2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Dark Sage]

In the meantime, you can add this to President Obama's list of accomplishments:

Any state that wants out of No Child Left Behind will now get a voucher giving them out of the program.

Ten states have already gotten them, and twenty-eight more have applied. Soon this failed mess that his predecessor thought up will be but an unpleasant memory.

[Roy Karrde]

In the meantime, you can add this to President Obama's list of accomplishments:

Any state that wants out of No Child Left Behind will now get a voucher giving them out of the program.

Ten states have already gotten them, and twenty-eight more have applied. Soon this failed mess that his predecessor thought up will be but an unpleasant memory.

And I am sure he will have something to replace it so that we can actually raise our education level in our country. I am sure that is coming along just this minute... any time now....

[homeofmew]

Being X religion doesn't mean you have to be Conservative or Liberal.
I understand the Pro Life/Pro Choice issue is ONE of many issues out there, but it can not be your deciding voting factor. One has to look at the over all view of the candidate not just one point.

I mean you can have a Pro Choice Candidate that will make candy illegal and have otehr points you may agree or disagree with.

Over all what points are most important to you?

I mean the best of the Economy and over all society is more important than pro life/pro choice, and I'm openly pro life. But I'll be willing to vote someone thats pro choice if they have a better economic and foreign policy plan than religion.

[kurai]

It seems weirdly inconsistent with foundational principles if Americans are going to push towards defining the free exercise of religion as collectively, institutionally bound. Say you are employed by a church organization - your own religious beliefs are not strictly defined by organizational dogma. Obviously, if you find your own use of contraception to be legitimate, it isn't violating your own requirements of faith. The absence of a mandate actually prevents the free exercise of religion by the individual, providing it only for the collective organization.

Since it is a blanket mandate, it isn't specifically focusing on religious institutions, and so you are left with the consideration that such organizations are only being assessed by their general and neutral responsibilities as employers. This kind of method has been repeatedly found legitimate by SCOTUS in the past. Given this, a problem arises when we consider that providing a specific exemption would then be a statutory preference for one set of beliefs over another.

At the same time, you would need to prove that the provision of contraception as part of an employer's general responsibility is essential for this general and neutral argument to be successful (and this would also contain the implication that universally equal access to a "health care system" is the same, which is questionable). Because the system is also tied to employment, you also see issues with regard to the right to work (which a public system would have avoided). It would be a good SCOTUS case, but people will surely back down.

Also, homeofmew, lots of states have open primaries (though a bit less than half), and in all state-organized examples you can only vote in the primary of one party of the other. It was the same in 2008 in Texas. This doesn't bind you in the general election, but you can't vote for Obama in a Democratic primary and then try to ensure the weakest opponent in the Republican one. Crossover voting is only a concern between primary choices and general election voting - but there is no way to stop this from happening.

[Dark Sage]

And I am sure he will have something to replace it so that we can actually raise our education level in our country. I am sure that is coming along just this minute... any time now....

I see you didn't deny that his decision to let states out of the program was a good idea.

[Roy Karrde]

I see you didn't deny that his decision to let states out of the program was a good idea.

It is a good idea, as long as something can replace it. Our education system is in deep need of change, from the way we teach and push kids, to the way we structure the teacher's unions. We need to work on getting our education system on track. If we are pulling back from one direction, then we need a clear path to the next.

[homeofmew]

- I know some states you are registered others you are not, one of my point was that 4 years ago this wasn't an issue because all the Obama people voted Obama in the primaries, but still lazy people don't vote. (if it doesn't concern them)

- Like I Said before right now the state of the economy is horrible, the control is stupid.
For Example here in Texas a new student going to College has to get the Mennonites vaccine. And if you are Under 30 you have to pay the 100$+ if you don't have insurance.

I can care less about Abortion and Gay rights right now, even though I do not agree with them I would vote someone for those things if they stop the mindless laws and money spending.

- Education: It's horrid hate to say it horrid. 1st-5th grade is a joke and you might get some new content in Middle School if you are lucky. The High School standards are getting better. But there has to be a way to make it so kids are more ready for high school and the mindless grind of 3rd 4th 5th grade - heck I remember learning to write in cursive, that was a complete waste of time. The only good thing about that is your signature. Gosh I still remember the teachers taking points off if you didn't do it right on the dotted line.

[Blademaster]

Of course, if the choice were between him and the downright nasty Gingrich, I'd probably choose Romney.

I misread that as 'the downright nasty Grinch.'

Newt... Grinch... Yep, the naming gods really cursed this guy with suck.

[Dark Sage]

You think Gingrich has a bad name?

Bill Clinton's original name that he had when he was born was William Jefferson Blythe III. I believe it was changed after he was adopted by his mother's second husband.

Had he kept it, it would likely have been political suicide.

[Roy Karrde]

One interesting note to bring up about the No Child Left Behind thing, like the Libya operation Obama is actually going against the law here, as he does not actually have the power either by law or Constitutionally to grant wavers. The lefty think tank Brookings actually reached this conclusion as well a while back.

