Law & Ethics


jesus
zclifton2 asked:


From the beginning of time, humans have murdered each other. Why do otherwise intellegent and principled people continue to believe that murder is justifiable and effective? Murder may solve an immediate need for revenge, a response to an immediate fear, reward, compensation or justifiable punishment, but the fact is that Capital Punishment is not effective as a deterent. Chistian’s have a special responsiblity to not kill others, to not murder others because Jesus was himself murdered in a legal manner of the day and it was unjust and ineffective. I just don’t get it! How can the same person proclaim to believe in Jesus and support capital punishment? What happened to forgiveness? Jesus preached forgiveness. How can it be ignored by Christians?

religion
BellyDancer asked:


If the US requires there to be a “separation of church and state” and scientology is now a religion, why is the beliefs associated with it allowed to be taught in public schools, but beliefs of other religions is not allowed to be mentioned whatsoever in public school? Is this not favoring one religion over another, thus, in a sense, forcing a religion on a person indirectly?

religion
aerodrown asked:


What would a religion need to be legally recognised as a religion, with the practices and whatnot made legal as “rights to practice free religion”?
I mean like, scientology has been officially recognised as a religion, as has kabala… what is necessary for the US government to recognise it as a legal religion?

religion
Vishal asked:


The first amendment refers specifically to Congress. I was wondering if that meant that the President could issue an executive order denying certain people freedom of religion.

Thanks in advance for any info.
I know the president must enforce the law. My question is whether the law accounts for a president who wishes to deny people basic freedoms.

It is definitely illegal for Congress to do so, but I can’t find anything in the Constitution that says that the President can’t.

religion
BP asked:


Lets imagine somewhere down the road comes a religion where a person is not allowed to be injected with the same exact fluids that are used during the process of executing someone. Now lets say that I’m a member of this religion and I protested it because it’s against my religion. Also, there aren’t any other methods of execution. So I protest it because it’s violating my religious rights. What would happen? Would the courts excuse me or would I go ahead with it?

religion
skahhh asked:


In the beginning of the US, you could not vote unless you were Unitarian! And in 1974, after the Civil Rights Act passage in the 60’s, the US government made it “hidden” and “legal” to use religion as a hiring preference and not have to answer for that anywhere with regards to minority or otherwise, when they instituted a law, an Act, namely “The Privacy Act”, which made it illegal to place or consider religion on an application for a job!

So that the “status quo” of the social engine, of the Churches of that time were allowed to hide their discriminatory practices in whispers and quiet organized outside the workplace or board room considerations or informal don’t ask don’t tell behind the scenes back room trustee judgements, suppressing the outsiders through oppressive treatment that had been legalized by making statistical analysis and hence witnessing and enforcement of equality in religious beliefs or creeds all but impossible to track or enforce?
My point is, that many have been and continue to be discriminated against because of religion!

This goes on and on and on, privlige after privilige having been taken from some who were honest and given to those who swore to something that is a flat out lie, because some were scared to lose their shirts to honest forthrightedness and logic!

So the oppression goes on and the people who oppressed got richer and richer, removing benefits from the poor and then giving them some morsels and telling them that they should be thankful for those morsels that barely sustain them and telling them that somehow that is all they deserve because they have not bowed down to the gods of the rich people’s ancestors sufficiently, the free will gods!
What is so free about it when the ones who are honest and do not agree are suppressed and our societies in this world go on killing each other over each side’s “Christians and Muslims” definition of worthiness for eternal damnation, when neither side can prove their case that they are better than another and each side accumulates weapons of mass destruction bigger and bigger than the other, all the while plotting to destroy the other side, all the while becoming less aware that that eventual destruction of “his enemy” will probably eventually destroy all of humanity, including the ones who think they are better than everyone else, the so called righteous ones, who are whichever organized memorized religion that they call themselves that day!

Billions of dollars of soldier like manpower and efforts are spent every day on these enemies!
My name means “doubter in the salvation or man”, go figure! If we continue on our, “path”, so to speak, we will eventually annihilate each other to the point that man will not exist! If you can’t see that, I am sorry for how blind you were born!
Ian, if Christianity is a majority religion, then by law, the Christians should give up their jobs for non Christians, because of minority status and violation of Civil Rights of non Christians!

