Oh NOW he threatens to use veto power? - Page 4

BarTopDancer · 07-20-2006, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

The president's veto was a result of his personally held religious beliefs, beliefs that not all americans share. How is this not a separation of church and state issue? Why should I be subject to the consequences of his specific religious values?

Pretty much the point I am trying to make.

Same thing as abortion. Just because *your* religion says it's wrong doesn't mean that the rest of the country feels that way. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. Same thing as gay marriage. If you don't think allowing two men or two women in a monogamous committed relationship to get married is right, then don't marry someone of the same sex. But for the government to prevent others from having an abortion, or marrying someone of the same sex because their religion says it's wrong is allowing religious beliefs to dictate laws. Not OK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamie Raskin

People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don’t put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible

scaeagles · 07-20-2006, 05:52 PM

Politicians make decisions based on their own code of morals all the time. To say that because it has religious roots means it is disallowed is bigoted. Every law is based on morality. To veto it on any account is acceptable.

Bush did not attempt to force a bill through Congress saying that private money was not permitted to be used on stem cell research. That would be crossing the line. But a President can veto whatever the hell he wants, and a Congress can override that veto. Period. This is the way the Constitution functions. There is no way any court would or could look at the interpretted motives of a Presidential veto and say it was vetoed for an Uncontitutional reason. It matters not why it was vetoed. It is within Presidential purview. It is Constitutional, whether one likes it or not.

The "separation of church and state", which was never intended to be an antireligious test, as the clause which prevents any religious test from being administered as a condition of holding office would seem to suggest, simply does not apply in this instance. Bush has done nothing to establish a religious preference by vetoing the bill. There is nothing in the Constitution saying a veto must be justifiable by some sort of set of standards.

This being said, I'm not even in favor of the veto. But there are far better grounds for separation crowd than complaining that a veto had a religious motivation.

Motorboat Cruiser · 07-20-2006, 06:19 PM

You make some good points.

I still think that vetoing something like this based on a specific religion's belief system is wrong, whether or not it is in fact constitutional. And, I should add, I never said it was unconstitutional, I just asked how it wasn't. And saying it should be disallowed is only bigoted if I am specific to one particular religion. I don't think this should be done, regardless of which religion we are talking about, even my own.

I just don't like the mixing of religion and Government, period. And especially when it delays the potential cure of numerous diseases that many suffer from. My feelings aren't necessarily constitutionally sound.

In fact, I'll admit that the reason that ticks me off about this primarily is that there are more than a few diseases that these studies could possibly develop treatments for that I happen to have a family history of. I would really prefer that George Bush not slow that process down, regardless of what his personal beliefs are.

SacTown Chronic · 07-20-2006, 07:27 PM

Sam Brownback is three kinds of crazy, fer sure.

scaeagles · 07-20-2006, 07:36 PM

I have no problem with the veto making people mad. I get mad at politicians all the time. I get frustrated when the "unconstitutional" card is played as often as it is. I believe it has as much of an effect of eroding the constitution as unconstitutional actions themselves, because it blurs what is really unconstitutional.

BarTopDancer · 07-20-2006, 07:43 PM

Leo,

Where was unconstitutional said about the veto. You said I said it, I never said it. You keep bringing it up. Who said it?

scaeagles · 07-20-2006, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Gosh I'm glad that Bush swore on the Constitution to uphold the bible* when he was elected. And can I tell you all how excited I am that decsions are being made based upon one persons view of morality? That's SUPER! You know what's even better? The view of morality is based upon the bible! YIPPIE SKIPPIE! It's so great that there is this book that will tell the entire country how to run their personal lives and also tell science what it can and can not do. Let's not forget how amazing it is that this one book can supersceed and alter the document that founded this country

Bold emphasis mine.

True, bartop, you did not say "unconstitutional", but is not what you are describing above the very definition? You are claiming that Bush is using the Bible to supercede the Constitution. That would be unconstitutional. So without the word being written, I interpretted your meaning as that.

And in rereading that, I note you said that Bush is trying to use the Bible to tell science what it can and can not do. Not exactly. The veto means that no federal money will be used on it, not that the research cannot take place.

BarTopDancer · 07-20-2006, 08:26 PM

I guess my sarcasam tags were necessary.

