Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
Except he's a government employee, and he is serving the people in his capacity as judge, not running some entrepreneurial business.
It matters what impression government buildings give off, and favoring one type of religion over all others - whether or not it affects his rulings - does not mesh with the separation of church and state. This has no impact on how he lives his personal life, but as a government official who is responsible for judging people, he must at least give the appearance of impartiality. Not to mention that it's kind of absurd to claim the entire court as his personal office. Judges have personal offices: they're called chambers, and they do not include the entire courthouse, or even the courtroom. More importantly, let's look at this from a different angle: what if the judge wanted a Deuteronomy 22:20,21 or a Leviticus 20:13 monument instead of a 10 commandments monument? Is that OK, provided his rulings are based on fact and not hatred of women or homosexuals? I'd like to know if judges are allowed to express themselves in the court in all the ways a normal citizen can, or if there is some line. If there's a line, why are the 10 commandments - which explicitly demand worship of the Abrahamic deity, and outlaw even wanting (coveting) something that your neighbor owns - acceptable, but other things are not? |
Again, that is an extreme. If the scenario you suggest were to ever happen, I think it should be a state issue, NOT a federal.
If he hangs the Commandments and the people elected him, that's all I care about. The people elected him. There are politicians that commit real crimes and get away with them, what he did was nothing compared to them.
Quote:
|
I ask about interracial marriage not as a trap, but to understand your logic regarding what government can and cannot do, and also to demonstrate the flaws in that logic as it has so far been described. You're expressing - quite unbelievably - a total support for the tyranny of the majority, which would include allowing states to outlaw interracial marriage. I'd like to know if you actually support a state's right to do this, or if there is some line in your head that makes outlawing interracial marriage unacceptable, but other rejections of individual rights more acceptable, particularly when neither is explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
|
And I answered that question, maybe not how you wanted but.... aw well. i answered it I'm done with it.
Quote:
|
I completely agree that government should not be involved in "marriage," but I'm not sure you are understanding that there is a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. Your statement above seems to indicate that you believe them to be the same thing, but they are not. If a couple is married through a religious ceremony, there are two marriages that take place: the civil and the religious. Proponents of same-sex marriage could generally care less what restrictions religions place on marriage. The issue is whether or not the state has the right to limit the expression of love between two individuals based on their sex. Seeing as how the government is areligious, there is no valid argument for limiting individual rights in that manner. The confusion between civil marriage and religious marriage is why I believe the government should do everything it already does, extend those benefits to same-sex couples, and just rename marriage to unions for everyone. Regardless of the name, restricting civil marriage because religious marriage would be offended gives undue preference to a particular religious view. Whether or not that view is the majority doesn't matter, because it is fundamentally wrong for the government to restrict individual rights because of someone else's religious views.
|
Marriage in the eyes of government is solely a business deal. The whole religious ceremony is for show or beliefs. (How people feel about marriage and what marriage is to them is irrelevant to how government should look at it.)
Therefore, when it comes to a divorce or dissolution it should be treated much like a business and civil union and nothing else.
Quote:
|
It has been noted here before, but I specifically bring up and would like to know your thoughts on state's prohibiting interracial marriage because your arguments are just about the exact same as those which were used to defend miscegenation laws in the past. So I'd like to know what makes your stance different, if you do not support state prohibition of interracial marriage, or if you are willing to accept the consequences of such an argument and allow the development of oppressive states and more free states.
|
This is pretty much a repeat of the second paragraph, I feel I did answer this, I'm sorry if I cannot answer it better for you.
Quote:
|
I'm still not clear on where you stand re: ballot initiatives vs the legislature. Should we abolish the legislature and put everything to a popular vote? If not, what kinds of laws are OK for the legislature and what kinds of laws do you think demand a popular vote? Bringing this back to the tea parties, when, if ever, is it acceptable for the elected representatives of the people to vote on spending money, and when must that spending be brought to a popular vote? After all, your primary complaint from what I can tell is that you feel your voice isn't being heard. I'd like to understand where you draw the line between being heard through electing a representative and demanding each individual voice be counted. How do you think the rights of minorities should be protected from an unfriendly majority? As far as I can tell, your answer is that they should just move to a different state. Am I missing something?
|
Government's sole purpose is to protect and educate the people. Regulate businesses, have fair labor acts, support schools, maintain roads and if the people vote for it supply small business loans, student loans, etc. directly not through a third party and as those loans get paid back with interest the government makes money.
I think the rights of the minorities will still be protected through Constitutional laws. Plus, I am a firm believer people can govern themselves.
Quote:
|
Finally, you believe in letting the people decide and not the government. Is the elected representative government not an extension of the people? If not, why do we have such government at all? So again, do you support ballot initiatives for all laws, or is there something I'm missing here? It seems to me that you're arguing for each state to be its own direct democracy, loosely tied together by a federal government which exists in name only. I'd like to understand if you're arguing for something else, and what the logic is behind that argument.
|
I must go to work but this I'll answer when I get home or tomorrow.