Re: Democracy...

>At Tuesday, you wrote:
>>> 1)Love the Lord, with all your heart, with all you soul with all 
your 
>>> mind and all your strength
>>> 2)Love you neibour as yourself.
>>>
>>> Everything else hangs on these.
>>>
>>Ever heard of seperation of church and state? Democracy? the rights 
>>of the individual?  While you certainly have the right to practice 
>>your religion in what ever manner you so choose demanding that 
>>everyone else does, or that the president of the us of ais subject 
>>to you PERSONAL faith decisions is outragous
>
>I believe you are confusing church with religion.
>Religion has nothing to do with Churches and the dogmas they follow.
>Like Ethics have nothing to do with Law.
>
>The reference made is more related with ethics than with religion 
>(even if a reference to God is made) and certainly no related at all
>with any Church. 
>
>May I note also that crude atheism is more related with a Church
>with its dogmas. They all create a fixed mind and the reduction
>of human dignity that follows.
>
>To avoid equivokes:
>Religion has nothing to do with 'faith' or 'Churches'
>A man may be an atheist and be religious. It is a more intimate 
>characteristic than beliefs.
>A prist may not be religious at all... as often happens.
>
>(The equivoke will happen to those who have no insight on the word 
>'religion'... only of its use and misuse.)
>
>And it will always surprise me to see words used in the inverse 
>sense of themselves, like the use of the word 'freedom' in its 
>inverse sense.
>
>May be because of this that todays Big-tyrants and small ones all
>using words they do not understand and being elected or posting
>angry replies in the name of what they insidiously destroy.
>
>I'm not condemning, only noting. 
>And this because it is simply a question of understanding.
>After all... we all carry our private prisons with us.
>
>Regards, (yes, why not?)
>Dutra de Lacerda.
I agree with you completely when you state that religion, ethics, and 
law are distinct and different things.  Unfortunately in the United 
States they have a strong tendency to become intertwined.  The law as it 
stands is that impeachment is only to be used in cases of high crimes 
and misdemeanors.  Now I have not read the entire Starr report nor do I 
have a sophisticated background in law nevertheless nothing Bill has 
done seems to qualify as worthy of impeachment under the law.  However, 
the sexual acts and behaviour exhibited by him is deeply repugnant to 
many on ethical grounds and particularly repugnant to Christians 
specifically.  I do not have any problem at all with those who are 
disgusted by the presidents behaviour on ethical or religious grounds, I 
personally find it repulsive.  I do however feel, as I believe you are 
saying also,  that the law is law.  It should be executed in a fair and 
just manner and according to the letter ( which may or may not lead to 
impeachment ).  The previous poster to which I replied seemed to be very 
clearly stating that his personal religious code of ethics took 
precedence over american legal codes,  a viewpoint which I cannot agree 
with.  All debate on the precice origin and validity of 'seperation of 
church and state' aside I cannot recall any part of the constitution 
which invokes divine justice.  The impeachment issue is not one of 
ethics or religion, simply law and law alone.

Vivek Vaidya




______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

>I agree with you completely when you state that religion, ethics, and
>law are distinct and different things.  Unfortunately in the United
>States they have a strong tendency to become intertwined.  The law as it
>stands is that impeachment is only to be used in cases of high crimes
>and misdemeanors.  Now I have not read the entire Starr report nor do I
>have a sophisticated background in law nevertheless nothing Bill has
>done seems to qualify as worthy of impeachment under the law.  However,
>the sexual acts and behaviour exhibited by him is deeply repugnant to
>many on ethical grounds and particularly repugnant to Christians
>specifically.  I do not have any problem at all with those who are
>disgusted by the presidents behaviour on ethical or religious grounds, I
>personally find it repulsive.  I do however feel, as I believe you are
>saying also,  that the law is law.  It should be executed in a fair and
>just manner and according to the letter ( which may or may not lead to
>impeachment ).  The previous poster to which I replied seemed to be very
>clearly stating that his personal religious code of ethics took
>precedence over american legal codes,  a viewpoint which I cannot agree
>with.  All debate on the precice origin and validity of 'seperation of
>church and state' aside I cannot recall any part of the constitution
>which invokes divine justice.  The impeachment issue is not one of
>ethics or religion, simply law and law alone.
>
>Vivek Vaidya

I a word, bullshit.  The constitution the way the constitution was phrased
makes it very clear- YOU DO NOT HAVE TO COMMIT A CRIME TO BE GUILTY OF
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES!!! Many people have been impeached in Americas history
and most were not guilty of a crime, ie their offenses were not legal
crimes or they were never prosecuted for the crime they were impeached and
tried for.  Fact- the president has commited perjury.  That is undeniable,
Starr has presented his evidence very clearly and I don't think that needs
to be rehashed.  Are his actions sufficient to yield a criminal conviction
in the "real world"?  In a general sense yes but in a broader sense that is
completely irrelevant to the question at had.  A parking ticket is
suffiecent to qualify as an impeachable offense under the constitution
("high crimes and MISDEMEANORS) but again that isn't relevant.  For the
sake of argument I will through out all criminal conduct, all perjury
issues, obstruction of justice, possible sexual assault, everything.  What
we are left with is a president who engaged in gross sexual misconduct with
a women under his employment.  That is ethical misconduct of the most
aggregious kind.  It undermines authority, disturbs professional atmosphere
necessary for a smoothly functioning organization.  In any corporation in
America it would, by custom and, in some jurisdictions, law, be grounds for
immediate dismissal.  Impeachment is exactly that.  It imposes no
punishments, no jail time, no fines, it simply removes an official from the
position he has failed to faithfully execute.



___________________________________________________________________________
"DOS/WIN based computers manufactured by companies such as IBM, Compaq,
Tandy, and millions of others, are by far the most popular, with about 70
million machines in use worldwide. Macintosh fans, on the other hand, note
that cockroaches are far more numerous than humans, and that numbers alone
do not denote a higher life form." - New York Times

-Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott <mailto:k-elliott@wiu.edu>

On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Kevin Elliott wrote:


<snip>

> completely irrelevant to the question at had.  A parking ticket is
> suffiecent to qualify as an impeachable offense under the constitution
> ("high crimes and MISDEMEANORS) but again that isn't relevant.  For the

Incorrect.  A parking ticket, like a speeding ticket or other minor
traffic violations is classified as an "infraction", not a misdemeanor.
Apparently, even the govts. recognizes that there are so many laws on the
books now that one can't possibly hope to avoid breaking them.

-- 
Brian Buchanan                                      brian@smarter.than.nu

Never believe that you know the whole story.