Are you ready to surrender your assets and your positions of power and privilige and prestige so that our country can be a country truly of and including the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States that states,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

By making it a law to hide religion in hiring and promotion practices, the status quo was held in place, minority status with regards to the Civil Rights Act was ignored, and the free market place of religious change was suppressed! In other words, freedom was suppressed!
Word to the kitty,

Established…. from the dictionary

1. to found, institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis: to establish a university; to establish a medical practice.
2. to install or settle in a position, place, business, etc.: to establish one’s child in business.
3. to show to be valid or true; prove: to establish the facts of the matter.
4. to cause to be accepted or recognized: to establish a custom; She established herself as a leading surgeon.
5. to bring about permanently: to establish order.
6. to enact, appoint, or ordain for permanence, as a law; fix unalterably.
7. to make (a church) a national or state institution.
8. Cards. to obtain control of (a suit) so that one can win all the subsequent tricks in it.

What part of “established” don’t you understand?
To Miss Kitty, also…

What part of the meaning of establish don’t you understand?

from the thesaurus

authorize, base, build, constitute, create, decree, domiciliate, enact, endow, ensconce, entrench, erect, father, fix, form, found, ground, implant, inaugurate, inculcate, install, institute, land, lay foundation, live, lodge, moor, originate, place, plant, practice, provide, put, ring in, rivet, root, secure, set down, set up, settle, stabilize, start, station, stick
Timbugny, I suggest you read my other stuff in Yahoo Questions and answers. I am no Atilla or Adolf or any of the rest of your idols, I am a man who sees things as to how they are, a human behavioral engineer so to speak. People don’t get at each other’s throats unless one feels more priviliged and righteous than another and pushes or holds another down against their will for unproven circumstance. That is what is called illogical, isn’t it? Unless you uphold the same advantages of those who are leading us down the primrose path of destruction? Where did the idea of debate and problem solving go? Out the window with religious domination?
Chaos, did you vote for the Privacy Act? Did you even think about it? Did your relatives or the citizens of the United States think about it? Would you have voted for it and thereby shorted the minority law abiding citizens of that time, 1974, who were not Christian? Are you saying that people consciously understood the Privacy Act of 1974, with regards to it’s limit placement upon the freedom of religion in the United States at that time and from that time forward?

I don’t think so. I don’t think the average citizen had any time to study such ramnifications, much less the legislators at that time have the foresightedness to realize the error of their ways!

I would love to hear from you if you think or can prove otherwise!

By the way, for all of you law buffs, this has not been tested in the United States Supreme Court yet! Don’t you think it is about high time it is?
Steve, I am not a true Christian. I am told that a true Christian believes that Jesus was without sin. I do not. I urge you to learn what you can about Forgive Affirmed Spirit, which is about the positive aspects of Jesus’s life and the discernment of the negatives also.
This information can be found mostly in my writings in Yahoo Questions and Answers. I love all mankind the best I can, in a spirit of Greater Works, that Jesus proclaimed in John 14 12.

Sin is difference to Forgive Affirmed Spirit, all of us being part of everything, God being everything and non thing, we being parts of Creator and Creation and in reality predestined although changeable in many respects in this Grand Illusion of free choice that we live in. The greater the sin, the more it affects life in an immediate sense, ie killing.
Nobody goes to any eternal damnation. That theory is an abomination of Forgive Affirmed Spirit or healing potential!

Healing (Not Peace necessarily, but sometimes), be unto you and yours and me and mine

In Forgive Affirmed Spirit
~skahhh

religion
moonshadow418 asked:


Many states have exemptions to allow parents to not have their children vaccinated on the grounds that it conflicts with their religion, and many religions do have legitimate objections to having children vaccinated, or against other forms of medical treatment. However what are your opinions on the growing number of parents who are claiming this exemption solely to avoid having their children vaccinated due to concerns that have nothing to do with religion. For example that vaccinations increase the chances of autism, that they may cause their children to get sick, or they frankly just don’t believe they have any effect good or bad.
Are these people selfish, by putting themselves, their children and society at risk for outbreaks of diseases that vaccinations have for the most part erradicated? Or are these people exercising their legitimate rights to freedom of choice and the freedom from an overly intrusive government?

religion
Aleksandr asked:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This specifically refers to Congress. Why can’t the states ordain their own official religions, ban other religions, control what people can say or print, or ban assemblies? Or ban petitions?
Of the 14th amendment, which part? No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States?
Not a Christian fundamentalist or anything, by the way, just trying to understand how the law works… it specifically states the Congress may not do these things, not the States… if anything, there should be an amendment to correct this oversight