It is one thing for an administration to grant waivers to states to respond to unrealistic conditions on the ground or to allow experimentation and innovation. Similar waiver authority has been used to advance welfare and Medicaid reform going back to the Reagan administration, and to allow a few districts and states to experiment at the margins of NCLB in the Bush administration. It is quite another thing to grant state waivers conditional on compliance with a particular reform agenda that is dramatically different from existing law. The NCLB waiver authority does not grant the secretary of education the right to impose any conditions he considers appropriate on states seeking waivers, nor is there any history of such a wholesale executive branch rewrite of federal law through use of the waiver authority.

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/20...hitehurst.aspx

Amazing how little this President cares about things like The Law, Separation of Powers, Separation of Church and State...

[Dark Sage]

Well, Roy, Mr. Obama is still being applauded for this move, and the House has made no attempt to stop him.

Why? Because everyone thinks that No Child Left Behind was a terrible idea that is hurting the education system.

And by the way, in response to your comment about "this is a good idea so long as something is done to replace it"; Obama is giving states the wavers so that they can institute their own programs. He's doing away with a government-run program, and putting it in the hands of individual states.

Isn't smaller government what you guys want?

[Roy Karrde]

Well, Roy, Mr. Obama is still being applauded for this move, and the House has made no attempt to stop him.

Why? Because everyone thinks that No Child Left Behind was a terrible idea that is hurting the education system.

So let me get this straight because something is viewed as bad, the President has the right to step over the Separation of Powers to fix it? Good just wanted to make sure, because that will come in very handy for the next President.

And by the way, in response to your comment about "this is a good idea so long as something is done to replace it"; Obama is giving states the wavers so that they can institute their own programs. He's doing away with a government-run program, and putting it in the hands of individual states.

Isn't smaller government what you guys want?

Which really is great, but I am more concerned right now with the precedent he has set.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, by the way, that link you provided? It was an editorial.

No doubt written by a Republican.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, by the way, that link you provided? It was an editorial.

No doubt written by a Republican.

The link I provided was from Brookings, a non profit institute that Politico called "Center-Left", the New York Times called "Liberal", the Washington Post called it "centrist and liberal", the LA Times called it "liberal-leaning and centrist", well you get the idea.

The author of the editorial was from a very highly respected educator who has decades working in the field.

And above all else, you have not provided any proof he is wrong.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, you say the President doesn't have the authority to do this.

Well assuming you're right, too bad. No-one is going to stop him, because everyone wants him to do this. And they're glad he's doing this.

He's taking steps to end a failed program that is ruining this country's education system. I sincerely doubt that anyone will ever hold this against him.

If the House Speaker who has opposed everything else that Obama has done suddenly decides to put Mr. Obama on the spot for violating this Separation of Powers thing, I will be very surprised. Mostly because it will be suggesting that the GOP supports NCLB, and they don't want that.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, you say the President doesn't have the authority to do this.

Well assuming you're right, too bad. No-one is going to stop him, because everyone wants him to do this. And they're glad he's doing this.

He's taking steps to end a failed program that is ruining this country's education system. I sincerely doubt that anyone will ever hold this against him.

If the House Speaker who has opposed everything else that Obama has done suddenly decides to put Mr. Obama on the spot for violating this Separation of Powers thing, I will be very surprised. Mostly because it will be suggesting that the GOP supports NCLB, and they don't want that.

So again like I said, the President has the right to trample on the Constitution as long as the people support it.

[DarkestLight]

o.o What? SEE this is why I can't follow politics.

Why is this illegal, Sage or Roy?

I looked it up but I can't make heads or tails of what the stupid ass media is trying to say about it. (Side note-why does the Media hate everyone but Obreezy?). I can only make out that somehow Obreezy saying states can get waivers if the state adopts a method to make sure kids pass school with good knowledge skills that the federal government accepts (which..isnt really a federal plan....its a State plan...hence my confusion)

So...the whole Seperation of Powers thing deals with the Legislative making the plans for the Boards of Education to follow? Not the Executive? Is that what the problem is? Urgh this is why I did Geology as a Major. Politics make no sense.

[Roy Karrde]

o.o What? SEE this is why I can't follow politics.

Why is this illegal, Sage or Roy?

I looked it up but I can't make heads or tails of what the stupid ass media is trying to say about it. (Side note-why does the Media hate everyone but Obreezy?). I can only make out that somehow Obreezy saying states can get waivers if the state adopts a method to make sure kids pass school with good knowledge skills that the federal government accepts (which..isnt really a federal plan....its a State plan...hence my confusion)

So...the whole Seperation of Powers thing deals with the Legislative making the plans for the Boards of Education to follow? Not the Executive? Is that what the problem is? Urgh this is why I did Geology as a Major. Politics make no sense.

It's illegal because there is no part in the legislation or in past history that allows the President to essentially rewrite the legislation passed by Congress through wavers. He is basically saying "Yeah I know that is the law, but screw it I am going to change the law a bit so I can do what I want" with out going through the legislative branch. In many ways, Obama's actions here are much like the act of a Dictator who looks at laws he doesn't like and decides to change them on a whim.

[DarkestLight]

o.O Ok.

Now comes the stupid question. This is a bad thing?

