[vyper]

You got it spot on Kazan.

Hey we've got a politics thread with... less politics. Solid!

[redmenace]

Originally posted by Rictor
So not even the Bushies support it, eh?
Its nice to know that at least you have a line in the sand, though it may not be where I would prefer.

as Kazan can testify, I didn't support either canidate. I could not in good conscience vote for either canidate. I do have nack for taking the opposite position of the time. Don't assume that because I don't agree with the lot of you about the tank in LA streets, criticism of the election, and tactics used in Faluja that I am a staunch republican or a "bushie."

As for the bill, I have always thought the reliance on secondary sources of law a little ridiculous, but should not be completly ignored. As well as the restatement of law. They should, personally be given less weight, but not completly ignored.

[kode]

Originally posted by Kazan
kode: are you on crack?

or did you just seriously publically admit to being a FASCIST THEOCRATIST

I don't see why I should care, actually. I don't have to live there.

but, uh, yeah. I was somewhat sarcastic as well.

[Sandwich]

Theocracy? Pfft - not even the Church can get it right. Yeah, there'll be a theocracy when Jesus comes back to rule and reign over all the earth - not before that.

So, if your beliefs preclude the chance of that event happening, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

[Ford Prefect]

Theocracies have existed. As far as I'm concerned, historical precedent is proof enough that the possibility is real.

[Corsair]

Thankfully, my congressman is not on there.

[NGTM-1R]

But to be a theocracy, there has to be a church in power. And there is no way in hell that Bush is going to get ordained or whatever the equalivalent for your particular religon of choice may be.

[Ford Prefect]

I agree. I myself stated earlier that I think it would be nigh on impossible for such a system to take hold, but that is in the current political climate. I think that if America were to continue its rightward drift, the door would be forced open wider and wider. But the pendulum generally swings back before it goes to the rabid extreme.

[vyper]

You know, this is completely OT but I feel like going to a club. For some reason The Garage actually appeals to me right now....

[Rictor]

the gay bar! gay bar!?

[redmenace]

[vyper]

No that'd be Bennets if I wanted that...

[Mad Bomber]

No, that's "Flamers".


Anyhow, Joe Pitts supports this!? I'ma drive down there tomorrow (his office is like 5min from my house, in Kennett Square) and give him a piece of my mind.

This thing basically says (from what I can tell) that, for instance if someone in power (a cop for instance) wanted to stone a gay person to death and cited a religious edict (one of those obscure Leviticus passages perhaps), they could not be prosecuted.

Or if someone in power is pissed off, they can basically do what they want and get off scot-free if they can come up with a religious justification.

The hell with that.

I am NOT going to let my country become a police state, for any reason. I am not going to stand by and let Uncle Sam become Big Brother, and I'm definitely not going to let anyone use God as an excuse to do it.

[vyper]

For the foreigners: www.garageglasgow.co.uk << was what i was referring to. Although I'm not a huge fan, it's the most popular dance club for students in Glasgow.

[Rictor]

redmenace, look its not very confusing. Vyper just wants to start a war, a nuclear war, at the gay bar! gay bar! gay bar!

[Bobboau]

now you all know why we like our guns.

[Bobboau]

...though looking at that particular passage it looks more like it's suposed to protect people in the government from prosicution based on there proclamation of faith, as in if you get aressted and the cop says "you God damned basturd!" you wouldn't be able to use that as some sort of defence.
though it also says "an element of Federal, State, or local government" so I'm thinking that's gona get the 'whole nativity in town hall' treatment, that's what is going to be sited as the reason for makeing this, but I think this is defenately a first step twards theocracy, but I don't think it would do it all in one shot.

anyway, like I said, get'n my gun.

[Mongoose]

All right.  We have two decidedly very slanted sources making reference to the same article and using a quote from this bill that does not appear to have any substantiation at all.  Conclusion?  Someone's making a mountain out of a molehill.  Come on, people.  Even if this bill were to exist in the overblown fashion that these two sites seem to think it does, it wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of passing the House, much less the Senate.  Plus, it would be immediately struck down as unconstitutional as soon as it was challenged.  You're telling me you believe some over-spun hype from two decidedly disreputable-looking, biased sites?  I know you people are smarter than that; well, most of you at least.  Oh, guess this makes me a THEOFASCIST!!!!11!1!!11

[Rictor]

The way I interpret this is that it would give religion a more prominent role in making/interpreting laws. Which means that the "Marriage Protection" amendment to the constitution could pass with little trouble, and generally weaken the judicial branch.

Thats what I think is the main jist of this law, to weaken the judicial branch and strenghten the executive branch. Since the main way in which the Supreme Court can challenge the Executive branch is by declaring their action unconstitutional, this would restrict when and why they can deem laws or action unconstitutional.

And since Bush is likely to appoint 2 or 3 judges to the already rightward Supreme Court, this law is probably meant as a long-term thing, not really necessary in the short term when you have such a favourable Supreme Court.

[Kazan]

Mongoose: yes house.gov is a BIASED SOURCE

mongoose you're a ****ing jackass - you just try playing all this **** down because YOU LIKE WHAT'S GOING ON

stop trying to ruin what america stands for you ****ing fascist pig