Church and state can only be separate if the quality of life is accepted by all.
Church and state can only be separate if the quality of life is accepted by all.
A good a place as any on a2k to post this from the NYT.
"May 23, 2005
Justices Re-enter Abortion Debate With Case on Parental Consent
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, re-entering the abortion debate amid burgeoning speculation about Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's retirement, agreed Monday to hear an appeal of a decision striking down a state parental notification law.
Justices will review a lower court ruling that struck down such a law in New Hampshire. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the 2003 law was unconstitutional because it didn't provide an exception to protect the minor's health in the event of a medical emergency.
The decision to review the emotional case, which also comes at a time of bitterly partisan fighting in the Senate over President Bush's nominees for federal judgeships, will be heard in the next term beginning in October. Liberal groups have vowed to fight any Rehnquist replacement who opposes the high court's landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion.
In their appeal, New Hampshire officials argued that the abortion law need not have an "explicit health exception" because other state provisions call for exceptions when the mother's health is at risk. They also asked justices to clarify the legal standard that is applied when reviewing the constitutionality of abortion laws.
The New Hampshire law required that a parent or guardian be notified if an abortion was to be done on a woman under 18. The notification had to be made in person or by certified mail 48 hours before the pregnancy was terminated.
In its last major abortion decision in 2000, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that state abortion laws must provide an exception to protect the mother's health. Justices at the time reasoned that a Nebraska law, which banned so-called "partial-birth" abortions, placed an "undue burden" on women's abortion rights.
Since then, several lower courts have applied that health exception to abortion laws requiring parental notification. The New Hampshire case challenged whether the Supreme Court's 2000 ruling actually required that.
Abortion laws are "entirely different than parental involvement laws, which obviously do not purport to ban abortions, but simply seek to promote the interests of minors in having the benefit of parental involvement," New Hampshire legislators wrote in a friend-of-the-court filing.
Earlier this year, justices declined to hear a challenge to the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling by the woman known as "Jane Roe" who was at the center of the historic case."
and that ci investigations for you.Right on as usual.so Right on brother Right on.
those almanacs are like premonitions of the past
There are many reasons why we must keep religion and politics separate. The following is a major reason why religion doesn't belong in our politics.
"Clash looms on US stem cell bill
The US Congress is to vote on Tuesday on a controversial bill which would ease restrictions on funding for embryonic stem cell research.
The bill's supporters say they expect to get enough votes to pass it in the House of Representatives.
President George W Bush opposes the legislation and says he will veto it.
While he is in favour of stem cell research, he is against publicly funding "science which destroys life in order to save life", he says.
Correspondents say that by threatening to use the veto for the first time in his presidency, Mr Bush has made it clear he will make a stand.
The vote comes less than a week after South Korean scientists announced they had made stem cells tailored to the individual for the first time, meaning a possibility of treatments for diseases like diabetes without problems of rejection.
'Against the tide'
The bill, sponsored by Republican Congressman Mike Castle and Democrat Diane De Gette, is expected to get the 218 votes needed to pass, but not as many as the 290 needed to overcome a presidential veto."
It seems congress members are having some disagreements with Bush. From the BBC:
"US House backs stem cell funding
The US House of Representatives has voted to increase government funding for embryonic stem cell research.
The vote sets up a confrontation with President Bush, who has vowed to veto the bill if it passes the Senate.
The bill was passed by 238-194 votes - short of the two-thirds majority required to override Mr Bush's veto.
The vote followed an emotional debate between those who say the research is vital for medical progress, and those who say it destroys human life.
The bill would allow scientists to use stem cells from embryos created during in-vitro fertilisation programmes but never implanted in a womb.
Researchers believe stem cells - which can transform themselves into many other tissue types - hold the key to finding cures for many diseases, including Parkinson's and diabetes."
It's not only about stem cells that some GOP members of congress disagrees with this president. It's also about private accounts for social security, and giving taxpayer money to religious' organizations. There are probably other issues that the GOP members of congress will not follow this president. It's rather refreshing - although a bit late.
From the NYT:
"May 24, 2005
G.O.P. Senator Sends Letter to Colleagues Opposing Bolton
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, May 24 - The Ohio Republican whose opposition to John R. Bolton as United Nations ambassador nearly stalled his nomination in committee took a new swipe at him today, circulating a letter urging colleagues to vote against Mr. Bolton when his name reaches the Senate floor, possibly this week."
Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Bush is performing his job?