I know the obvious answer "Yes because then he'll do it all the time and we wont have democracy,(which we still don't have...) and yadda yadda yadda. "

But-and I'm asking this to the political standpoint-Is this necessarily bad for him to act out of his powers once in order to open the eyes of the other branches who haven't changed this legislation by now? (Yes we can't hope he wont do it again and have the same type of reaction, that's why we have limitations in the first place...) Its like that one guy in a crowd has been saying how he knows how to tell if someone is an alien, that they bleed green blood. The crowd ignores him...then he breaks free of a crowd, turns his knife on the nearest, person-slices their shuoulders and that person bleeds green blood and everyone realizes he actually was right even though no one felt that anyone should be cut unless they were an alien.

The ends don't justify the means :/ But if this works, and it helps the children of today in a greater aspect than we can realize, would it be worth the flack?

[Roy Karrde]

o.O Ok.

Now comes the stupid question. This is a bad thing?

I know the obvious answer "Yes because then he'll do it all the time and we wont have democracy,(which we still don't have...) and yadda yadda yadda. "

But-and I'm asking this to the political standpoint-Is this necessarily bad for him to act out of his powers once in order to open the eyes of the other branches who haven't changed this legislation by now? (Yes we can't hope he wont do it again and have the same type of reaction, that's why we have limitations in the first place...) Its like that one guy in a crowd has been saying how he knows how to tell if someone is an alien, that they bleed green blood. The crowd ignores him...then he breaks free of a crowd, turns his knife on the nearest, person-slices their shuoulders and that person bleeds green blood and everyone realizes he actually was right even though no one felt that anyone should be cut unless they were an alien.

The ends don't justify the means :/ But if this works, and it helps the children of today in a greater aspect than we can realize, would it be worth the flack?

Well Dark Sage says that because it is supported right now, then it is basically okay for him to do. But our government isn't set up like that, and by a President acting unilaterally it sets up a worrisome precedent. What is going to happen next time? With Obama or some one else that decides to do this? The people may not be so supportive, but then that President can point back to Obama's actions as a precedent for it.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus in order to keep Maryland from defecting to the Confederacy and putting Washington DC surrunded by enemy territory.

Was it illegal? Yes. Was it an impeachable action? Yes. But was it necessary to preserve the Union? Most definately, YES! And no-one in his government took any actions against him for doing it.

He did not "set a precedent". He merely did something that needed to be done.

[Gavin Luper]

Like I said, Roy, I'm Catholic, I'm Liberal, and I agree with the President on this stupid arguement.

The Catholic church's hardline stance on birth control has never been their most popular belief, btw. I know plenty of Catholics who defy the church and regularly use contraception.

Indeed, plenty of Catholics use contraception, have sex before marriage, and so on ... the old rules for living are largely not followed or taken in any way seriously by most Catholics these days.

That is very true, but by and large many of the Republicans out there share the vast majority of the same ideas, and same beliefs. Thus like Clinton vs Obama, it comes down to personal preference.

Also to get a bit more back on topic, the President has decided to double down on being "Anti Separation of Church and State"

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ratic-retreat/

First lets answer Gillibrand's question, Religiously-affiliated groups don’t claim the power to decide whether women employees should “use” contraception, if they did, we wouldn’t be having a conversation over who should pay for the contraception that their employees use.

I wouldn't say religiously-affiliated groups don't claim such powers. My cousin works for a Catholic school and fell pregnant a few months before her wedding. She was threatened with losing her job, until the powers-that-be (the priest) made the "kind" decision to let her stay since she would be married before the baby was born. But if that weren't the case? No job to return to after maternity leave! Another story from one of her female co-workers: her husband was beating her, so she planned to divorce him. But no, Catholicism cannot have that! She was told if she left her husband they would fire her, because Catholics do not believe in divorce. That's right, they actually prefer a woman to be beaten by her husband than to divorce him and get out of that dangerous environment. She stayed on and did not get a divorce for fear of losing her job.

This kind of stuff happens all the time in first-world, allegedly secular countries, and it is bullshit of the highest order.

Why is Obama's contraception thingo such a big drama? Let it be offered to everyone as a state initiative in all institutions. If they don't agree with contraception personally, guess what ... THEY STILL HAVE THE POWER TO SAY NO. Problem solved.

[Dark Sage]

Thank you Gavin. It's refreshing to hear from someone with some common sense.

Now let's hear from more common sense, like the actual chances Santorum has of becoming President.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus in order to keep Maryland from defecting to the Confederacy and putting Washington DC surrunded by enemy territory.

Was it illegal? Yes. Was it an impeachable action? Yes. But was it necessary to preserve the Union? Most definately, YES! And no-one in his government took any actions against him for doing it.

He did not "set a precedent". He merely did something that needed to be done.

Umm it wasn't illegal, it was a action specifically given to him under the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 9

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

I wouldn't say religiously-affiliated groups don't claim such powers. My cousin works for a Catholic school and fell pregnant a few months before her wedding. She was threatened with losing her job, until the powers-that-be (the priest) made the "kind" decision to let her stay since she would be married before the baby was born. But if that weren't the case? No job to return to after maternity leave! Another story from one of her female co-workers: her husband was beating her, so she planned to divorce him. But no, Catholicism cannot have that! She was told if she left her husband they would fire her, because Catholics do not believe in divorce. That's right, they actually prefer a woman to be beaten by her husband than to divorce him and get out of that dangerous environment. She stayed on and did not get a divorce for fear of losing her job.

