Abortion is evil? WHY?

and does anyone stop you from displaying religious symbols on privately owned property or land?

Public property and land is basically owned by the state or government and as such, according to your constitution, should not be used to promote any form of religion, nor demote any either. So in essence no person has the right to display religious symbols or non-religious symbols on public property. Either could be seen as promoting a specific ideology, something the founders never wanted for the USA.

 

Why not? Are you against freedom of religion?

Nor do you have the right to push Atheism down everyone's throats. LOL

 

You mean like the Atheist bench? LOL BTW what is a 'non-religious' symbol? Maybe a bridge? The Washington monument? I think you had better re-read the Constitution.

 

The people have a right to display religious symbols on their private property including their persons. Anyone can wear a t-shirt proclaiming the Ten Commandments, wear a necklace cross, or other foofah anywhere they choose including public property. But they cannot install religious symbols on public property within the constitution. The public taxmoney cannot be used to pay for such symbols, nor to pay for the upkeep connected with those symbols.

That's a CUTE saying, but meaningless. We DON'T have freedom OF religion unless that includes the right to be free FROM it if that is what we choose. Sorry, but "freedom of religion" doesn't mean only that you get to choose from the maybe a dozen Protestant churches on mainstreet, and if you're really openminded you'll include the Catholic churches too.

 

So it's already legal to smoke crack while pregnant? I know it's already illegal, but you mean to say that there are no child endangerment type laws that can be enforced on pregnant women? A pregnant woman and a non-pregnant woman smoking crack are considered the same offense?

 

I'm against the government endorsement of any religion. YOU are against freedom of religion if you want to mix church and state.

Absence of religion equals neutrality, not atheism. Are you aware that many Christians are pro-separation of church and state?

 

"Lord God, as citizens of this great land, we mark today the 50th anniversary of the tragic death of the 35th President of the United States, President John F. Kennedy. In commemorating such a one whose life and Presidency were cut short, we do so not to ‘‘sow in tears,'' as the Psalm says, but rather to ‘‘reap with shouts of joy.''

Opening prayer for House proceedings.

http://chaplain.house.gov/archive/

 

How many members were present? The chamber is often empty when the prayers are recited. Do you think taxpayers should have to pay for chaplains for Congress members?

 

The point is that prayers are given in the most public place possible, the Congress of the United States and there is a reference to Lord God. Yet after all this time, we still have no State church. Seems Atheist protestations are not well founded.

 

That doesn't stop the over zealous from punishing those who would wear a cross to a public school.

Nichol had been told of the ban in 1997 and was warned twice since March that wearing the necklace was cause for suspension. She said she refused, "after prayerful consideration," because the cross symbolizes her religion.

http://old.post-gazette.com/localnews/20030507cross0507p2.asp

The poor woman had to bring a lawsuit to uphold her constitutional rights.

How is that again? LOL You do realize that makes absolutely no sense at all...yes?

 

So when no real arguments are forthcoming your resort to the standard pro-life 101 part b of sarcastic comments, good to see that the usually path is being followed.

As for non-religious symbols, here are a few.



Funny enough this one is one of the central non-religious images used throughout the USA as it appears on every single Dollar bill, the all seeing eye.



The universal symbol for peace, created by merging the semaphore signals for the letters "N" and "D," for Nuclear Disarmament.



Yin and Yang representing the balance between forces.

I have read the Constitution and studied it probably more than you have as it seems you can only see the superficial meanings of it and then applying that to your own preconceived ideology.

 

None at all. In order for that to happen it would require an amendment to the constitution that specifically recognizes the unborn as having personhood, something that has been tried and failed every single time.

The only variance in law for women is in the case of rape where a rapist will receive a higher sentence if his victim should become pregnant, and even that is not because of the recognition of the unborn as persons, it is because the law in these cases classes the pregnancy as a serious injury.

 

I have no problem with those symbols. Do you? BTW you forgot "In God We Trust"...

