13595]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 10031
Joined: 2006
|
Re: Not trying to get too far ahead here
Nov 4, 2024, 10:41 AM
|
|
Ok. I think I see where you are going here, but it’s a strawman.
No one is forcing you to practice a religion. But you’re sprinting towards the debate of who gets to say what’s right and wrong/ good and evil? It’s a good question, but your coming on down on the side of you should be shielded from everyone else’s morals/ values/ beliefs/ religions… which is not a right of yours.
Why would murder be bad? That’s my answer for why I would personally like to see abortion banned (would love not to have that debate here- just making a point).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Re: Not trying to get too far ahead here
Nov 4, 2024, 10:53 AM
|
|
"but your coming on down on the side of you should be shielded from everyone else’s morals/ values/ beliefs/ religions"
When it comes to government and our laws yes, I believe we should be shielded from one's "values", however they came to believe in them or where ever they came from.
How would that be accepted if a Muslim candidate was attempting to persuade voters based on the teachings of the Koran?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [4054]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: Not trying to get too far ahead here
Nov 4, 2024, 10:42 AM
[ in reply to Re: Not trying to get too far ahead here ] |
|
I guess off the top of my head I think about people who want tax payer funded abortions or the business owners who were ordered to perform their services for gay weddings. Just a couple of examples of “values” being forced on Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [45999]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 41447
Joined: 1998
|
Re: Not trying to get too far ahead here
Nov 4, 2024, 10:40 AM
[ in reply to Not trying to get too far ahead here ] |
|
...stay away from the manipulated interpretations that correspond with freedom FROM religion.
The OP is wrong, but you're off here with calling it "manipulated interpretations"... the Constitution grants you freedom from religion just as much as freedom of it when it comes to what the government does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13595]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 10031
Joined: 2006
|
Go ahead.***
Nov 4, 2024, 10:42 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [45999]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 41447
Joined: 1998
|
Wit my bad self?*****
Nov 4, 2024, 10:52 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13595]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 10031
Joined: 2006
|
Re: Wit my bad self?*****
Nov 4, 2024, 11:28 AM
|
|
Show me where it says you have freedom from religion
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [45999]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 41447
Joined: 1998
|
First Amendment, thanks
Nov 4, 2024, 12:48 PM
|
|
When it involves the government, that is. See Lemon v. Kurtzman for additional readings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13595]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 10031
Joined: 2006
|
Re: First Amendment, thanks
Nov 4, 2024, 4:13 PM
|
|
So that’s not the constitution and B this is about teaching religion in public schools. In the remarks it even says the govt should have a calloused indifference to religion. If it was a Freedom From religion, it would be a calloused obstinance from religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [45999]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 41447
Joined: 1998
|
Re: First Amendment, thanks
Nov 5, 2024, 1:19 AM
|
|
Yes, it's the Constitution, and yes, it applies to the government avoiding establishment, i.e., freedom from religion when it comes to what the government does. You're playing semantics where they don't exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15748]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
Posts: 16726
Joined: 2015
|
You win dumbest post of the day!***
2
Nov 4, 2024, 10:21 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [61511]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 47826
Joined: 2000
|
Yes, I think you are way off.
Nov 4, 2024, 10:24 AM
|
|
People can use whatever reason or bias or influence they choose when they vote. Doing so has not resulted in the etablishment of a state religion in over 200 years, nor has it come close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Re: Yes, I think you are way off.
Nov 4, 2024, 10:30 AM
|
|
Well of course they can. No one can get into the brain of someone and determine why or for what reason they cast their vote obviously.
However, if someone particularly a political candidate is encouraging people to vote based on the bible, how is that not attempting to establish religion? And how would it be accepted if it were a Muslim or Atheist candidate?
Isn't that the entire argument of the left when it comes to the abortion debate- You can't tell us what to do with our bodies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [45999]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 41447
Joined: 1998
|
Just the opposite, IMO
1
Nov 4, 2024, 10:39 AM
|
|
As in the constitutionality; IMO, this is fully exercising your freedom of religion rights.
It's when those people want our government to favor their religion and force it on the rest of us, then we have a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Re: Just the opposite, IMO
1
Nov 4, 2024, 10:47 AM
|
|
If you are attempting to have a law establish that only recognizes traditional marriages OR prevents a woman from having an abortion based on religious beliefs that would seem to be forcing it on the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [45999]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 41447
Joined: 1998
|
Yes, definitely...
1
Nov 4, 2024, 10:51 AM
|
|
If you're trying to create that law. But that's on the government and we let the courts play out with constitutionality.
The voters are choosing who they want based on their beliefs. They may have stupid and oppressive beliefs when it comes to religion, but that's their freedom to vote that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13595]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 10031
Joined: 2006
|
Re: Just the opposite, IMO
Nov 4, 2024, 10:52 AM
[ in reply to Re: Just the opposite, IMO ] |
|
The Bible says not to kill… does that make all homicide laws unconstitutional?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Re: Just the opposite, IMO
Nov 4, 2024, 10:57 AM
|
|
I don't think murder is against the law because the bible says it's wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [28510]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 14853
Joined: 2014
|
Re: Just the opposite, IMO
1
Nov 4, 2024, 11:02 AM
|
|
But believing murder is wrong is a value, and laws against murder are based on values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Re: Just the opposite, IMO
1
Nov 4, 2024, 11:06 AM
|
|
I don't think murder is against the law because it is immoral, but rather because it takes away the rights of another.