I have a feeling with the first one, it was less about if anything about Contraception, and more about her having sex before marriage. Something the church frowns upon.

Why is Obama's contraception thingo such a big drama? Let it be offered to everyone as a state initiative in all institutions. If they don't agree with contraception personally, guess what ... THEY STILL HAVE THE POWER TO SAY NO. Problem solved.

Why is it a big thing? Because we have a little thing called the Separation of Church and State. Obama is violating it.

Now let's hear from more common sense, like the actual chances Santorum has of becoming President.

So let me get this straight you would rather focus on a second place candidate than a issue so large that it has the power to sink Obama's reelection chances?

[kurai]

A Spotlight on Rick Santorum, In His Own Words

"By asking the right question, we can see that when it comes to socialization, mass education is really the aberration, not homeschooling. Never before in human history have a majority of children spent at least half their waking hours in the presence of 25 to 35 unrelated children of exactly the same age (and usually the same socio-economic status), with only one adult to keep order and provide basic mentoring. Never before and never again after their years of mass education will any person live and work in such a radically narrow, age-segregated environment. It’s amazing that so many kids turn out to be fairly normal, considering the weird socialization they get in public
schools."

“People have no problem paying $900 for an iPad,” Santorum said, “but paying $900 for a drug they have a problem with — it keeps you alive. Why? Because you’ve been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it.”

That would be taking a life, and, and I believe that, that any doctor who performs an abortion--that--I would advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so. I don't--I've never supported criminalization of abortion for mothers, but I do for people who perform them.

Allowing gays to marry and raise children, Santorum said, amounts to “robbing children of something they need, they deserve, they have a right to. You may rationalize that that isn’t true, but in your own life and in your own heart, you know it’s true.”

It’s been on a warming trend so they said, ‘Oh, let’s take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it’s getting warmer.’ Just like they did in the ’70s when it was getting cooler, they needed the government to come in and regulate your life because it was getting cooler. It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.

I was so outraged by the president of the United States for standing up and saying every child in America should go to college. Well who are you? Who are you to say that every child in America should [go to college]? I mean, the hubris of this president to think that he knows what's best.

We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion.

We as the Church, the people of God, cannot and should not leave the mission of the Church to the clergy alone, nor should our role be limited to overseeing priestly training and conduct. The laity must assist the whole Church in America reclaim our nominally Catholic colleges, schools, hospitals and social welfare agencies for the sake of our souls. The Pope reminds us that Catholic educational institutions make possible "a wide-ranging evangelizing effort as long as there is a clear will to impart truly Christian education. Many Catholic social service agencies, while serving the human needs, have been co-opted by a secular culture. The Pope calls them also to "faithfully reflect the attitude of Jesus who came to proclaim good news to the poor."

Santorum was very lukewarm on the decision to upend support for ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. “Was he warm and fuzzy toward Israel? No. That doesn’t mean you abandon the dictator,” he said about the uprising in Egypt.

The elementary error of relativism becomes clear when we look at multiculturalism. Sometime in the 1980s, universities began to champion the importance of “diversity” as a central educational value.

“The answer is not what can we do to prevent deaths because of a lack of health insurance. There’s — I reject that number completely, that people die in America because of lack of health insurance,” Santorum said to a crowd of 100.

When I asked him if he viewed gay marriage as a threat to his own marriage, he answered quickly. ''Yes, absolutely,'' he said. ''It threatens my marriage. It threatens all marriages. It threatens the traditional values of this country.''

Citing the work of one anti-poverty expert, Santorum said, “He found that even fathers in jail who had abandoned their kids were still better than no father at all to have in their children’s lives.”

“Everything I’ve read shows that we would not have gotten this information as to who this man was if it had not been gotten information from people who were subject to enhanced interrogation,” Santorum said, referring to the courier that led Americans to Osama bin Laden. “And so this idea that we didn’t ask that question while Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was being waterboarded, he doesn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works. I mean, you break somebody, and after they’re broken, they become cooperative.”

"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money," Santorum begins. "I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families."

There is no such thing as global warming. It is, in my opinion, there are hundreds of factors that cause the Earth to warm and cool, and the trace gas — of which human participation in this trace gas — is …

But unlike abortion today, in most states even the slaveholder did not have the unlimited right to kill his slave.

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday.

I do not believe that -- that state, federal or local workers, unions, should be involved in unions. And I would actually support a bill that says that we should not have public employee unions for the purposes of wages and benefits to be negotiated.

In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship.

Look at what’s happened just in our tolerance for abortion. Fifty years ago…60 years ago, people who did abortions were in the shadows, people who were considered really bad doctors. Now, abortion is something to that is just accepted. [...] This is the erosion.

You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do.

“All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. There are no Palestinians. This is Israeli land,” the former Pennsylvania senator said.

In Ottumwa, Rick said: "Diversity creates conflict. We can't celebrate diversity it because it creates conflict."

In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.

I’ve always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you.

