President Bush Vs. The First Amendment How far can we let religion go?

[gunbound 0]

THE FIRST AMENDMENT

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

The Bill of Rights was created to help ensure that the people of the United States would be free from the oppressive actions of the government of their pervious lands. The First Amendment was one of the most vital, enabling the people to be free to express themselves and not be oppressed by someone else's beliefs.

 

This topic is designed to raise the debate about President Bush's domestic, and in some ways his foreign, policy and how this might have implications with the First Amendment. Of course, if there really was a great implication about it, it would be raised in the Supreme Court. What I will engage in here is my feelings about how the faith of this president is controlling and in a way, establishing, laws for the people that are based on his faith and personal opinions. But because the Constitution doesn't explicitly state that the president and Congress cannot establish laws based on religious beliefs, there would have to be another amendment to change that - and of course, that's not going to happen so long as Bush is in office. Therefore, he has the power to try to change our lives based on his faith, and there's nothing but Congress to (and probably will) stop him.

 

For those of you who don't know, the government works in the familiar "checks and balances" system. This means that legislation (bills to create a law) must go through Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives) and then become established as a federal law (federal is for the whole country; there is also state law).

 

President Bush's main domestic goals are to ban gay marriage and abortion through constitutional amendments. (To see my response to abortion, see http://forums.xisto.com/topic/5833-abortion-for-or-against-abortion-share-ur-views-on-abortion/ .)

Who gets to say if abortion is wrong? And what's the problem with people getting married just because they're the same sex? These are the questions that this topic should cover.

 

Gay marriage: what's wrong with it? I'd say that the majority of people who are against gay marriage (same as those who are against abortion) are against it because of their religious faith. Religious faith is an important part of society - it forms strong human relationships and unites people in common belief. It is also a way of helping people organize with common ideas and have an answer for the most difficult of questions. Most of these answers come with dogmatic/biased answers. People who are strong of faith will be for or against something because they are "told" to be by their church. For gay marriage, most people probably aren't against it because they personally think it's gross, but rather because they think that it's against God's will and therefore wrong, period.

 

President Bush is one of these people. He wants to permanently deny the tens of thousand of homosexual people in this country because of his personal belief. Is there any better reason? If so, I haven't heard it! What's wrong with people getting married if their the same sex? It hurts no one, or the system, or the economy. Could the reason be because homosexuals don't reproduce? Well, gay people certainly do adopt, and that's a great advantage to society (see abortion solutions). What does he mean by "the sanctity of marriage"? That seems to be another rhetorical stamen like "compassionate conservative" or "pro-life" - used in that way to make it sound good and the opponent bad. People marry for the benefits of marriage and for love. Gay people certainly have love, and they also have the right to get the benefits that heterosexual people do. If a person is gay, he or she should no be denied those benefits, that would clearly be discrimination!

 

Abortion: how do we know when life begins? What is life - consciousness, movement, will to live? When does a fetus have any of these things? If abortion is criminalized, it will not be stopped. A new black market would open up and desperate women who are not ready to have a child will be hurt and killed by having unsanitary procedures. The fact is, abortion can be a useful tool for society, as I've explained in another topic ( http://forums.xisto.com/topic/5833-abortion-for-or-against-abortion-share-ur-views-on-abortion/ ). And rather than being completely illegalized, it needs to instead be regulated.

 

President Bush works the same way with this as he does with gay marriage: he has be convinced by his faith that it is wrong, period. He thinks it's wrong, therefore he wants to stop everyone from doing it. Bush is clearly an imperialist. In the same way that he's so sure that democracy is exactly what the world needs to be better, he thinks that his beliefs are what the US needs to be better. But Americans don't want other's beliefs to be imposed on them, and that's the nature of our country, that's why the Founding Fathers created the First Amendment. I wonder if it wasn't for the First Amendment, if Bush would try to convert the country to Evangelical Christian. Thankfully he cannot do this, but if Congress passes his amendments (and surely they won't), all of the United States will be subject to his beliefs on abortion and gay marriage.

 

People must have the freedoms they need in order to maintain a peaceful society. When the government imposes too many laws and restrictions, for things that are highly subjective and controversial, it leads to conflict. When there isn't a clear and obvious necessity for change, and if the country is highly divided on issues, it is simply wrong to impose beliefs through our constitution. Doing so will only cause more problems.

 

Are the American people willing to let the executive's religious opinion to be imposed upon all of us? Do we not see this to have some conflict with the intentions of the First Amendment?

[no9t9 0]

As far as I'm concerned, issues like gay marriages in America should be put to a referendum. The government can make the decision only if they represent the people. It is clear that the current administration in America does not represent the people. They only had a SLIM victory. In addition, the government has no place in changing/creating laws based on personal religious beliefs. Church and state should be seperate. It is as simple as that. Religiously influenced decisions by a government administration can only cause trouble. History is FULL of examples that prove this point.The american people voted Bush back into office.. It would seem that the majority of people agree with Bush's policies. But, what really worries me is that the Bush administration has misled the public when it comes to the WAY in which it intends to carry out its policies. For example, Bush says he is against gay marriages... this is fine until he starts messing with the constitution. The public may simply hear "I'm against gay marriages" but not know how the administration intends on treating gay marriages. In addition, the general public may not understand the consequences of ammending the constitution to block gay marriages. I believe the public needs to be educated in this issue and a referendum needs to be held. It is clear that the Bush administration has its own agenda which is unethical. But, if Americans don't stand up for their own rights... obviously people (like Bush and his administration) will squash them.

