Whatever happened to separation of church and State? If we demanded the idiot (Bush) to govern the way he should, we wouldn't have an openly prejudice government against gay initiatives such as gay marriage. Is the jerk afraid we might improve the divorce rate and the "sanctity" of marriage?
2006-12-14 00:05:41 · 12 answers · asked by BriGuyCA 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
We have the choice between letting him use his religious conviction or his drunk driving conviction.
Eh, I'll stick with the former.
2006-12-14 00:08:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
First there is no separation of church and state explicitly expressed in the Constitution, but the spirit is implied. The prohibition in the Constitution relates to not allowing the government to create a state religion, or endorse such a religion above all others which people would then be forced to adhere to. Now having said that. There is no prohibition against a president embracing a religion of choice, or in expressing openly his choice of religious conviction. The President does not make law, this is a function of the Congress. The President only signs or rejects (veto) proposed laws. While Presidents do influence policy they cannot force this policy on the nation without the backing of Congress. The situation is even more restricted when proposing a Constitutional Amendment as it must first receive a 2/3 majority in Congress, then it must be ratified by the states. The Framers did not intend for religion to be completely removed from decision making as most were indeed religious men. Their concerns were regarding the formation of entity like the Church of England.
Additional Info: As to the issue of Gay Marriage. I am against it. This is not based on religious conviction as I am an agnostic. It is not an anitgay position as I do not care one way or the other what consenting adults do with other consenting adults. It is not even based on ratonal opinion. I merely believe that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman. I do believe that gay couples should have a civil union so that they can enjoy all the benefits of a married couple such as shared insurance. Lastly, I do not believe we need a Constitutional Amendment to this effect. I realize that my opinion does not necessarily reflect the opinions of others. I believe that every state should put the issue on their ballots and allow the people to vote on it. If the majority agree in a state then that should be the law, if the majority do not agree then it should not. Different sectors of the country have different opinions on this matter and the will of the residents of a particular area should decide for the matter for that state.
2006-12-14 00:18:28 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm all for the separation of church and state but there's nothing wrong with the president or any other politican acting on their religious convictions as long they aren't imposing their religion. For example, if Mormonism inspires a politican to legislate safer school buses I wouldn't care. But if that politican tried to outlaw coffee it would be imposing religion.
2006-12-15 10:13:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Get a real education by visiting your local library and study the history of this country. It is there that you will find the answers you seek.
That is of course if you are really seeking an honest answer. My guess is that you are just another Liberal and/or Democrat with nothing better to do than spew your anti-Bush sentiments.
Get a life or get a job - the pay is much better than YA.
2006-12-14 00:21:46 · answer #4 · answered by LadySable 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is this a flamer sounding off? You silly goose! Hey, Twiddle- dee, we would much rather have a president with Christian convictions than some goddamn muslim. I you're not happy with the current heterosexual in the White House, maybe you and your band of lite weights should band together and draft Rosie O'Donnell. Look at all the set-asides that would be happy with that choice.
Two people of the same gender cannot get married, it defies the whole purpose of marriage. Have your unions, do what ever you want, but stay off our turf!
2006-12-14 00:19:31 · answer #5 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
we have the right to be atheists... separation of church and state means to strip the human values from the supernatural component of religion, and stick to them. You shall not kill not because of fear of some imaginary hell, but because is wrong! you should not be good expecting to go to some imgainary ehaven, but because is the right thing to do if we want society to work. Religious statements are backward and should eventually die all together with religions... I dream of the day in which vatican citiy be transformed into a huge shopping mall, jejejeje.
2006-12-14 00:19:17 · answer #6 · answered by Bullrich 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you can like or not like bush i don't care. but our country was founded on religious convictions. good ones like freedom and human rights. those are convictions. as for separation of church and state-the way it's written is not that there is no religion in government, but that there is no government in religion. i wish people would know that that's how the founders wrote it. it's really misunderstood. don't worry. presidents change if you don't like this one. i do, though.
2006-12-14 00:17:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
the undeniable fact that we've non secular freedom is right down to the undeniable fact that we've (or are meant to have) a mundane government it is impartial on the placement of religion. it is the only way that could assure freedom of religion. A "Christian" united states is basically that...heavily favoring Christianity inb coverage and politics.
2016-10-14 22:25:22 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh separation of church and state allows us to go to war. The church says Thou shalt not kill. However, they have redefined it as it is okay in war. I have listened to the people who have opposed gay marraige and I can't see anything valid of why they oppose it. It is ridiculous to ban something that has nothing to do with you and won't have any effect on you at all.Our country is being run by a former cocaine addict. Who knows what it did to his brain? Send him healing energy instead of hate.You know the kind that Jesus would approve of. He is not one with Jesus. He only thinks he is.
2006-12-14 00:12:12 · answer #9 · answered by queenmaeve172000 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I would have to ask, what religious convictions, he threw them out the minute he got elected. He is a coke snorting, alcohoic with no morals and that is the truth of the man.
2006-12-14 00:14:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