...............Approve......Disapprove......Unsure
...................%.................%.................%
'5/20-22/05...46...............50..................4
This is the first time Bush is showing a 50 percent
Dsiapproval rating.
hyper426 wrote:why would anyone want you to be wrong, fox? you did invite everyone to tea...
you know, some of this stuff is starting to get over my head, and I like it! Sorry, but I like a mental challenge, and this is serving as a great one.
anywayz, got to go to Washington D.C. until tuesday (with my band), so I will pray that I can catch up when i get back...
yeah, thanks for the 10 pages of catch-up I now have to find time for.
I don't know when I will get back on track with work and all...bear with me
Today the U.S. Supreme Court announced decisions in two cases involving the church/state issue. A display of the ten commandments in Kentucky courthouses was ruled unconstitutional while the ten commandments monument on Texas state capitol grounds was ruled permissible. Justice Breyer turned out to be the deciding vote in each case. In March, Breyer had commented that each case involving the establishment clause must be looked at individually.
O'Connor, Souter, Stevens, and Ginsberg voted that both displays were not permissible. Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy voted that both displays were permissible. Only Breyer voted differently in the Texas case than he did in the Kentucky case. Breyer wrote a separate opinion on the Texas case. Here are some excerpts:
Quote:If the relation between government and religion is one of separation, but not of mutual hostility and suspicion, one will inevitably find difficult borderline cases. And in such cases, I see no test-related substitute for the exercise of legal judgment....The case before us is a borderline case.
*****************************
...where the Establishment Clause is at issue, we must distinquish between real threat and mere shadow. Here, we have only the shadow.
(Edited because I originally referred to Kansas instead of Kentucky. The concurring and dissenting opinions on both cases can be viewed on the Supreme Court's website.)
wandeljw wrote:O'Connor, Souter, Stevens, and Ginsberg voted that both displays were not permissible. Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy voted that both displays were permissible. Only Breyer voted differently in the Texas case than he did in the Kansas case. Breyer wrote a separate opinion on the Texas case. Here are some excerpts:
Quote:If the relation between government and religion is one of separation, but not of mutual hostility and suspicion, one will inevitably find difficult borderline cases. And in such cases, I see no test-related substitute for the exercise of legal judgment....The case before us is a borderline case.
*****************************
...where the Establishment Clause is at issue, we must distinquish between real threat and mere shadow. Here, we have only the shadow.
I agree with Breyer here. It's a rare individual who can recognize the need for the exercise of legal judgement and I add, interpretation. Laws are limited because life is not simple. No law can be written so perfectly to apply to every case. Good for Justice Breyer!
For Iraq's new democratic constitution, the church-state issue is still undecided. Below are excerpts from a recent article on current issues involved with the writing of the new constitution:
Quote:Federalism can prevent Iraq civil war
By David L. Phillips (David L. Phillips is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of "Losing Iraq.")
Iraq's spiral of deadly sectarian violence has been between Arab Sunnis and Arab Shia. But if Iraq fragments, it will be along ethnic lines that pit Arabs against Kurds. The Kurds seek a secular republic with Kirkuk as the capitol of a federal Iraqi state called Kurdistan. If the constitution addresses their core demands, the Kurds might be flexible on other issues that threaten to break consensus during current negotiations on Iraq's permanent constitution.
Most Iraqis agree that the best way to balance the competing demands for democracy and unity is through a federal structure that assigns specific authorities to the national government while decentralizing control to regional and local governments.
*************************************************
The role of religion in Iraqi governance is another potential deal-breaker. The Kurds, who are staunchly secular and pro-Western, strongly resist efforts by clerics to apply Islamic law nationwide without restraint. Yet Islam is a powerful force shaping Iraqi society.
The circle can be squared by making Islam the official religion of Iraq and requiring that national legislation be consistent with Islamic law. The constitution should not, however, require the application of Islamic law to family matters such as marriage, divorce and inheritance. Consistent with the principle of decentralization, family law should be left to federal Iraqi states, which may enact any law they see fit, subject to the requirement that the law does not violate the rights of equal protection in the constitution. The Quran is subject to interpretation; conservative clerics must not push too hard. If the constitution guarantees federalism and secularism, Kurdish leaders would be flexible on other contentious issues.
Here's a link to a new thread I started. It is in the relgion and spirituality forum. If you want a break from the political forum...consider it. I hope everyone involved in this thread will stop by and offer an opinion.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56936&highlight=
@Foxfyre,
So if the founding fathers expected us to be involved in religion, and said that the constitution would not work otherwise, why would they establish the "free excercise thereof"? Think: Free excercise is the ability/right to excercise at will. If you have not the will to excercise a relgious practice/belief, you have the right to abstain. Therefore, you are not required to participate. If you are not required to participate, how could any constitution be upheld only through participation?