"I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military," Santorum responded. "And the fact that they're making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to -- and removing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military's job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country." He added: "What we're doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now. And that's tragic."

Still the distinction does not go so far as to justify us in supposing that the whole scheme of civil government is matter of pollution, with which Christian men have nothing to do. Fanatics, indeed, delighting in unbridled license, insist and vociferate that, after we are dead by Christ to the elements of this world, and being translated into the kingdom of God sit among the celestials, it is unworthy of us, and far beneath our dignity, to be occupied with those profane and impure cares which relate to matters alien from a Christian man. To what end, they say, are laws without courts and tribunals? But what has a Christian man to do with courts? Nay, if it is unlawful to kill, what have we to do with laws and courts? But as we lately taught that that kind of government is distinct from the spiritual and internal kingdom of Christ, so we ought to know that they are not adverse to each other. The former, in some measure, begins the heavenly kingdom in us, even now upon earth, and in this mortal and evanescent life commences immortal and incorruptible blessedness, while to the latter it is assigned, so long as we live among men, to foster and maintain the external worship of God, to defend sound doctrine and the condition of the Church, to adapt our conduct to human society, to form our manners to civil justice, to conciliate us to each other, to cherish common peace and tranquillity. All these I confess to be superfluous, if the kingdom of God, as it now exists within us, extinguishes the present life. But if it is the will of God that while we aspire to true piety we are pilgrims upon the earth, and if such pilgrimage stands in need of such aids, those who take them away from man rob him of his humanity. As to their allegation that there ought to be such perfection in the Church of God that her guidance should suffice for law, they stupidly imagine her to be such as she never can be found in the community of men. For while the insolence of the wicked is so great, and their iniquity so stubborn, that it can scarcely be curbed by any severity of laws, what do we expect would be done by those whom force can scarcely repress from doing ill, were they to see perfect impunity for their wickedness?

But we shall have a fitter opportunity of speaking of the use of civil government. All we wish to be understood at present is, that it is perfect barbarism to think of exterminating it, its use among men being not less than that of bread and water, light and air, while its dignity is much more excellent. Its object is not merely, like those things, to enable men to breathe, eat, drink, and be warmed (though it certainly includes all these, while it enables them to live together); this, I say, is not its only object, but it is, that no idolatry, no blasphemy against the name of God, no calumnies against his truth, nor other offences to religion, break out and be disseminated among the people; that the public quiet be not disturbed, that every man’s property be kept secure, that men may carry on innocent commerce with each other, that honesty and modesty be cultivated; in short, that a public form of religion may exist among Christians, and humanity among men. Let no one be surprised that I now attribute the task of constituting religion aright to human polity, though I seem above to have placed it beyond the will of man, since I no more than formerly allow men at pleasure to enact laws concerning religion and the worship of God, when I approve of civil order which is directed to this end—viz. to prevent the true religion, which is contained in the law of God, from being with impunity openly violated and polluted by public blasphemy.

(this last quote is actually from calvin in the 16th century on the necessity of a clerical state. santorum is a great candidate for office.)

[kurai]

So yeah, as I posted above (but I guess it was ignored), the first amendment is a lot more complicated than just "separation of church and state".

''The Free Exercise Clause . . . withdraws from legislative power, state and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise of religion. Its purpose is to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions there by civil authority.'' It bars ''governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such,'' prohibiting misuse of secular governmental programs ''to impede the observance of one or all religions or . . . to discriminate invidiously between religions . . . even though the burden may be characterized as being only indirect.'' Freedom of conscience is the basis of the free exercise clause, and government may not penalize or discriminate against an individual or a group of individuals because of their religious views nor may it compel persons to affirm any particular beliefs. Interpretation is complicated, however, by the fact that exercise of religion usually entails ritual or other practices that constitute ''conduct'' rather than pure ''belief.'' When it comes to protecting conduct as free exercise, the Court has been inconsistent. It has long been held that the Free Exercise Clause does not necessarily prevent government from requiring the doing of some act or forbidding the doing of some act merely because religious beliefs underlie the conduct in question. What has changed over the years is the Court's willingness to hold that some religiously motivated conduct is protected from generally applicable prohibitions.

The relationship between the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses varies with the expansiveness of interpretation of the two clauses. In a general sense both clauses proscribe governmental involvement with and interference in religious matters, but there is possible tension between a requirement of governmental neutrality derived from the Establishment Clause and a Free-Exercise-derived requirement that government accommodate some religious practices. So far, the Court has harmonized interpretation by denying that free- exercise-mandated accommodations create establishment violations, and also by upholding some legislative accommodations not mandated by free exercise requirements. ''This Court has long recognized that government may (and sometimes must) accommodate religious practices and that it may do so without violating the Establishment Clause.'' In holding that a state could not deny unemployment benefits to Sabbatarians who refused Saturday work, for example, the Court denied that it was ''fostering an 'establishment' of the Seventh-Day Adventist religion, for the extension of unemployment benefits to Sabbatarians in common with Sunday worshippers reflects nothing more than the governmental obligation of neutrality in the face of religious differences, and does not represent that involvement of religious with secular institutions which it is the object of the Establishment Clause to forestall.'' Legislation granting religious exemptions not held to have been required by the Free Exercise Clause has also been upheld against Establishment Clause challenge, although it is also possible for legislation to go too far in promoting free exercise.

