Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch XXX
CNn was showing Bay Buchanan and Jerry Falwell defending the Repblican Party the other day.
I think we know which direction they are headed in.
On a side note.
I was looking through DVDs at the store yesterday, did you know Bush has a religious DVD out?
"His faith will inspire you"
sure they arent religious freaks, their leader is putting out jesus freak DVDs - deny it all you want folks, the proof is in the news and Jerry Falwell defending the Republican "Moral Crusade"
too funny
|
I am amazed by conservatives who maintain that the Religious Right is not becoming a dominant force in the Republican party. Or who do not see this as a threat to America in general. Let's take a President openly speaking about the 'sanctity of marriage' (calling it, basically, a holy-founded institution) as an example.
In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."
In 1992:
"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.
The Lemon test, established by the Supreme Court in 1971:
"To be constitutional, a law must: have a secular purpose, and
be neutral towards religion - neither hindering nor advancing it, and not result in excessive entanglements between the government and religion"
Justice O'Connor created this criteria: a law is unconstitutional if it favors one religion over another in a way that makes some people feel like outsiders and others feel like insiders.
So long as the President makes statements as he did in that article, he gives creedence to the idea that he favors violating the Supreme court's rulings from 1947 forward, in order to further a religious agenda.
But yeah, us 'liberals' really don't have a leg to stand on in our suspicions...