In countries where religion creates the policy there is one objective standard by which to make determinations which is sacred scripture. Of course scripture may be open to interpretation, but generally the actual ruler gets the last word on what interpretation to use.

Here the standard is the Constitution and judges and jurors interpret law

In the U.S. there is no single objective test with which to determine whether or not proposed legislation meets with specific criteria. If such a test existed, women would not have the vote, African Americans would still be slaves, and so on.

But women do have the vote and slavery is prohibited...Can you give me an example of a test (one test) that would work effeciently and effectively to determine whether or not proposed legislation meets specific criteria?

What you see as vague, must be vague because attitudes and cultures change, so we have to be more inclusive of factors that were never of concern in the past.

Yes, and not only do attitudes and cultures change over time, every individual is unique which is something that will never change

In the United States, when changes or additions to law are proposed, what things should we consider or questions should we ask before implementing legislation to that effect?

Only one, is it constitutional

I would ask you the same question – and I would add - has there ever been a time in the past or can we foresee a time in the future, in which a single, rigid and unchanging, objective test would suffice in all cases?

No

But I’m not sure that the law shapes our beliefs as much as our law (U.S.), is a reflection of what shapes our culture.

Over time, law plays a part in shaping beliefs and beliefs are a reflection of culture, so not one or the other but both

The source didn't bother me. What bothered me was the lack of details. Can you honestly say that the lack of details doesn't bother you? Where is your sense of fairness?

It actually did bother me - and surly you know me well enough by know to know that I surfed the net trying to find out more.

Considering what I've been witnessing recently (which is highly documented)I could have used one of many of the more substantiated examples, but I thought this one was better to show how bias is garnered against religious groups.

I chose this one because it was anonymous and rediculous and becasue I had 'faith' that few if any would agree with the content. I wanted discussion, not an argument.

Jurors do not decide on, or interpret legislation. You forgot to mention, laws under the jurisdiction of States, and localities, and most of all you forgot to mention the people (popular consensus is very powerful).



How did that happen? It wasn’t always like that? That means that the so-called objective standards of Constitution and judges did not hold up otherwise it would not be the way it is today.



It seems you realize that when people are involved in the legislative process, there can be no single objective test to determine which legislations will always be best for our society – because values change.



The answer conflicts with your other comments. Legislation can be constitutional when first enacted and then it must be amended or new legislation added to support the old. So one might think that the judiciary had made the ultimate decision, well after the fact but why did it take so long and what caused the judiciary to review the legislation?



It might help to understand some more about the Constitution.

The Constitution of the U.S. was meant to be the transparency document for the people, so that they knew how their government would work – that’s all it was.

Sovereignty belonged to the people. It would be up to the people to form their own governmental agencies (by state) under which they would be governed. At that point, the federal government was a protectorate, while all the power to legislate lay with people of the states.

Some of the delegates believed that the Constitution should also include a Bill of Rights so that people of the U.S. would be guaranteed certain basic and essential freedoms which could never be overridden by the state governments being created.

The Bill of Rights (10 were originally ratified) was considered to be the most fundamental of rights which the states could not diminish.

If that had been the only single, rigid, objective test – all the other amendments, (17) since the original 10, would not have been needed because the first 10 would have sufficed all by themselves.

There have also been well over 200 Congressional Acts, many of which, only much later, were contested and then repealed. Also, there are many Acts that do not even effect the private sector, but only affect the public (federal) sector.

We can certainly look at history and understand what influences were at work which led to modifications of our laws.



It true, we cannot foresee how culture and attitudes will be changed in the future but you are right that law does play a part in shaping/changing attitudes.

But the law would not be so influential in prompting change - if we could not modernize it when the need to do so is apparent.

That’s why we need to consider social/civil/ethical, morality as something more flexible than the morality that is dictated through rigid religious belief systems.

It's all interesting history that anyone who has been educated in the United States should know - sadly too few actually do. I think it's a flaw in the education system, it really needs modernizing.

Of course few people would approve of praying that someone gets cancer, but what is the point? You want to discuss an article that covers an incident that very possibly didn't happen? Why?

Would you feel the same if it were gays being smeared?

Would you feel the same if it were women who were being smeared?

If you honestly looked for corroboration and couldn't find any, how could you, in good conscience, post this?
As for "more substantiated examples", more substantiated examples of what? And when is it intellectually honest to substitute unsubstantiated claims for "more substantiated examples" when they are available?

Redy, I'm not sure what you want to discuss...I'm beginning to think you are doing research for a class assignment..... Thanks for explaining the constitution to me...no thanks being given for deciding I and most people don't understand it......I would say you are overcomplicating the topic but I m not sure what the topic is...I thought it was the "power of prayer"......

As to jurors not intrepreting "law" IMO you are wrong and they do...Maybe this will help...

"The traditional statement that the jury is to take the law given by the judge and apply it to the facts misleadingly suggests that juries have no role in determining what the law is. In fact, juries determine what the law is in every case to a limited extent. This is true because even the clearest instructions on the law still require juries to make some judgments about what the instructions mean (although the more completely a legal term is defined in the instructions, the less room there is for juror interpretation of the law). For example, words describing the burden of persuasion (“by a preponderance of the evidence” in most civil cases; “beyond a reasonable doubt” in all criminal cases) inevitably require jurors to interpret what those phrases mean in the context of the facts of the case, no matter how carefully the phrases are explained. And some important legal questions are explicitly structured so as to provide for juror interpretation of what the law is. A primary example is negligence, which is defined in terms of how a “reasonable person” would have behaved, and the jurors are responsible for determining the behavior of a “reasonable person.” For a reading list concerning juries’ legitimate law-making functions, see below."