The Belief-Conduct Distinction .--While the Court has consistently affirmed that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious beliefs, protection for religiously motivated conduct has waxed and waned over the years. The Free Exercise Clause ''embraces two concepts-- freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things, the second cannot be.'' In its first free exercise case, involving the power of government to prohibit polygamy, the Court invoked a hard distinction between the two, saying that although laws ''cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices.'' The rule thus propounded protected only belief, inasmuch as religiously motivated action was to be subjected to the police power of the state to the same extent as would similar action springing from other motives. The Reynolds no-protection rule was applied in a number of cases, but later cases established that religiously grounded conduct is not always outside the protection of the free exercise clause. Instead, the Court began to balance the secular interest asserted by the government against the claim of religious liberty asserted by the person affected; only if the governmental interest was ''compelling'' and if no alternative forms of regulation would serve that interest was the claimant required to yield. Thus, while freedom to engage in religious practices was not absolute, it was entitled to considerable protection.

Recent cases evidence a narrowing of application of the compelling interest test, and a corresponding constriction on the freedom to engage in religiously motivated conduct. First, the Court purported to apply strict scrutiny, but upheld the governmental action anyhow. Next the Court held that the test is inappropriate in the contexts of military and prison discipline. Then, more importantly, the Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith that ''if prohibiting the exercise of religion . . . is not the object . . . but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.'' Therefore, the Court concluded, the Free Exercise Clause does not prohibit a state from applying generally applicable criminal penalties to use of peyote in a religious ceremony, or from denying unemployment benefits to persons dismissed from their jobs because of religious ceremonial use of peyote. Accommodation of such religious practices must be found in ''the political process,'' the Court noted; statutory religious-practice exceptions are permissible, but not ''constitutionally required.'' The result is tantamount to a return to the Reynolds belief-conduct distinction.

Within two years the Court in Sherbert v. Verner extended the line of analysis to require a religious exemption from a secular, regulatory piece of economic legislation. Sherbert was disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation because, as a Seventh Day Adventist, she would not accept Saturday work; according to state officials, this meant she was not complying with the statutory requirement to stand ready to accept suitable employment. This denial of benefits could be upheld, the Court said, only if ''her disqualification as a beneficiary represents no infringement by the State of her constitutional rights of free exercise, or [if] any incidental burden on the free exercise of appellant's religions may be justified by a 'compelling state interest in the regulation of a subject within the State's constitutional power to regulate . . .''' First, the disqualification was held to impose a burden on the free exercise of Sherbert's religion; it was an indirect burden and it did not impose a criminal sanction on a religious practice, but the disqualification derived solely from her practice of her religion and constituted a compulsion upon her to forgo that practice. Second, there was no compelling interest demonstrated by the State. The only interest asserted was the prevention of the possibility of fraudulent claims, but that was merely a bare assertion. Even if there was a showing of demonstrable danger, ''it would plainly be incumbent upon the appellees to demonstrate that no alternative forms of regulation would combat such abuses without infringing First Amendment rights.''

''A compelling governmental interest'' was also found to outweigh free exercise interests in Bob Jones University v. United States, in which the Court upheld the I.R.S.'s denial of tax exemptions to church-run colleges whose racially discriminatory admissions policies derived from religious beliefs. The Federal Government's ''fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education''--found to be encompassed in common law standards of ''charity'' underlying conferral of the tax exemption on ''charitable'' institutions--''substantially outweighs'' the burden on free exercise. Nor could the schools' free exercise interests be accommodated by less restrictive means.

The Court also drew a distinction between governmental regulation of individual conduct, on the one hand, and restraint of governmental conduct as a result of individuals' religious beliefs, on the other. Sherbert's compelling interest test has been held inapplicable in cases viewed as involving attempts by individuals to alter governmental actions rather than attempts by government to restrict religious practices. Emphasizing the absence of coercion on religious adherents, the Court in Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n held that the Forest Service, even absent a compelling justification, could construct a road through a portion of a national forest held sacred and used by Indians in religious observances. The Court distinguished between governmental actions having the indirect effect of frustrating religious practices and those actually prohibiting religious belief or conduct: '''the Free Exercise Clause is written in terms of what the government cannot do to the individual, not in terms of what the individual can exact from the government.''' Similarly, even a sincerely held religious belief that assignment of a social security number would rob a child of her soul was held insufficient to bar the government from using the number for purposes of its own recordkeeping. It mattered not how easily the government could accommodate the religious beliefs or practices (an exemption from the social security number requirement might have been granted with only slight impact on the government's recordkeeping capabilities), since the nature of the governmental actions did not implicate free exercise protections.

