Christian Democrats in the United States
Conceptual Issues - Church and StatePublic government should enable good-spirited people to help each other become better people, regardless of our individual belief. Muddying the waters of law with religious preference quickly leads to a loss of the principles of common welfare that our American law is there to maintain. America was founded on the principles of religious freedom. That freedom defines her character as a nation. We do not sully her reputation by trying to enforce a narrow religious view on everyone. The United States should enable all people to find common ground together in spirit and actions, not in law or symbols.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
Monday, May 7, 2007
4:08 PM
Their proposed amendment text is difficult to understand: "except in the case where the very existence of an innocent human being is itself an immediate, imminent, and ultimately insoluble barrier to the imminent continued existence of another innocent human being, such that the physical body of the offending innocent human being unwittingly becomes an insolubly lethal parasite." Is that an abortion exception for parasitic twin syndrome? The last thing Americans will be willing to do to the Constitution is to litter it with exceptions to regulations. If it cannot be articulated as a simple principle, it will never pass and is politically unrealistic.
It also offends the character of liberty at the core of the United States by attempting to inscribe a duty in law to "remember the poor" because we are made "in the image of God." An act of faith to help the poor must be of one's own free will, and enough Americans would make those choices if they had the resources that we would still be well off without dictating a religious responsibility to every citizen. They will have to pull the constitution out of my cold dead hands before anyone adds a mandate of religious duty.
J wasn't only about helping the poor, either.
Americans do not want a theocracy of any kind in their country. Such an amendment is politically unrealistic, offends the free character of the United States, and only serves to divide people and occupy their frustration, so they are not effective in solving real-world problems for real people.
Their insistence that actions of government institutions not bring direct or disproportionate harm to the poor is a pretty good idea. However, this is the kind of thing that could be accomplished by a president elected by the people under that policy platform, or by an act of Congress, and does not need to be enthroned in the primary national law to become a reality.
the political reality of the U.S. constitution
A group of people calling themselves the Christian Democratic Union propose a "human dignity amendment" to the U.S. constitution. We must be extremely careful treading these waters because the words used can be construed so broadly. We must not implant a message that would destroy the very principles essential to the United States and her defense of freedom.Their proposed amendment text is difficult to understand: "except in the case where the very existence of an innocent human being is itself an immediate, imminent, and ultimately insoluble barrier to the imminent continued existence of another innocent human being, such that the physical body of the offending innocent human being unwittingly becomes an insolubly lethal parasite." Is that an abortion exception for parasitic twin syndrome? The last thing Americans will be willing to do to the Constitution is to litter it with exceptions to regulations. If it cannot be articulated as a simple principle, it will never pass and is politically unrealistic.
It also offends the character of liberty at the core of the United States by attempting to inscribe a duty in law to "remember the poor" because we are made "in the image of God." An act of faith to help the poor must be of one's own free will, and enough Americans would make those choices if they had the resources that we would still be well off without dictating a religious responsibility to every citizen. They will have to pull the constitution out of my cold dead hands before anyone adds a mandate of religious duty.
J wasn't only about helping the poor, either.
Americans do not want a theocracy of any kind in their country. Such an amendment is politically unrealistic, offends the free character of the United States, and only serves to divide people and occupy their frustration, so they are not effective in solving real-world problems for real people.
Their insistence that actions of government institutions not bring direct or disproportionate harm to the poor is a pretty good idea. However, this is the kind of thing that could be accomplished by a president elected by the people under that policy platform, or by an act of Congress, and does not need to be enthroned in the primary national law to become a reality.
> detail, links and comments >>
Comments:
If you want to enshrine religious duty in the U.S. constitution, go form yourself a "Christian Republican" party. Good luck with that. Personally, it sounds too much like an "Islamic Republic" for my taste.
posted by
USChristianDemocrats.org editor : May 7, 2007 4:53 PM
posted by
USChristianDemocrats.org editor : May 7, 2007 4:53 PM
Links to this post:
<< HomeArchives May 2007 / September 2008 /