This one statement explains and answers all the rest of the comments in your post to me.....

"Only laws that fall within the framework of the Constitution and the legal precedents regarding the Constitution's intent can remain in effect."

Not saying our legal system is perfect, but in my book it's pretty damn good......

I was not smearing anyone, you are catering to your bias. You know I’m an atheist and a lesbian, and we have been on opposite sides of issues. But you let that influence what I was doing here. I hope I’m explaining it better.

The article smears both women and Christians. As if Christian women would pray for the deaths of other women! Your bias has blinded you to the fact that an unsubstantiated article about Christian women praying for the deaths of other women is pure garbage, not the seed for a discussion.

Your explanations have not shed any light on this. It seems that you agree with me that the article is unsubstantiated and lacking in key details. But then you make a gratuitous assertion that these sorts of things do happen, so we should take the article at face value. This is a case of confirmation bias. You already think of Christians as bitter, hate filled people, so you find this article compelling.

The article smears both women and Christians. As if Christian women would pray for the deaths of other women! Your bias has blinded you to the fact that an unsubstantiated article about Christian women praying for the deaths of other women is pure garbage, not the seed for a discussion.

And besides what Spidercmb has said, this is not a "Christian" thing to do. Being a Christian is more then just claiming to be, it is actions. Faith along can not save a person, nor can actions save a person, takes both, and of course Jesus Christ but that is a bit besides this point.


Leviticus 19:17

17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.


Matthew 5:44

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;


I wish to also state before it leads in that direction, the things said to us is not limited to how we treat other "Christians" or other "brother/sisters" in Christ. We don't treat "Christians" any differently then we do say an "Atheist". We are all equal and in the same boat called life. This is a place to share good memories and love with one another. Not anger or hatred.

Actually I have a few days between semesters and I was catching up on current events and found the article. In case you don’t read every post I’ll reprint another explanation that I gave to Spider here:

I wanted to show an example of how bias can form about an entire group and I exemplified that by showing a worst case scenario. If there is power in prayer, how should it be used? Not the prayer – the power.

In the case, I posted some people chose to use that power to fuel animosity, build hate, and diminish tolerance.

It is a ridiculous article, but so are many other overt actions by real people caught in the act. If we witness enough of the ‘real’ thing, then this article doesn’t seem so ridiculous.

I used religion because there is so much happening where religion is at the forefront, such as reproductive choice, LGBT issues, school curriculums and internationally as well. I didn’t look for this particular article, it was just there.

I was disgusted by it, but when I thought about why, it wasn’t because these people were religious. The reason I was disgusted is because that kind of behavior drives a wedge between groups.



Thank you, I posted it again, that was a great explanation to support how you view it. Yes they must interpret the law because there are no two cases that are ever quite the same. There is a vast difference however, between what jurors do and Supreme Court Judges do.

A Juror is attempting to determine the innocence or guilt of the party in question. If found guilty, the jurors may also determine the level of guilt, which is also an interpretation of the law because some have various punitive conditions attached to them.

What Supreme Court Justices do is far more complicated. They must review Constitutional law, where State Law is involved. In some cases the justices must review and compare both State and Federal Constitutions.

When a challenge is brought questioning a law’s constitutionality, the result of the judicial review sets ‘precedent’. As precedent, it becomes the benchmark by which similar challenges are judged, unless or until, a future judge at a future date quantifies logical errors in the previous judgment, and substantiates (usually using current ideals), her new interpretation.

When Congress enacts laws, they are supposed to be reviewed for constitutionality, but as we’ve discussed, changes occur and a law can be challenged.

What the legislative branch had in mind when the law was enacted cannot always be discerned, nor can it be understood in the context of the new situation.

So the SCJ ‘interprets’ what ‘should be’ meant by the law – this way it remains a valid law, even if it has a different interpretation.

In cases where the SCJ declares a law unconstitutional, it remains up the our legislators to repeal, amend, or continue to spend a lot of tax dollars defending a law that may continue to be declared unconstitutional. That is exactly what has been happening for over a year with DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).

So while jurors attempt to compare cases with law to determine a judgment against a person’s actions, the SCJ compare a law to the Constitution to determine the validity of the law and they are the only people who have that power, just as our Federal legislators are the only one who have the power to modify the Constitution in any way.




Yes, and I described above how that happens and it is supposed to happen because the people will it, or because the special power we’ve delegated to the president (found in the Constitution) and in some cases to Congress as a check (like declaration of war), can be acted on without regard to popular consensus. That doesn’t mean we lose control, we just have to mobilize and make any grievances known.

There is one other kind of law that I’ve neglected “Executive Order” and Senators have the ability to enact special interest laws but they are always minor and usually affect a single individual – like issuing a recognition of an individual. (did you know Congress actually votes on those?)



IN TOTAL AGREEMENT!

I apologize for the grand departure from topic – I hope I have made the OP clearer. I hate to write too much in the OP because I know that most people read the first sentence, see who posted it, and make a judgment. So I figured I’d let the thread go where it may.

I wanted to show an example of how bias can form about an entire group and I exemplified that by showing a worst case scenario. If there is power in prayer, how should it be used? Not the prayer – the power.

does god like it when people pray just to ask for stuff?