USA elections

Bradylama said:
If you don't like religion in government then try fielding an atheist candidate, but claiming that religion should have no place in government is an infringement on the freedom of speech, and quite frankly, it disgusts me.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Freedom of Religion a part of your constitution?

If your president is legislating based on his religious beliefs, then almost nobody else has freedom of religion. Which disgusts me. My opinion on this is pretty much irrelevant, but I'm sure many Americans would not like to see freedom of religion go out of the window..

You do make a good point though. Supressing people's right to free speech based on religion is wrong, but so is people losing the freedom to fully follow their religion.

It seems we have found something of a loophole in your consitution. :?

Unless I am mistaken about freedom of religion, in which case ignore this post.

(EDIT - Broken quote)
 
but so is people losing the freedom to fully follow their religion.

That would be making a law concerning religion, which is unconstitutional.

A lot of people get Freedom From Religion confused with Freedom of Religion. They think one implies the other, when it doesn't.
 
Bradylama said:
That would be making a law concerning religion, which is unconstitutional.
A lot of people get Freedom From Religion confused with Freedom of Religion. They think one implies the other, when it doesn't.
Fair enough, I'm not that familiar with the constitution, it just sounded strange to me.
 
Bradylama said:
but so is people losing the freedom to fully follow their religion.

That would be making a law concerning religion, which is unconstitutional.

A lot of people get Freedom From Religion confused with Freedom of Religion. They think one implies the other, when it doesn't.

From what you're saying, it sounds like it doesn't matter which religion we follow as long as we do follow a religion. :? Would you please expand on your point? Thank you.

Some of you will recall that Kennedy was a practising Roman Catholic when he came to office and during his truncated term. Many people were afraid he would kow-tow to the Pope if it came down to it.

This website makes the ineresting point that many founding fathers were not evangelical Christians as some would have you believe. They were either secular or kept their religions to themselves: Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular. While the "No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations." is misleading, the rest of the docment seems alright from my brief scanning of it. Many people didn't live within distance of a congregation at that time, the country was still largely rural. - Colt
 
From what you're saying, it sounds like it doesn't matter which religion we follow as long as we do follow a religion. Would you please expand on your point? Thank you.

Pretty much, yeah, I guess. People are also free not to practice religion, however, since that qualifies as freedom of speech.

Also, a secular government is one that isn't controlled by a religious institution. That a politician draws inspiration from a religion is ok, as long as what they propose doesn't violate citizen's rights.
 
Yes, it certainly is freedom of speech to practice whatever religious convictions that you might hold... But shoving it down someone else's throat is not ok. This is why the people who rally against something so stupid as modern Halloween get on my nerves. Why aren't they rallying against war or famine? Instead they pick on a stupid, commercial holiday because it's easy pray. Anyway....

A President, while being religious, should always base his decisions on his morals and values which he derives from his religion, of course. It is who he is... But, it should not be what his decisions are solely based on. Afterall, they are, amongst other things, Chief Citizen. A representative of all citizens and not only a certain sect or minority. In this way, a president should be somewhat reserved and aloof. Not saying that they should be removed from their self before being elected, but imply jumping at things based solely on their view of the world would be a bad idea. - Colt
 
Ohio Election News

Ohio Election News


Doing this from memory, so if you all seek hard numbers, you all are on your own.


Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell has said that the punch card system
has spit out it's statistical average of rejected ballots. If 80% of Ohio was punch cards in the total of over 5 million votes, 93,000 rejects, around 2% of that 80%.

Franklin County has an older form of electronic touch screen (no paper backup) and in Gahanna a precinct of 600 voters was recounted when some glitch created about 4000 votes for Bush. This is not the first such glitch for this system, almost sounded routine.

As I have mentioned before this is Ohio, so expect no variation in the
over all totals, minus some 3400 vapor votes for Bush. There is no mention of throwing out the whole precinct's 600 votes so those are most likely still valid and should follow that east side outer beltway (quasi suburb) demographic.

There is great local interest in the provisional ballots. Too many""down ticket"" or local ballot races and issues will be affected by ANY valid total, for these votes to be neglected.

Perhaps this enlightened self interest will stop the foot dragging on the transition to a more accurate and voter friendly system.
It's been implied that the shortage of voting machines was worse because of the haggling and fence sitting in the state government and state legislature. Why should local boards of election buy replacements when ..... you get the drift.

Oh, and of course as in MOST STATES,, there were no suitable, paper backup electronic systems available. Diebold has a product and is an Ohio corporation I think, but before you could whisper "conflict of interest?" to Mr. Blackwell, the whole country knew that their system sucked so bad in California elections that they were being sued.

After the absentee ballots get counted, expect to see the valid provisional ballots to enter the total. Eleven days after November 2.

