tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post8673536984116937478..comments2024-02-29T02:10:56.878-08:00Comments on J O S H U A P U N D I T: President Obama Demands All Bow To His New ReligionFreedom Fighterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-2577267326722192012012-02-13T10:57:29.390-08:002012-02-13T10:57:29.390-08:00Not to worry my friend. I do think we agree on mor...Not to worry my friend. I do think we agree on more than we disagree for certain. But disagreement in a democracy and how we view certain aspects is what a free society is all about :)<br /><br />Also remember the 14tth amendment had to be adjudicated in a Supreme Court case to become applicable to the states. It was not automatic.<br /><br />I would say that we definitely want the most basic fundamently important thing in this whole disccusion...a strong, free and democratic nation to hand to our children when the time comes, just as we were given such a coutnry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-89928668947199226742012-02-13T10:19:34.883-08:002012-02-13T10:19:34.883-08:00Hello IP,
Actually, when I used the term 'side...Hello IP,<br />Actually, when I used the term 'side bar' I was referring to my point about same sex marriage, not anything you said. And BTW, in countries in Europe where gay marriage has long been legal exactly these issues have come up. Which is why polygamy, especially among Muslims is now legal and recognized in much of Europe. As a matter of fact, in Norway and Denmark they have been struggling to eliminate, believe it or not,<a href="http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2006/09/animal-bordellos-yep-or-should-i-say.html" rel="nofollow">bestiality in the form of animal bordellos.</a> They have been unsuccessful thus far because of existing legal challenges citing - you guessed it, same sex marriage.<br /><br />I'm going to send you a link that may prove informative.<br /><br />As far as Muslim religious practice goes, I never said that the practices you mention aren't part of Muslim society. What I said was that practices like fgm, honor killings, etc. are more a matter of culture, although there is some basis for them in the Qu'ran and the Sunnah.The truth of this can be seen in the difference in the amount of honor killings in say, Pakistan or Jordan as opposed to Muslims in Indonesia or Malaysia. Same with FGM, where in countries like Somalia or Egypt over 80% of the women endure this while it is unknown in countries like Iran or Indonesia.<br /><br />I would also mention that the incidence of these things has increased thanks to the billions the Saudis have spent since the 1980's proselytizing wahhabism.<br /><br />I have to disagree with your comparing ObamaCare to the civil rights issue. The civil rights issues have a clear constitutional backing in the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. Insuring equality in housing, schooling and employment is far different from requiring people to make a contract with a private company to purchase a product under pain of penalty. It is also different from forcing people to buy something that violates their religious beliefs, a clear violation of the free exercise clause. One merely conforms and ensures rights people already have - the other creates brand new 'rights' - and infringes on a number of others we already have.<br /><br />It's important to keep in mind that ObamaCare is not a healthcare bill, but a tax bill and a way for the government to get control of one sixth of the US economy. If it were really about healthcare for the uninsured, that could have been handled easily by leaving the present system in place but requiring companies to cover people unable to get insurance in an 'assigned risk' category, similar to what's done in auto insurance. And if it were about lowering costs,the two magic words President Obama would never ever utter would be required : tort reform. That, and a provision to allow people to shop out of state for competitive insurance rates would have done the trick. <br /><br />I note that we actually agree on a lot more things than we disagree on, my friend.<br /><br />Take care, OK?Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13332213651195340500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-83067420076646731212012-02-13T04:40:04.607-08:002012-02-13T04:40:04.607-08:00Shavua Tov-
Sorry but don't truly view my poi...Shavua Tov-<br /><br />Sorry but don't truly view my points as "sidelines." But an extrapolation of the underlying issue. The question is accommodation versus law and what is the difference? There is only a difference when the law says that one thing is an accommodation and one is the "rule of law." So it is generally up to secular society to define these two ideas.<br /><br />I think honestly on much of this you are splitting hairs. You know as well as I that Moslems consider honor killings,fgm, child marriage etc as part of their religion. Just look at the videos on MEMRI to see that most Moslem authorities not only accept these concepts but promote it as Islamic. The issue becomes where to draw the line for religious accommodations and religious intrusion into society.I think you are truly missing the point as to how Islam sees society (well maybe not) but you can rest assured that it is going to be a constitutional case in the future.<br /><br />As far as gay marriage, when you have someone as conservative as Ted Olsen of the Federalist Society defending gay marriage under equal protection then there is the realistic view that it will be held constitutional. There is a great video on You Tube where he discusses the law on the issue and as brilliant as we both happen to be, I think he outsmarts us both when it comes to constitutional law and its application.As far as polygamy, not the same thing, but I am sure that there will be a case, just as there will be a case trying to make pedophilia legal as well,but there are other overriding constitutional issues when it comes to that, immigration, national security, national health and safety etc.<br /><br />As far as Obamacare..yes the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but laws allow for every agency to write and make regulations this is nothing new. We do have the administrative procedure act that goes with that. The amount of power in HHS as unprecedented? We will have to see what SCOTUS does with that. However, the idea that it will be upheld as the civil rights statutes were upheld is still relevant. Look at the Heart of Atlanta Hotel and see how they used the commerce clause. As well Ginsburg wrote a brilliant article when she was a law professor about how the commerce clause should have been used to uphold the right to abortion rather than the right of privacy. It will illustrate how some of the judges will look at the case. As usual it will be left to one man and one man alone what happens with Obamacare.<br /><br />I also disagree with your point that the contraceptive mandate is about the free exercise of religion as opposed to religious oppression.There are laws that govern everyone who is a public entity, receives federal funds and falls under State Action. No organization is exempt. Point in fact..the Boy Scouts, because they are a private organization they can discriminate against "gay" scout masters without recourse. The opinion in that case is truly instrumental in thinking about this recent hullaballoo.<br /><br />Anyway as I have said before, we tend to agree to disagree about quite alot of social and legal issues. C'est la vie.<br /><br />IPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-31662786176336175242012-02-12T17:48:30.465-08:002012-02-12T17:48:30.465-08:00Hello IP and shavua tov.