 

The custom of House and Senate chaplains was begun long before the Constitution or BofR was passed. Although some prominent founders, especially James Madison, opposed having government funded chaplains, the custom was too entrenched to stop. At least in modern times, there has been some effort to appoint chaplains from a variety of religions.

You seem to think that the sole reason for the separation clause was to prevent a state church, but the founders voted on a version of the first amendment that said exactly that: "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another." It was defeated.

While the founders defended freedom of conscience, they made no mention of abortion at all. Perhaps they realized that a government with the power to control childbirth would be vastly more oppressive than they desired.

 

The fact that god's name is invoked in public places such as congress has nothing to do with recognizing a specific religion, god can mean different things to different religions.

What do you think the first Buddhist to serve in the Senate, the first Hindu to serve in either chamber and the first member of Congress to describe her religion as “none,” think about when prayers are said .. the Jeudo-Christian god or another, or non at all.

Yet again you are placing your interpretation on what is meant, an interpretation that fits your ideology.

 

none at all .. however it was your question as to what are non-religious symbols, I merely gave you examples of three.

not forgotten at all, however which god is this referring to, the one you assume it is or any god for any religion.

 

On a personal level I find the above to be absurd, a single person should be able to display symbols of their faith upon their person if they wish to .. as long as any other person with a different faith can also do the same. The disagreement (the same one we have in the UK) is about government employees to promote a single religion above all others . .that is not their job.

 

We understand that minor students may have constitutional rights abridged in order to maintain order in school. Total freedom of speech does not exist there.

Sorry it makes complete sense. You don't have freedom of religion if you are forced to participate to any degree in any at all. An individual must have the freedom to opt out entirely, or there is no freedom of religion.

 

So the woman can smoke crack from day 1 of the pregnancy, all the way to month 9, every day without any additional charges beyond the use charge? In addition, she can trip on acid, smoke weed and cigs every day, huff gas, etc., and when the baby is born in bad shape, which requires lots of medical care in order to simply live in pain, then she can apply for Obamacare, and have the taxpayer pay for that care? I am stunned that anyone would think that this situation is acceptable. If it isn't acceptable under our current law, I would like to see those laws.

There are no laws against any of the above behavior now? Or should there be no laws? I want to be clear what we are arguing; I am arguing we should have laws to punish/deter this behavior. But I am not certain if these laws exist. But a system of laws that doesn't even discourage, much less punish this behavior is supposed to be appealing to a reasonable person?

 

There are already laws covering illegal narcotics as you well know, what these proposed extra laws do is to stop addicted women from seeking help .. so in fact it results in more addicted born babies.

No there should not be any extra laws beyond the already existing narcotic laws, why should a pregnant addicted woman be treated any differently to a non-pregnant addicted woman, to do so is discrimination.

 

So how do you propose deterring illicit drug use while pregnant? I've heard about too much of this behavior to ignore it.

Because of the effect on the baby! That's why she should be treated differently. Have you ever seen a crack baby? I've seen a few that I suspect, and at least 1 that I know are crack babies. I've seen other birth defects. How can I not hold the mothers responsible for their behavior while looking these children in the eyes? I seem to have the opposite instinct that you do. You say no responsibility because of addiction, and I say some responsibility must be had. Am I wrong?

 

By identifying those who are users, possibly at prenatal examinations, but instead of calling the police get them into rehabilitation programs . .help them, and as much as you won't like this offer them abortions ... there has to be a better way than locking them up.

Yes I have seen some, in fact I work in tandem with people who look after them .. I work for a company that provides communication aids for disabled people, some of those people are brain damaged children caused by drugs taken by their mothers while pregnant.
Addiction is just that .. an addiction, it is not like they can just stop, they need the support structure to help them stop and even you have to admit that structure cannot be found in prisons. Do you really believe that criminalizing these women on top of whatever else they have is really going to help then overcome their addiction .. surely not.

 

Closed ~ Post Capacity