4too
 
I really don't like solely electronic voting systems. Too easily tampred with and prone to breakdown. The best sysetm i think would be one where you would walk up to it, there would be a screen and keyboard. You enter your name (log in essentially) and make your votes, when you're ready to confirm the computer records your votes electronically, tells a central database you have voted, and then punches a computer card (stored in each machine) counting your vote physically as well. - Colt
 
Diebold

Diebold

Diebold makes ATM machines too.
Perhaps their mistakes stemmed from 'copying' established voting systems.


Imagine.

ATM style terminal using our 'state" ID, that driver's licence, as a bank card. and signature recognition. And. For those comfortable with FBI data caches, a thumb print, or the less techno-paranoid, retinal scanning.

For the truly SCIFI, Imagine a DNA ID system where we spit into a cup and smell it sizzle as it's analyzed!

Oh, brave, new , world!


Maybe if our "citizen accounts" - - our votes - - were considered as valuable as dollars and as anally tracked as dollars then there would be
fewer misappropriations.


4too
 
The thing with electronic voting is that it is incredibly easy to manipulate. The data cannot be stored electronically, that is just too insecure. The machine should produce paper output and the voter should be able to see the paper output it produces when he votes. Most people who know a thing or two about programming agree there.

Religion and politics don't work. Why? Because the government has to act independantly of their own religious (or non-religious) beliefs. If you hold an official office you serve your country as a tool so the country can function -- whether you're a soldier, a cop or a politician doesn't count. If your religion forbids you to heal criminals and you're a doctor, you either ignore your religion or you chose a different occupation, the same goes for politics.

The people can of course vote for whom they want and do what they want as long as they follow the law. When you chose to serve your country (whether in the executive, judicative or legislative is of no importance here), you don't have that freedom. Imagine a soldier refused to shoot his enemy because his religion doesn't allow him to -- he'd go straight to the military court and most likely lose his job.

That is the difference between a "democratic" republic and despotism. In despotism the leader is free to decide based on personal religious (or non-religious) beliefs. In a "democratic" republic the leader has to decide based on the people's opinion (which defines morality and (theoretically) has defined legality at the point the constitution was written) and the law.

In their freetime everybody is free to do what they want (as long as it doesn't violate any existing laws), outside their freetime people have to function, which means they are restricted in their personal freedom (which doesn't mean they are not protected by laws, tho.

Unless in your country religion is part of the law (a concept which became unpopular after the French revolution) that is the case in your country as well and you better accept it or apply for a different country's citizenship.
 
I have been hearing a lot about the Ohio count as well, and can't help thinking "oh shit, its 2000 again."

If this is to be a democracy we should get a few things right. One should be the way we vote. I can think of two fixes right off.

First- we should have one non-partisan body that oversees elections to make sure there are the right type and number of machines in the right districts. The way we vote should not be subject to control by any single party. That's like asking wolves to protect the sheep.

Secondly, while candidates should be able to declare victory or concede shortly after the election, every valid vote should be counted and no candidate should have legal claim to office until the decision is finally reached. Leaving it up to the media to decide who won what districts before the vote is counted leaves to much to risk.

_
On the issue of the freedom of religion and freedom of speech- the court decided this issue that you can't disqualify speech because they happen to speak religion. The case was actually one from my college in which a religious students magazine wanted money to print their christian views but the public college wouldn't give it to them. The magazine won, and I think correctly. Freedom of speech means freedom of all speech.

But that said, there are two aspects of freedom of religion- the free practice of religion and the establishment clause. One says you can practice what you want, the other says that the state will not impose religious values on you. No one is arguing that Bush shouldn't be religious, the issue is does he have the right to ram that down your throat.

Now much has been said about the founding fathers and their religious views. I believe a lot of them were very religious, but they realized that people have different faiths. While its' great to have religion and state while you happen to be in the majority, it bites when you are in the minority.

A famous case on prayer in school was raised by a Mormon in a Baptist school who basically asked- if we are to have prayer in school, why should it be your prayer and not mine?

And that's where the notion of the tyranny of the majority and civil rights come in. When you're in the majority you want majority rule. But when you're in the minority you want civil rights. So the Founders were smart- protect the minority interests and aim low. Why, because today you may be in the majority, but tomorrow you might not be.

---

With regard to the Blue and Red- it is ironic though that the states that fought the civil war are divided in a similar way. The red states were primarily the confederates and the blue states were primarily the union. Ironic?

The southerners make a big stink about "liberal new england democrats" don't know the southerners. Maybe. I have lived down here for 9 years so far, and its not my first time living in the South and I like a lot of it. But I'm also prone to the cities which are often democratic. In the country you have a lot of good ole southern values.

The problem is that the stereotypes go both ways. There are a lot of southerners who have no idea what it's like to live in the Northeast. Move there and you might find that they aren't all gay-loving welfare getting minorities but hard-working folks trying to make a living. I voted republican in New York, so I know that side too.