I believe you're mis...Hello IP and shavua tov.<br /><br />I believe you're missing the point here. What the SCOTUS has actually ruled on in the past is that when there is a <i>conflict</i> between the free practice of religion and secular law, secular law trumps it - usually but not always when public safety is involved. A good example are the laws against honor killings you mention (BTW, more a mtter of culture than actual religious practice although there is a basis in the Qu'ran and Sunnah) and polygamy,which formerly affected Mormons and now affect Muslims. BTW,as a sidebar let me say that if same sex marriage goes to the SCOTUS and gets upheld, I will bet my dollar to your dime that a similar case on polygamy is referred to the SCOTUS with in 3-5 years of the ruling and is likewise upheld.<br /><br />None of the examples you mention come under that heading of conflicting...and the circumcision law in particular would have died an early death in the courts, which is why SF and Santa Monica took it off the ballot so they wouldn't be stuck trying to defend it.<br /><br />What we in fact have here is the Federal Government mandating not only that a citizen must purchase a product from a private company, which is without precedent but a government bureaucracy now mandating that a company must provide part of the product 'for free', also without precedent. <br /><br />This changes the free practice clause into mere freedom of worship,which is very different. It literally is the same thing as demanding that a Muslim madrassah or a Jewish yeshiva make a contract with a private company to purchase pork products for their employees, and then later walking it back to say the pork will be 'free' - when in fact it's just going to be rolled into the overall price of the contract.This is a Constitutional issue, not a religious one, and a clear violation of the First Amendment.<br /><br />On the US as a secular nation, again this is a side issue, but I would respond by saying that what we have is <b>a religious nation with a secular government</b>,meaning that it is a government pledged to treating all religions equally. There is nothing in the Bible or the New Testament that spells out any 'divine right of kings'. This was a product of Medieval times and designed to facilitate the centralization of rulership in feudal times by allowing the Church to 'sanctify it' in exchange for its prerogatives.<br /><br />I'm afraid I disagree with you that ObamaCare will stand without the individual mandate. The forcing of people to buy health insurance, the extreme and unconstitutional power vested in the HHS Secretary to make rulings like this one at his or her whim and the enforcement of these provisions is the heart of this illegal legislation.It cannot stand without it.<br /><br />The civil rights legislation you mention, on the other hand ( with the possible exception of some elements of Title I through V)has a solid constitutional basis.<br /><br />Best Regards,<br />RobRobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13332213651195340500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-45675489203620092942012-02-12T14:29:15.076-08:002012-02-12T14:29:15.076-08:00Rob- respectfully disagree with you on many counts...Rob- respectfully disagree with you on many counts. The founding fathers yes, did not create a state religion and did not stop the practice of religion. However, it is decided Constitutional law that the secular law of the land is supreme, not religious law. It is why Native Americans can be arrested outside reservations for smoking peyote, and Jewish couples in NY once granted a divorce in civil court are required under penalty of law for the husband to give his wife a "get." It is also why last year when there was the ill wind of the anti-circumcision law in San Fancisco that Jews and Moslems fought to stop it. Secular law trumps religion in this nation.If it did not then there would have been nothing for us to be concerned with.<br /><br />While you decry how Jefferson's wall of separation has been implemented,how it has been interpreted and employed is the law of the land. I also beg to differ with you on the religiosity of the founders. While many were very God fearing men, Jefferson and his group were deists, believing in a supreme being but not beholden to the dictates of any particular church doctrine. How could they be. In order to create the USA, they had to overthrow church doctrine that stated that the King is empowered by God Almighty. If they were truly believing Christians of the time, there would have been no revolution. Honestly, the founding fathers were more influenced by the enlightenment philosophers than by the dictates of a church.<br /><br />Furthermore, if you take religious accommodation or the concept that religion trumps secular law to its extreme,( you may say reductio ad absurtem) then why not allow honor murders, and gender apartheid which is prescribed in Islam? Is not Islam just as important as Christianity? The truth is that there is a difference between accommodation in law and law itself.<br /><br />The fact is that we are a secular albeit a believing nation. Our laws come not from the dictates of any particular religion but are the end result of a history of law which begins with Hammurabi, Moses,Socrates, Justinian, Luther, Enlightenment philosophers and the legal eagles we so love to hate in this nation.<br /><br />The truth is that your issue lies mostly with Obamacare.As of right now Obamacare is the law of the land and what the President did is within that law. What happens after SCOTUS rules this summer is anyone's guess.But I bet while they strike down some provision,particularly the individual mandate, most of Obamacare will remain.Look to how the Court applied the civil rights statutes to the sates. Same underlying states rights issue and same Constitutional clauses in play.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com