I agree with you on all of that. There is no reason to prohibit someone to read their holy book or to display their religious beliefs any way they want. That is a violation of the freedom of religion. The problem right now is that we have to extremes. The ones that want religion to influence all government decisions and legislations and those who want to suppress the right of others to express their religious beliefs.

 

There is always a middle ground, a moderate position to this issue, but we have two groups of people wanting to pull the tide their way. Religious Zealots vs. Atheists.

 

I am a catholic. I don't impose my religious views on anyone, and I expect that no one will impose theirs on me. I want to have the right to wear whatever clothes or accesories I want, even if they openly display my religious beliefs. It is my right to read or listen to whatever I like regardless of its religious content. Atheists are taking this too far. One thing is to fight to keep Religion out of government another is to violate someones right to worship their God.

Yea thats exactly it, but still where do we say this is govt imposing religion and when isnt it. The courts have done a terrible job at this. you take it to the 9th CCA and theyll always say its a violaiton of seperaiton of church and state. You go to one of the conservative courts itll be the opposite. And herein lies the problem, should it be made a legislative issue? I don't want to deflect this onto some other topic. But let me just point some issues that are "red hot" and usually center on religious beliefs. Such issues are being used to manipulate certain part of the population that are dead set on them solely on their moral beliefs.

 

Gay Marriage - Bush proposed banning gay marriage on the basis that "God" intended marriage for a man and a woman only. That is faith interfering with politics and legislation.

 

Abortion rights - Bush (and many other politicians) want to ban abortion based on their religious belief that "life is a gift of God".

 

As you can see those two issues are based on personal morals and religious upbringing.

Abortion is so iffy though, because the right to life of the child is not a religious issue for many, but an individual rights issue for a human being. Thats the anti side of it anyway. But by the way legislation on this would not be unconstitutional espeically an amendment (not to say they should) because the constitution cannot be unconsitituional

Abortion is so iffy though, because the right to life of the child is not a religious issue for many, but an individual rights issue for a human being. Thats the anti side of it anyway. But by the way legislation on this would not be unconstitutional espeically an amendment (not to say they should) because the constitution cannot be unconsitituional

Abortion is still a religious and moral battle. A child is not a child until he or she can be his or her own person. Until then it is the woman's body. I know many will disagree on this, but we can't deflect onto another moral topic. We've already discussed this at lenght.

I've come to the conclusion that if people wanna allow gay marriages in Mass. then they can.

 

It should be up to the states.....definitely off the topic, but oh well.

I've come to the conclusion that if people wanna allow gay marriages in Mass. then they can.

 

It should be up to the states.....definitely off the topic, but oh well.

thats actually a very good idea which i myself have also thought before, the issue will then be will these rights only be applicable in the state(s) that allows it

I've come to the conclusion that if people wanna allow gay marriages in Mass. then they can.

 

It should be up to the states.....definitely off the topic, but oh well.

thats actually a very good idea which i myself have also thought before, the issue will then be will these rights only be applicable in the state(s) that allows it That issue was addressed by the USSC over a century ago with the full faith and credit opinion.

 

Each state must recognize (give full faith and credit) to each other's state's laws.

 

Hence the crux of the issue.

The "Defense of Marriage Act," signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, effectively says that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require states to recognize gay marriages sanctioned in other states:

 

"Defense Of Marriage Act" 5/96 H.R. 3396 Summary/Analysis

 

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things.  First, it provides

that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other

State with respect to a same-sex "marriage."  Second, it defines the

words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law.

 

 

Read more about the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

 

Of course, it is likely the DOMA would be put to a court test if a couple from MA decided to move to FL and demand recognition as a married couple. Ultimately, the matter would have to be decided by The Court.