Think about that. You are going to get it soon. I just know it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [45999]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 41447
Joined: 1998
|
So, going back to your OP...
Nov 4, 2024, 11:07 AM
|
|
Are you trying to argue that a Christian is violating the Constitution by voting based on his or her religious beliefs? How would you police that?
I'm not a Christian and even I can't agree with you if that's your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Re: So, going back to your OP...
Nov 4, 2024, 11:29 AM
|
|
Yes going against it what it stands for absolutely. Voting to impede on the rights of others is what they are doing. Forcing someone to live a certain way because their religion says to. However you want to say it. Obviously no way to police why someone votes the way they do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [45999]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 41447
Joined: 1998
|
But again, isn't that practicing their freedom of religion?***
Nov 4, 2024, 11:32 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Re: But again, isn't that practicing their freedom of religion?***
Nov 4, 2024, 11:34 AM
|
|
I don't think so. Practicing religion would be going to church, or marrying the opposite sex and waiting to have children until then because you believe that is the way it should be done. That is a value. Nobody is trying to prevent that by allowing same sex marriage.
What you can't do, or shouldn't do, is vote to make SOMEONE ELSE recognize and practice that value, which is exactly what evangelical republicans are trying to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [45999]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 41447
Joined: 1998
|
We've got some pretty good legal protections against...
Nov 4, 2024, 11:51 AM
|
|
Those who want to force us into a theocracy. Sure, there's a mob right now trying to change that, but I'm going to keep my faith in the courts to do the right thing for now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [28510]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 14853
Joined: 2014
|
Re: So, going back to your OP...
Nov 4, 2024, 11:33 AM
[ in reply to Re: So, going back to your OP... ] |
|
And, if you could police it, it would violate the 1st amendment to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [28510]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 14853
Joined: 2014
|
Re: Just the opposite, IMO
Nov 4, 2024, 11:13 AM
[ in reply to Re: Just the opposite, IMO ] |
|
I'm a logical person who understands the definition of 'values', so I'm pretty sure I'm not going to get what you're attempting to explain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Re: Just the opposite, IMO
1
Nov 4, 2024, 11:32 AM
|
|
The difference is in values that do not protect the rights of others. Point is don't say you believe in freedom, and then vote to keep someone from being free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [28510]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 14853
Joined: 2014
|
Re: Just the opposite, IMO
Nov 4, 2024, 11:37 AM
|
|
I don't think helmet laws protect the rights of others, but they're perfectly constitutional. And, are based on the values of saving lives.
A guy that would like to control what values others can base their vote upon, trying to talk to me about freedom... Yeah, I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Re: Just the opposite, IMO
Nov 4, 2024, 11:51 AM
|
|
When you choose to use public roads, you are giving up rights. Not wearing a helmet is a liability not just for yourself but your family, doctors, and our hospitals.
If you can't make the distinction between saving lives and forcing someone to do something based on religion, you just don't want to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [28510]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 14853
Joined: 2014
|
Re: Just the opposite, IMO
Nov 4, 2024, 12:00 PM
|
|
Helmet laws infringe on other people's freedoms. But, perhaps you value their life and their family's well being. This is your value that violates a person's freedom.
So, you don't have a problem voting based on values of whatever your philosophy may be, you just don't want some people to be able to vote based on their value system. Sounds pretty fascist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Re: Just the opposite, IMO
1
Nov 4, 2024, 12:14 PM
|
|
I really don't give a #### if some random idiot wants to go down the highway with nothing but skin between the pavement and their skull. I do care about the first responders, the doctors, nurses, and the family that will be hit with the bill for the funeral. His decision on a public roadway effects others. He doesn't have a right to do that. Now if he wants to go in the privacy of his own home and drink excessive amounts of alcohol until he dies of poisoning there is nothing I can say.
That is a totally different set of circumstances than something like same sex marriage, where the actions of those two individuals have no effect on you whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [28510]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 14853
Joined: 2014
|
Re: Just the opposite, IMO
Nov 4, 2024, 12:20 PM
|
|
It's different in that specific circumstance, but it's still voting for people to make those laws based on your set of values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102645]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 67537
Joined: 2002
|
If you have Christian values, then you might as well sit at home.***
1
Nov 4, 2024, 11:22 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [10811]
TigerPulse: 100%
45
Posts: 10793
Joined: 2013
|
Re: Establishment of religion
Nov 4, 2024, 1:13 PM
|
|
one of the candidates is religious?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [61511]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 47826
Joined: 2000
|
Great question, thought provoking. Here's how I think the 1st Admendment
Nov 4, 2024, 9:32 PM
|
|
works when it comes to voting.
A citizen can vote for any candidate they want, for any reason they want. That's their freedom, their constitutional right. Doing so impedes on no one elses freedom.
Now, if unconstitutional laws are subsequently passed by such candidates, and those laws are allowed to stand, only then are anyone's rights violated; not before. Thankfully we have a court system to protect those rights, and prevent that from happening.
Let's say candidate X is opposed to same-sex marriage. Candidate X is elected. Until laws are passed and enacted prohibiting same-sex marriage, nobody's rights are violated. If and when such laws are enacted, only then will rights be violated.
Determining what is a right and what is not is a legal matter for the courts, and is often not as cut and dried as we may like it to be, and is a different subject and a different debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 59
| visibility 2821
|
|
|
50