Finally, in Employment Division v. Smith the Court indicated that the compelling interest test may apply only in the field of unemployment compensation, and in any event does not apply to require exemptions from generally applicable criminal laws. Criminal laws are ''generally applicable'' when they apply across the board regardless of the religious motivation of the prohibited conduct, and are ''not specifically directed at . . . religious practices.'' The unemployment compensation statute at issue in Sherbert was peculiarly suited to application of a balancing test because denial of benefits required a finding that an applicant had refused work ''without good cause.'' Sherbert and other unemployment compensation cases thus ''stand for the proposition that where the State has in place a system of individual exemptions, it may not refuse to extend that system to cases of 'religious hardship' without compelling reason.'' Wisconsin v. Yoder and other decisions holding ''that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action'' were distinguished as involving ''not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but the Free Exercise Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections'' such as free speech or ''parental rights.'' Except in the relatively uncommon circumstance when a statute calls for individualized consideration, then, the Free Exercise Clause affords no basis for exemption from a ''neutral, generally applicable law.'' As the Court concluded in Smith, accommodation for religious practices incompatible with general requirements must ordinarily be found in ''the political process.''

The political processes were soon utilized in anattempt to provide additional protection for religious exercise. In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Congress sought to supersede Smith and substitute a statutory rule of decision. The Act provides that laws of general applicability--federal, state, and local--may substantially burden free exercise of religion only if they further a compelling governmental interest and constitute the least restrictive means of doing so. The purpose, Congress declared in the Act itself, was ''to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Vernerand Wisconsin v. Yoder and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened.' Enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not, however, close the book on Smith. Issues concerning the RFRA's constitutionality ensure continuing litigation over the appropriate constitutional test.

The ramifications of Smith are potentially widespread. The Court has apparently returned to a belief-conduct dichotomy under which religiously motivated conduct is not entitled to special protection. Laws may not single out religiously motivated conduct for adverse treatment, but formally neutral laws of general applicability may regulate religious conduct (along with other conduct) regardless of the adverse or prohibitory effects on religious exercise. That the Court views the principle as a general one, not limited to criminal laws, seems evident from its restatement in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah: ''our cases establish the general proposition that a law that is neutral and of general application need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice.'' Similar rules govern taxation. Under the Court's rulings in Smith and Swaggart, religious exemptions from most taxes are a matter of legislative grace rather than constitutional command, since most important taxes (e.g., income, property, sales and use) satisfy the criteria of formal neutrality and general applicability, and are not license fees that can be viewed as prior restraints on expression. The result is equal protection, but not substantive protection, for religious exercise. The Court's approach also accords less protection to religiously-based conduct than is accorded expressive conduct that implicates speech but not religious values. On the practical side, relegation of free exercise claims to the political process may, as concurring Justice O'Connor warned, result in less protection for small, unpopular religious sects.

Yes, the mandate might be valid, as it contains political exemptions as it is - but not so much as to preclude the general applicability of the policies. Because the whole thing is an employer mandate rather than a public program, it is still an interesting question for the judiciary, but it isn't a cut-and-dry apocalyptic destruction of the freedom of religion.

[Roy Karrde]

Yes, the mandate might be valid, as it contains political exemptions as it is - but not so much as to preclude the general applicability of the policies. Because the whole thing is an employer mandate rather than a public program, it is still an interesting question for the judiciary, but it isn't a cut-and-dry apocalyptic destruction of the freedom of religion.

I doubt you have a case here, as the Supreme Court has just given a pretty wide birth on what a employer of the church can do when it comes to religious grounds. Either way by the Government intruding on religion and forcing the religion to go against their religious doctrine is a clear cut case of Separation of Church and State. Period.

[kurai]

You did not read what was just posted.

[Roy Karrde]

You did not read what was just posted.

Actually yes I did.

[kurai]

Okay. Please feel free to counter the multiple citations in which "the Government intruding on religion and forcing the religion to go against their religious doctrine" was found to be acceptable. I have no idea why you would say this after having read what was provided, so I could only assume you had skimmed or skipped it.

Actual jurisprudence is required.

[Roy Karrde]

Okay. Please feel free to counter the multiple citations in which "the Government intruding on religion and forcing the religion to go against their religious doctrine" was found to be acceptable. I have no idea why you would say this after having read what was provided, so I could only assume you had skimmed or skipped it.

Actual jurisprudence is required.

The U.S. Supreme Court for the first time has declared that the Constitution exempts ministers from the nation's anti-discrimination laws. Wednesday's decision was unanimous and groundbreaking — but it left unresolved some of the thorniest questions in determining who is a minister and who is not.

The court's ruling came in the case of Cheryl Perich, a teacher at the Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church and School in Michigan. In 2004, Perich took leave when she was diagnosed with narcolepsy. But when her doctor certified her to return to work, the school asked her to resign, so she threatened to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"Their response was to fire me," Perich said. "I can't fathom how the Constitution would be interpreted in such a way as to deny me my civil rights as an elementary school teacher."

The school did not dispute that it fired Perich because of her threat to sue, but it maintained that part of its faith requires that such disputes be resolved only internally within the church.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/11/145055...ate-separation

This is the most recent case, and if brought in front of the Supreme Court would more than likely be faced with the same Judges.

[Dark Sage]

Obama has just compromised the bill. Instituions will still be required to provide contraceptives in their insurance plans, but if they are morally opposed to doing so, then the bill for them falls entirely upon the insurance provider, not the institution itself.

Most people think it's better now. Espcially woman's rights groups (a demographic which seems to be ignored lately). But to the surprise of no-one it's still being opposed by its staunchest opponents.

