Ideally, giving would be from the heart. But when someone is living on the street, if it was me, I wouldn't give a crap what the intention was behind the assistance I received. I don't care what the Constitution says about it, or lack thereof. I'm not going to let people suffer because the Constitution doesn't mention assistance programs. As far as what is reasonable, I don't know that I alone could make that determination. There would have to be conversations with all different viewpoints represented. I don't believe in redistribution to equalize classes, only to ensure that the people on the bottom at least have basic necessities like food, water, proper clothing, shelter, medical care, and access to education and job training. Beyond that, I don't care if they live in a shack eating bread and water with nothing to entertain themselves with. So no, I do not believe the wealthy have to give up their wealth so that the "guy down the street has what I have" unless by "have" you mean food, water, proper clothing, shelter, medical care, and access to education and job training. Not at all. People who have been born, well, have been born. They're here, they exist, they are real people. What's in the womb has the potential to become one of the born living people, but it is not inherently one just because it was conceived. And, I believe we ought to be getting our house in order and the current occupants of it before we're wasting time and resources fighting for those who haven't even gotten here yet and demanding that women stay pregnant against their wishes for no other reason than it makes me feel good.
Thanks. I see the government, with few exceptions, as wasteful and ineffective at best. I would choose, if the choice were mine to make, rather than raise taxes to create jobs for those who desire to work. People tend to want to improve their lot when they see that they can. I think public assistance on a permanent or over a lifetime robs people of the chance to gain control of their life. We will always have those who cannot not fend for themselves...these are the people who need their brother's charity. But many of those, who can but choose not, fall prey to an angry resentment of their status. But yes charity is still needed by many...some of us are only a missed payday or two from those same circumstances.
Hey, how are things going in the Great State of AZ?! Anybody looking forward to the SCOTUS decision on AZ's immigration law? Always get a kick out Sheriff Joe A's successes and especially his relationship with the US Justice Dept.
For the most part our state is overwhelming behind our governor and we love Sheriff Joe. Oral arguments are going well….and time will tell…if we are allowed to follow the Constitution or will be raped once again by Washington. I also love Joes…work that proves Obama is not a citizen that the document that took three years to cough up is a fraud.
Junkieturtle said, Of course you wouldn't care .and today the majority so it seems are moochers .OBAMA MONEY !!!! They don't care where the money comes from they don't care about long term affects that it might cause. We are living under a socialist agenda Obama is president. Then if you care so much then YOU GIVE. But for those who don't, they should not be forced. You can't take something away from someone that is not yours to take. You don't care what the Constitution says? That certainly says it all .LOL That is redistribution. Do you also think we should do this for illegals as well? You are for forcing people to do it. Real? Wow. And the nine month old unborn getting ready for natural birth is not? There is nothing potential about life already started in the womb no more than a newborn has the potential to become a senior citizen.
The constitution is not a divine flawless document that covers everything that could possibly come up in every imaginable situation. It was a start, that's it. And if you or anyone is trying to use the Constitution to justify the suffering of born living people, I say the document IS flawed and needs to be fixed. Ma'm, if you don't like paying taxes, I suggest you find a country that does not make you pay them. Shoot us a message here on PF when you find such a country. Like I said, my concern is for the people already born, who are already here and require food, water, shelter, clothing, medical care, and job training when they are old enough for it.
Junkieturtle said, Our laws are based on it, like it or not. They interpret and make law. I believe it is the greatest Constitution in the world and the oldest one still in existence that is being followed. How do I want people to suffer? It does not do that. "Ma'm, if you don't like paying taxes, I suggest you find a country that does not make you pay them. Shoot us a message here on PF when you find such a country." I do believe in taxes that are fair. But I am not for redistribution of wealth because the majority of the population is not motivated and wants to mooch off the government.There are people who need assistance…ones with medical problems, handicapped, etc.. I do not believe the government should support people who can get out and work…and who purposely milk the system. We should support our basic structure but that should not include free health care, education, housing etc for all…especially illegals. Like I said, my concern is for the people already born, who are already here and require food, water, shelter, clothing, medical care, and job training when they are old enough for it.[/QUOTE]
Even if it is the greatest Constitution in the world, that doesn't make it perfect and applicable for every situation. I happen to agree that it is, which is why it's been the basis, or at the very least, the inspiration for many countries when they've drafted their own constitutions. Taxes are a redistribution of wealth, especially in a progressive tax system like we have. Local taxes are collected from everybody, where those with income or higher valued property pay a higher share than those with less. That money is then used for all sorts of things, some of which are not going to benefit every person who paid their taxes at all times. The same is true of state and federal taxes, just on a grander scale. Now, I agree that entitlement reform is necessary. I do not agree that we should even be talking about getting rid of it however.
The fact is that the Constitution and the Supreme Court does not go into or mention redistribution of wealth anywhere. Redistribution is socialism.
The Constitution doesn't mention police departments and fire departments and ambulances, yet we have those, and they are largely paid for by socialistic principles.
I am not talking about things that society needs to function such as these life saving examples. And yes there are many things not in the Constitution….separation of church and state is a big one.
So basically, only the socialistic things you agree with are okay, but the things you don't are not? How do you empirically tell the difference? Separation of church and state IS in the Constitution. That's what the 1st amendment is. If the government cannot establish laws with respect to ANY religion, we are not a Christian nation. We do not run our country based on Christianity. We can be a nation of which the predominant religious affiliation is Christianity, but that is not the same thing.
