Oh NOW he threatens to use veto power?

[BarTopDancer]

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.

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

[mousepod]

Interesting article in salon.com. about the veto marking "the collapse of the imperial presidency". Worth a read.

[scaeagles]

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]

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]

Sam Brownback is three kinds of crazy, fer sure.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

And saying it should be disallowed is only bigoted if I am specific to one particular religion.

Something you said in that post bugged me, but I couldn't put a finger on it until this morning.

You say that no religious influence should be in government. Because it isn't specific to one, it isn't bigoted.

Isn't that kind of like saying someone is only bigoted if they don't want to live next to hispanics, but it's OK to live next to Asians? If someone has a problem with all races, they aren't bigoted because it isn't an issue with only one race? If that's the case, then members of the KKK aren't bigoted because they have a problem with all non-whites, not just one specific skin color.

Religious bigotry is religious bigotry. I don't care if someone has Islamic or Mormon or Pagan or whatever influences in their history (or their present). There is no doubt that the religious influence in their lives will affect their decision making. It is part of who they are. The solution is the ballot box, and the courts to rule on the Constitutionality of what is passed based on the (mythical in my mind, but accepted) separation of church and state.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Religious bigotry is religious bigotry. I don't care if someone has Islamic or Mormon or Pagan or whatever influences in their history (or their present). There is no doubt that the religious influence in their lives will affect their decision making. It is part of who they are. The solution is the ballot box, and the courts to rule on the Constitutionality of what is passed based on the (mythical in my mind, but accepted) separation of church and state.

First, I will admit that that way an awfully poor choice of wording on my part. So, let me see if I can clear things up a bit, since, in my opinion, bigotry is one hell of an accusation and an unfounded one. Let me be perfectly clear here. I harbor no ill will towards any religion, None. but there is one little caveat.

I do have a problem with being told that I must subscribe to the teachings of ANY religion that I do not care to. Every person has a right to believe what they want. They do not have the right to make others follow those same beliefs. Religion should be a personal thing, between you and god. If, for example, you believe that abortion is wrong, you should have every right to never be forced to have one. Don't eat pork? Nobody should ever force you to. Don't believe that gay people should be married? Don't marry a gay person. That doesn't mean that you should be able to dictate what others are allowed to do, based on your religious beliefs.

If I don't eat pork, that should never mean that nobody else can either. This is the major problem I have with religion in general. You can tell me what your religion says and I think that is perfectly acceptable. Better yet, you can show by example and if I feel that your beliefs would make a positive impact on my life, I just might give them a closer look. IMO, that is where the influence should end. If more people kept their religion personal, without trying to convert others or pass legislation that forces others to accept their views, I would have zero problems with religion.

But see, I don't believe that this is "one nation under god". I don't believe that having a relationship with a member of the same sex is sending me to some dark hole filled with demons. I don't believe that cells in a petri dish are a human life. And I don't feel that I should be forced to just accept these imposed beliefs, from a religion that I do not subscribe to.

And I would really rather that politicians, who are probably one of the most corrupt and immoral batch of humans on the planet, not be involved in dictating their own personal moral code, which most are obviously having a hard enough problem following in their own lives. I don't see much of difference between saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry than I do hearing that blacks should sit at the back of the bus. If anything, people use their religious beliefs to justify their own bigotry, their own prejudice. If there is one place that they shouldn't be allowed to do that, it is when they are making laws that affect millions of people who do not subscribe to their own beliefs.

I hear all of the politicians on the religious right tell me that life is sacred, ad nausium. And yet, these same politicians make decisions that kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people in needless wars. They slow the progress of medical research to a crawl that could save millions of lives. Maybe if they practiced what they preached, others like myself would see the good in their belief system, rather than the blatant hypocracy of it.

So again, you will never hear me say that a person doesn't have a right to follow whatever religious beliefs they deem neccessary to lead their own lives. And, I will not look down on them for following those beliefs. But when you go from a set of beliefs that you use to govern your own life to a set of beliefs that everyone should follow, we have a problem, because for me to accept your beliefs, I also have to accept belief in your God. I cannot make myself believe something that I don't.

And when you try to legislate things based on your own belief system, you are in essence saying "My personal take on religion is the right one and everyone elses is wrong". It suggests that nobody should have the right to believe anything other than what you believe and, IMO, that crosses the line.

Bigotry is a hatred or intolerance for those who are different. That doesn't describe me. You can be as different as your heart desires and I will neither hate you, nor refuse to tolerate you. We can all live together happily ever after. Just don't tell me that I have to be different just like you.

[scaeagles]

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]

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?

[BarTopDancer]

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.