[Kioku 0]

Oh, look. My dog died. I'm going to blame Bush since he didn't magically wave a magic wand and fix it just like all of the things you're blaming him for, either. Seriously, though. Good stuff happens like gas prices go down and stocks up. Does anybody credit Bush? No. Bad stuff happens like gas prices going up and stocks doing down. Do anybody credit Bush? Yes.

[Madkat-Z 0]

As much as I would like to blame one person for the whole issue, but I refuse to blame just Bush for this. I would blame the whole government system for this actually since in order for things such as very religious bias laws to get passed the whole system must be corrupted. So aka: if you going to complain about Bush's beliefs and what hes planning to do you should blame the whole government system (Including those who vote) as well for letting it get threw.As a note, I do agree with you religious bias laws shouldn't be passed, but sadly there are a few exceptions to this rule which I think must be taken. Such as making it illegal to kill animals or humans for sacrifices and Polygamy (I believe you have the right to marry who every you want, but to me its unfair because its prevents others from having the same right to marry).

Edited November 10, 2006 by Madkat-Z (see edit history)

[cangor 0]

I hate Bush. In fact, I would almost rather have Kerry as president. Almost.As far as abortion is concerned, I think that it should only be ok in cases of rape or incest. People should face the consequences of their actions and be responsabile. Here in good ol' Oregon a bill was recently turned down that required parental notification when an unemancipated minor gets an abortion. Basically, if a girl goes to have sex with her boyfriend and gets pregnant, which is technically against the law, but whatever, you can't just get an abortion and not take responsability when you've been irresponsabile. Wow. an oxymoron.I mean, I guess the plan B pill is ok, but abortion is a lot different. Girls say that they should be able to do with their bodies what they want, but, to tell the truth, it's not their body when they're getting an abortion - it's their baby's. Every child deserves a right to live. Would you say that a baby has less of a right to live just because they're growing up in a meth house as opposed to an affluent, rich household? I hope not. Even if they're not concieved under ideal circumstances, it's almost like murder to abort a baby.As for gay marriage, well, you can probably tell I'm conservative, so you know what I'm going to say, but, honestly, I really don't care what goes on in the bedroom, but I don't think a homosexual partnership should be called a marriage. The only reason gays want to be able to marry is so that they can get the $$$ benefits from being married. I bet that if there was no advantages to getting marries, well, we'ed have a lot more unmarried people living together, but other than that, gays wouldn't care whether or not they were considered married.Anyways, I don't like bush, and I agree that the laws should reflect the opinion of the majority, or at least the sensient majority. There are too many people who just vote based on the propaganda-esque commericals they see on television instead of really considering why they believe what they do... In fact, they don't know why they believe, and that just gives more power to the government.Basically, right now, I think the majority opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry and, though it's close, that abortion is ok.'nuff said.

[Yacoby 0]

I agree that the laws should reflect the opinion of the majority, or at least the sensient majority. There are too many people who just vote based on the propaganda-esque commericals they see on television instead of really considering why they believe what they do... In fact, they don't know why they believe, and that just gives more power to the government.

I think that laws should reflect the opinion of the majority only when there is a need for a the said law. I don't see why you need a law making abortion illegal. Those who think that it is wrong don't have to have abortions, and those who think it is fine to have abortions can have abortions without affecting those who think abortions are wrong.

Same with Gay marriages.

[.:Piper_2051:. 0]

Oh, look. My dog died. I'm going to blame Bush since he didn't magically wave a magic wand and fix it just like all of the things you're blaming him for, either. Seriously, though. Good stuff happens like gas prices go down and stocks up. Does anybody credit Bush? No. Bad stuff happens like gas prices going up and stocks doing down. Do anybody credit Bush? Yes.

WOW! Bush makes money for his friends by taking it from the people and were supposed to give him a cookie? Stocks and gas went up because of his ludicrous thought that the USA could fight not 1, BUT 2 WARS, at the same time... War is by far the most well known source of income for companies of a select nature (Oil & Gas, Tech, Weapons, Ammo, Trade etc) and war also gives the people something to focus on, distracting them from the incompetence of their government.

Lets Face It: Electing hime once was a fix and a mistake, but the second time falls on ignorance and stupidity. Bush should have been impeached, Cheney shouldve been impeached and Obama is the best thing to happen to the US since Clinton (Bubba AND Hilary) but hey, you impeached Bill after he fixed the economy, just because he may have, or may not have, "had sexual relations with that woman".

Thank you and please crawl back under whatever anti democratic, Pro Bush Warmongering rock you crawled out from.

CHEERS!