Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (162887)	3/4/2003 11:09:32 AM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574002

>I haven't really followed your discussion here. But let me ask, is it your view that the separation of church and state is a concept that should change over time? That is, the Founding Fathers determined that while church and state were separate and must be separate, the word "God" appears in literally every document they created. >Isn't it, in effect, systemic "judicial activism" to have the liberal courts of today overriding what the Founding Fathers' positions were on this subject? And is it healthy for our nation? >My broader point here is that there has, since the inception of the Constitution, existed a persistent liberal bent, constantly pushing the limits of liberalism. Ideas that the original Constitution would clearly have rebuked (like the exclusion of the word "God" from a pledge of allegience, after Congress specifically acted to put it in there) are now routinely accepted. There appear to be no outer limits to where liberalism stops. Is this okay? Yes. If you don't go forward, you go backwards. Granted our founding fathers knew a thing or seven about government, but wouldn't it make sense that certain laws and philosophies that made sense in the 18th century might not do so in the 21st? -Z

To: i-node who wrote (162887)	3/4/2003 1:39:12 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574002

David Re..Isn't it, in effect, systemic "judicial activism" to have the liberal courts of today overriding what the Founding Fathers' positions were on this subject? And is it healthy for our nation? That is an excellent point. If our founding fathers wanted to carry the separation to the extremes the liberals do, they wouldn't have used the word God so often. The founding father never thought that all religion should be banished from gov, but rather that all religions should be accepted, and allowed to prosper, without interference from gov. Thus, the founding fathers separated them, so gov. couldn't use its power to control religions. Having the word God in a song, or pledge, doesn't exercise control by a specific religion over gov. as the word God is used generically. God can mean many things, and how one interprets it, is up to the individual.

To: i-node who wrote (162887)	3/7/2003 1:17:00 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574002

Isn't it, in effect, systemic "judicial activism" to have the liberal courts of today overriding what the Founding Fathers' positions were on this subject? And is it healthy for our nation? Why should God be brought into secular matters? Jesus said leave unto Ceasar what is his, and unto God what is His etc. Besides, many people in the US don't believe in God. Why is the right always wanting to turn the US into another Iran or Saudi Arabia? Why can't people pray or have sex in privacy without you all sticking your big noses into it......its disgusting? ted