Is the Northeast more educated? Yes, probably. More of the top universities exist in the Northeast, public schools are generally better, and there are a lot of good private schools too. So yes- those Northeasterners probably have a better education.

But what about that Blue and Red divide across the Mason Dixon. Well let's not forget that the democrats used to own the south and the republicans tried to get inroads. When did it change? When the democrats under LBJ decided to build the Great Society and end the inequalities felt among minorities, in otherwords grab progressivisms.

That was rejected by southerners, but the tune changed from seperate but equal to "state's rights"- the same mantra of the Civil War, again the irony. The republicans saw the opportunity to capitalize on the democratic divide under Reagan (who advocated state's rights) and the republicans grabbed it.

And where do you find the evengelical strongholds? Where did prayer in school get going?

So yes, there are stereotypes of Southerners.

As a person who lives here, I wish they weren't those stereotypes, but maybe if the Southerners don't want to act like uneducated racists religious intolerant bigots, they shouldn't act that way. They don't all do, and I know plenty who don't. But there are plenty who embrace Bubba as their role model.

I mean, think about it Bradylama, people put their fear of two guys marrying each other over their economic self-interest. Isn't that kind of a dumbass thing to do?

SO yes, the 1960s was 40 years ago- but how much has really changed. The Southerners are still bible thumbers, they still discriminate but in appropriate ways. Blacks are ok now (at least for now), but try bing Latin in Virginia and see how many job opportunities you get. And who is most afraid of gays getting a legal right to marry, and thus willing to allow the state to discriminate against them?

Tone, you said that not all people who are against gay marriage are bigots.

Ok, so lets thing about that-
you are basically denying ndividuals a substantive due process right- to marry,
based on their choice of who they wish to love - a violation of freedom of speech,
thereby denying them a substantive legal right based on their gender and choice of gender- equal protection.

This is based on your belief in the supernatural. The issue of gay marriage doesn't deny you your right to frown upon the practice, does not attack the validity of your marriage, and doesn't force your church to exercise the ritual of marriage. Essentially all it does is force the government to recognize that some folks want to have a marriage relationship with people of the same gender.

SO you are willing to deny a minority a right that everyone else gets to enjoy because of your religious views? Is this not being a bigot? Gays are ok, as long as they don't have the same rights I do?

Is it the the idea that you want to deny people a right ok, but the word "bigot" is not?
 
Big T UK said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Freedom of Religion a part of your constitution?

If your president is legislating based on his religious beliefs, then almost nobody else has freedom of religion. Which disgusts me. My opinion on this is pretty much irrelevant, but I'm sure many Americans would not like to see freedom of religion go out of the window..
Wrong. The entire point of seperating church and state and having freedom of religion is to never legally endorse or limit any specific religion. The point is not to keep religious people out of official political office. That'd just be silly, because a viewpoint based on a religious conviction is no different from a viewpoint based on other convictions, religious or no.
 
Sander said:
The entire point of seperating church and state and having freedom of religion is to never legally endorse or limit any specific religion. The point is not to keep religious people out of official political office. That'd just be silly, because a viewpoint based on a religious conviction is no different from a viewpoint based on other convictions, religious or no.

*continues building temple to Sander*
 
Sander said:
The point is not to keep religious people out of official political office. That'd just be silly, because a viewpoint based on a religious conviction is no different from a viewpoint based on other convictions, religious or no.
I never said that they should be kept out of office, please do not put words into my mouth. What I meant was that they should be making decisions based on what's best for their country (or whatever), not based on what is best for their religion. The two are often different.
Somebody who is strongly religious has to choose between the two (serving country, or serving religion) because they can rarely serve both properly.

The entire point of seperating church and state and having freedom of religion is to never legally endorse or limit any specific religion.
If somebody is making decisions based solely on one religions viewpoint, ignoring all other perspectives, then surely this is limiting the other religions. Not necessarily very much (or even at all in any specific case) but potentially.

I am not saying that politicians cannot have religious views (I'm not that much of an idiot), but that their decisions shouldn't be made for an external agency (ie. their religion). If they are making decisions for an external agency then they are making either the wrong decisions, or making them for the wrong reasons.
 
I never said that they should be kept out of office, please do not put words into my mouth. What I meant was that they should be making decisions based on what's best for their country (or whatever), not based on what is best for their religion. The two are often different.
Somebody who is strongly religious has to choose between the two (serving country, or serving religion) because they can rarely serve both properly.
No, that's not what you said. You said:
If your president is legislating based on his religious beliefs, then almost nobody else has freedom of religion.
Excuse me for interpreting it as..well...what you said.

If somebody is making decisions based solely on one religions viewpoint, ignoring all other perspectives, then surely this is limiting the other religions. Not necessarily very much (or even at all in any specific case) but potentially.