[Roy Karrde]

Obama has just compromised the bill. Instituions will still be required to provide contraceptives in their insurance plans, but if they are morally opposed to doing so, then the bill for them falls entirely upon the insurance provider, not the institution itself.

Most people think it's better now. Espcially woman's rights groups (a demographic which seems to be ignored lately). But to the surprise of no-one it's still being opposed by its staunchest opponents.

Yeah.. because the insurance provider is just going to eat the cost, nor are religious organizations whose doctrines oppose birth control are going to buy insurance policies that cover it. This really isn't a compromise.

[kurai]

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/11/145055...ate-separation

This is the most recent case, and if brought in front of the Supreme Court would more than likely be faced with the same Judges.

The mandate in question already has a ministerial exemption (the key point on which Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC was decided). Because ministers are the conduit through which belief is converted into conduct (see above), regulating their action is a different issue. You have to prove that non-ministers are equally exempt.

[Roy Karrde]

The mandate in question already has a ministerial exemption (the key point on which Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC was decided). Because ministers are the conduit through which belief is converted into conduct (see above), regulating their action is a different issue. You have to prove that non-ministers are equally exempt.

The court gave a very wide birth in that case as to what was and was not a minister. And mind you, remember what you asked for: "the Government intruding on religion and forcing the religion to go against their religious doctrine"

[kurai]

Not correct. The court specifically cited the fact that Perich was a commissioned minister.

Perich’s title as a minister reflected a significant degree
of religious training followed by a formal process of com-
missioning. To be eligible to become a commissioned
minister, Perich had to complete eight college-level cours-
es in subjects including biblical interpretation, church
doctrine, and the ministry of the Lutheran teacher. She
also had to obtain the endorsement of her local Synod
district by submitting a petition that contained her aca-
demic transcripts, letters of recommendation, personal
statement, and written answers to various ministry-
related questions. Finally, she had to pass an oral exami-
nation by a faculty committee at a Lutheran college. It
took Perich six years to fulfill these requirements. And
when she eventually did, she was commissioned as a
minister only upon election by the congregation, which
recognized God’s call to her to teach.

[Roy Karrde]

Not correct. The court specifically cited the fact that Perich was a commissioned minister.

Of which she did so to become a tenured teacher.

[kurai]

Why did you edit your post? You initially cited "The court, however, used Perich's case to show how to weigh the relevant factors. It agreed that even though the bulk of Perich's time was spent teaching secular classes like math and science, she still qualified as a minister. The court noted that Perich led her students in prayer each day, escorted her students to chapel, taught a religious class four times a week and was what the church designated as a "called teacher," as opposed to a contract teacher. ", to which I replied:

Yes. Those are examples showing that she is specifically a commissioned minister, even though she shares some of the responsibilities of the lay teachers. The "called teacher" that you specifically cite is the term indicating her special position.

Perich held herself out as a minister of the Church by
accepting the formal call to religious service, according to
its terms. She did so in other ways as well. For example,
she claimed a special housing allowance on her taxes that
was available only to employees earning their compensa-
tion “ ‘in the exercise of the ministry.’ ” App. 220 (“If you
are not conducting activities ‘in the exercise of the minis-
try,’ you cannot take advantage of the parsonage or
housing allowance exclusion” (quoting Lutheran Church-
Missouri Synod Brochure on Whether the IRS Considers
Employees as a Minister (2007)). In a form she submitted
to the Synod following her termination, Perich again
indicated that she regarded herself as a minister at
Hosanna-Tabor, stating: “I feel that God is leading me to
serve in the teaching ministry . . . . I am anxious to be in
the teaching ministry again soon.” App. 53.

This is not a standard which would be applicable to all employees of secondary religious institutions.

Consider from your article:

Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged both the interest of society in enforcing anti-discrimination laws and the interest of religious groups in "choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission." The Constitution, he said, strikes the balance in Perich's case by requiring that the church be free to choose those who will guide its way.

You have to specifically be preaching and teaching faith to warrant this kind of exemption. This won't apply to everyone.

[Roy Karrde]

Yes. Those are examples showing that she is specifically a commissioned minister, even though she shares some of the responsibilities of the lay teachers. The "called teacher" that you specifically cite is the term indicating her special position.

This is not a standard which would be applicable to all employees of secondary religious institutions.

That would be up to the court to decide, yet as I have said before, if brought before the Supreme Court it would be facing the same set of judges. Which as they did here, sided with the Church when it came to a battle between Government and Religious beliefs.

You have to specifically be preaching and teaching faith to warrant this kind of exemption. This won't apply to everyone.

You neglect the last one "Carry out their mission". That would fall under many religious institutions.

[Dark Sage]

Kurai, maybe we shouldn't even bother. Roy will never admit that he's wrong, or that Obama ever did anything right. He's typical of the GOP.

The whole Birth Control bill was designed to advance women's health concerns, something that the GOP apparently doesn't care about because some Catholics don't like it.

Well, when the Catholic church owns up to all the allegations of minors being molested - or raped - by clergymen, maybe I'll take their complaints at face-value. I may be Catholic, but I don't like the state that the church is in right now.