Please recite the line where the term…."separation of church and state" appears. I can't wait for this.
I never said there was a line in the constitution that includes those words in that order. The 1st amendment is all that you need. It settles it. There's nothing more required.
The separation is a myth .it is not there. And it is not in any other document that we have. No mention of the words church or state or separation ..in the First Amendment. In fact in this amendment are additional rights which relate to the free exercise of religion the right to talk about religion the right to publish religious works .the right to worship publicly .alone or in groups and the right to petition the government when it goes beyond its delegated authority. What the first Amendment talks about are the prohibitions aimed at Congress. There is no mention of a freedom from religion. The First Amendment offers no support of a position that would outlaw religion just because it exists or offends those of a different religion or those who don't have a religion. Look at the First Amendment there is a second part to the religion clause .Congress can not prohibit the "free exercise thereof" In 2000 a ruling by the SC banned student led prayer at high school sporting events. This is unconstitutional. This shows that even SCOTUS doesn't not understand the nature and meaning of the very document they are trying to defend. You say that the Constitution does not do any of this .because if does not specifically state it. When reading it you have to take into account the historical circumstances of the time the vocabulary of the time period other similar documents like it even the politics of those who wrote it. What was the religious viewpoint of that time? And who was the intended audience? The First Amendment was designed to also protect the states from the federal government. The Amendment was not designed to disestablish the Christian religion. BEcause the Christian religion is/was found in state constitutions. Justice Story a member of the Supreme Court said this ."The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which would give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government." What do you say about this? The purpose is clear the amendment was to exclude all rivalry between Christian denominations. It was the accepted religion of the time especially of the first colonies . The document was not formed to make all religions equal .BUT ONLY TO MAKE ALL DENOMINATIONS EQUAL IN THE EYES OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW. AS I suggested .take the Constitution class on the Constitution its free and online. Hillsdale College puts it on.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion Dead issue. And the 1st amendment does apply to states, or censorship would be alive and well, states would be restricting meetings, there would be no free press, and so on and so forth. Go ahead, try and suppress journalism in a state and try to make the case that the 1st amendment doesn't prohibit you from doing so. Try and tell people they can't meet freely and that the 1st amendment allows you to do so because it only limits the federal government.
I just addressed that in the last post….I will say it again…in similar terms. The First Amendment provides a LEGAL SEPARATION between Church and State…….not a moral or a spiritual separation. Therefore the principles of Christianity can not pervade the laws and institutions of the land. As a Christian I am not calling for the Federal government to establish churches or to force people to believe one way or another…or even to attend church…or to pay for the maintenance of the church as a whole. I simply want a government….like the Founders intended we should have…one with a moral foundation. And the moral foundation they intended…..Christianity.
Then what is it that you ARE arguing here? That the government should be Christian without actually being Christian? Isn't that pretty much what it is already? How many members of Congress and people who've sat at the Resolute Desk have been anything other than Christian? While there have been a few non-Christian members of Congress, the huge majority of them have been, and there have been no non-Christian presidents. Or are you saying they need to start living up to the values of Christianity? I'm with you on most of that because it speaks of charity and compassion and respect and kindness, but not the parts that discriminate against people or makes women a slave to their reproductive organs.
Obama just passed in secret something that restricts free speech. So now if the Secret Service is present and they see possibly a dangerous group forming…or not dangerous…they can tell the people they can't form…to leave. This is a rape of our Constitutional rights. You know if the Amendment had been constructed to remove all religion from having an impact on civil government….then don't you think it strange that on September 24, 1789 the same day they approved the Fist Amendment, Congress called on WAshington to proclaim a NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER AND THANKSGIVING. This is what WAshington said. "That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with the grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness. Odd eh…that a group of men who you say separated religion from government….did this. The fact is they stated they would not even have a government without…..GOD. Wow and the kids at the sporting events can't pray?
The Constitution speaks of Life before anything else. What is that which is in the womb? Is it dead or alive. Why do you think they did not mean the unborn? Was abortion legal then? And why no gay marriage back then….if they wanted a secular government?
Sigh. Do you believe anything you read? http://factcheck.org/2012/05/obama-criminalize-free-speech/ Someone has lied to and manipulated you.
Abortion and gay marriage were not even on the radar back then. Since the founders didn't speak of those subjects, at all, either for or against them, you can't possibly think you can infer what their positions would have been. You might as well try to tell me that the founders would have objected to Iphones and Twitter.
ACtually I heard a discussion about it on CNN….while was sitting in a lobby at a doctors office. So don't think it was a right wing conspiracy theory. Manipulated? Please….
So there were no gays and abortion was not an option? Excuses..you will think of anything. You said our government was always secular….not religious not Christian. So why have we never had gay marriage…until now? Come on…you can do better than that. LOL Why didn't they speak of abortion and gay marriage?
Because until now more socially conservative groups (religious and otherwise) have been allowed to force their views upon other more liberal religious groups. Up to and including with acts of violence. Now that we have (mostly) taken the option of violence off the table the religious groups who would choose to marry homosexuals are free to speak out about their decision. So now we have a discussion in the open instead of violence in the night! Oh and FTR I don't believe that secular is the best word for our founders approach to religion. They themselves were often religious, and a Gov't of the people would of necessity carry a portion of those peoples personal views in it. I think it would be better to say our founders did not want a forced or coerced official religion. I would say they did, by exclusion, in the Tenth Amendment. And the Supreme court said they did under the Fourteenth. I expect the "Gay" marriage debate to be decided along much the same lines