If there was scientific proof that stem cell research was causing harm or death then maybe I would think different. Until then, moral decisions based upon religious beliefs (and the bible) are mixing religion and government.

scaeagles · 07-20-2006, 08:37 PM

In that case it is not possible for any person who has any religious faith that may influence their decision making in the least to hold public office. That would be unconstitutional (see my previous reference). Someone may try not to allow a religious influence, but anyone who is religious has that as part of their make up, who they are, and how they think.

I, for one, think that any moral judgement in government is the same whether it has a basis in religion or not. Moral judgements are moral judgements.

Alex · 07-20-2006, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

If there was scientific proof that stem cell research was causing harm or death then maybe I would think different.

There's no question that the collection of fetal stem cells ends the existence of a form of life. The question is whether that form of life is deserving of legal protection and that is not a scientific question. It is a metaphysical question.

I disagree with the position that life gains a status worthy of protection at conception but it is a defensible position. Certainly more so than one that attempts to create a fuzzy line somewhere between conception and delivery for when legal protections begin to attach.

07-20-2006, 05:52 PM	#32
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Politicians make decisions based on their own code of morals all the time. To say that because it has religious roots means it is disallowed is bigoted. Every law is based on morality. To veto it on any account is acceptable. Bush did not attempt to force a bill through Congress saying that private money was not permitted to be used on stem cell research. That would be crossing the line. But a President can veto whatever the hell he wants, and a Congress can override that veto. Period. This is the way the Constitution functions. There is no way any court would or could look at the interpretted motives of a Presidential veto and say it was vetoed for an Uncontitutional reason. It matters not why it was vetoed. It is within Presidential purview. It is Constitutional, whether one likes it or not. The "separation of church and state", which was never intended to be an antireligious test, as the clause which prevents any religious test from being administered as a condition of holding office would seem to suggest, simply does not apply in this instance. Bush has done nothing to establish a religious preference by vetoing the bill. There is nothing in the Constitution saying a veto must be justifiable by some sort of set of standards. This being said, I'm not even in favor of the veto. But there are far better grounds for separation crowd than complaining that a veto had a religious motivation.
	Submit to Quotes

07-20-2006, 06:19 PM	#33
Motorboat Cruiser Cruiser of Motorboats Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: So Cal Posts: 3,665	You make some good points. I still think that vetoing something like this based on a specific religion's belief system is wrong, whether or not it is in fact constitutional. And, I should add, I never said it was unconstitutional, I just asked how it wasn't. And saying it should be disallowed is only bigoted if I am specific to one particular religion. I don't think this should be done, regardless of which religion we are talking about, even my own. I just don't like the mixing of religion and Government, period. And especially when it delays the potential cure of numerous diseases that many suffer from. My feelings aren't necessarily constitutionally sound. In fact, I'll admit that the reason that ticks me off about this primarily is that there are more than a few diseases that these studies could possibly develop treatments for that I happen to have a family history of. I would really prefer that George Bush not slow that process down, regardless of what his personal beliefs are.
	Submit to Quotes

07-20-2006, 07:27 PM	#34
SacTown Chronic the myth of the dream Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,217	Sam Brownback is three kinds of crazy, fer sure.
	Submit to Quotes

07-20-2006, 07:36 PM	#35
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I have no problem with the veto making people mad. I get mad at politicians all the time. I get frustrated when the "unconstitutional" card is played as often as it is. I believe it has as much of an effect of eroding the constitution as unconstitutional actions themselves, because it blurs what is really unconstitutional.
	Submit to Quotes

07-20-2006, 07:43 PM	#36
BarTopDancer Prepping... Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Here, there, everywhere Posts: 11,405	Leo, Where was unconstitutional said about the veto. You said I said it, I never said it. You keep bringing it up. Who said it? __________________ Spork is the new MacGyver Postcards From My Edge
	Submit to Quotes

07-20-2006, 08:26 PM	#38
BarTopDancer Prepping... Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Here, there, everywhere Posts: 11,405	I guess my sarcasam tags were necessary. If there was scientific proof that stem cell research was causing harm or death then maybe I would think different. Until then, moral decisions based upon religious beliefs (and the bible) are mixing religion and government. __________________ Spork is the new MacGyver Postcards From My Edge
	Submit to Quotes

07-20-2006, 08:37 PM	#39
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	In that case it is not possible for any person who has any religious faith that may influence their decision making in the least to hold public office. That would be unconstitutional (see my previous reference). Someone may try not to allow a religious influence, but anyone who is religious has that as part of their make up, who they are, and how they think. I, for one, think that any moral judgement in government is the same whether it has a basis in religion or not. Moral judgements are moral judgements.
	Submit to Quotes