I am not saying that politicians cannot have religious views (I'm not that much of an idiot), but that their decisions shouldn't be made for an external agency (ie. their religion). If they are making decisions for an external agency then they are making either the wrong decisions, or making them for the wrong reasons.
Again: you're wrong. You're bashing anyone who has viewpoints based on their religion (Just as socialists have viewpoints based on their "religion" of socialism). Try looking at viewpoints themselves to decide whether they're valid or not, and not at where they come from.
The reasons for a decision really don't matter, but the justification the person uses and the decisions themselves do.
 
Great discussion people. Hey Lauren mind if I help you build the Temple of Sander?

I want to bring up something...something that has bothered me to the point where I want to rant.

Why is it Bush got the majority of the religious vote? I mean I know why...religious leaders tend to be conservative and Bush is both religious and conservative. However isnt religion about idealism? All the major religion's feel that killing is a sin and hence that war is wrong. So why dont they feel that Bush is a sinner? I mean Kerry is pro-abortion so there's a reason not to vote for him. So then wouldnt the religious vote third-party to not endorse the war or abortion?

I just find it so simply wrong...I cant understand why I even have to bring it up...

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
The_Vault_Dweller said:
Why is it Bush got the majority of the religious vote? I mean I know why...religious leaders tend to be conservative and Bush is both religious and conservative. However isnt religion about idealism? All the major religion's feel that killing is a sin and hence that war is wrong.

Actually, religion = idealism is pure bullshit. Take Carlin's definition, or the reality that few major religions really give a damn about the deaths of people that do not matter to them. That is one point where the religious hypocrisy rears its ugly head, and what the US Constitution writers were trying to avoid since it was what made England so fucked for awhile.

Too bad they didn't have the foresight to limit businesses the same in relation to govt, so now all you really need with politics is enough money spread around to win the office.

And then the office that American children were taught to idolize becomes nothing but a cheap corporate whore.

That's the main reason why I think nobody has seriously tried to kill Bush. They don't want Cheney as a President. At least the moronic puppet makes mistakes for the better every so often, though those are limited to fouling up the ill intents and plans of others with the office's power. Cheney would sell the country if it could make him...damn, I spoke too late.
 
welsh said:
Tone, you said that not all people who are against gay marriage are bigots.

Ok, so lets thing about that-
you are basically denying ndividuals a substantive due process right- to marry,
based on their choice of who they wish to love - a violation of freedom of speech,
thereby denying them a substantive legal right based on their gender and choice of gender- equal protection.

This is based on your belief in the supernatural. The issue of gay marriage doesn't deny you your right to frown upon the practice, does not attack the validity of your marriage, and doesn't force your church to exercise the ritual of marriage. Essentially all it does is force the government to recognize that some folks want to have a marriage relationship with people of the same gender.

SO you are willing to deny a minority a right that everyone else gets to enjoy because of your religious views? Is this not being a bigot? Gays are ok, as long as they don't have the same rights I do?

Is it the the idea that you want to deny people a right ok, but the word "bigot" is not?

So if a man wants to marry a dog should he be allowed to? I am not denying anyone the right to marriage. I'm stating that I will not recognize a homosexual union as "marriage" and my vote is that the government won't either. Sounds like I'm on the side of the great majority.

Gays have the same rights I do. A gay man is free to marry a woman-just as I am. The line has to be drawn somewhere or the next thing we know people will be marrying animals so they can claim them as dependents and lower their taxes.
 
So if a man wants to marry a dog should he be allowed to? I am not denying anyone the right to marriage. I'm stating that I will not recognize a homosexual union as "marriage" and my vote is that the government won't either. Sounds like I'm on the side of the great majority.

Gays have the same rights I do. A gay man is free to marry a woman-just as I am. The line has to be drawn somewhere or the next thing we know people will be marrying animals so they can claim them as dependents and lower their taxes.
Well, first of all, your comparison is very faulty. A marriage requires two consenting people who are fully aware of what they are doing. An animal can neither consent nor be aware of what marriage is. So no, this will not lead to allowing people to marry animals.

Now, let's look at gay marriage, shall we?
Will it harm anyone in any way if two men are allowed to marry eachother? No.
Will the recognition of a homosexual marriage as a marriage harm anyone? No.
Will the recognition of a homosexual marriage as a marriage bring happiness to a lot of people? Yes.
So why, pray tell, would you want to deny people happiness if that happiness will never harm you or anyone else?
 
Yeah, what Sander said.

I am not saying that politicians cannot have religious views (I'm not that much of an idiot), but that their decisions shouldn't be made for an external agency (ie. their religion). If they are making decisions for an external agency then they are making either the wrong decisions, or making them for the wrong reasons.

Its not necessarily that they're making decisions for that agency, but rather that they're making decisions because of it.
 
Back
Top