Comments on: Religion and Politics http://www.nathanrice.org/2008/12/religion-and-politics/ The Personal Webspace of Nathan Rice Sun, 16 May 2010 21:27:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Nathan Rice http://www.nathanrice.org/2008/12/religion-and-politics/#comment-2164 Nathan Rice Sat, 06 Dec 2008 03:26:52 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/?p=308#comment-2164 @George Great point, RE: your last paragraph. It's also worth noting that, while democratic in nature, our country operates as a republic. The legislature should be the first line of defense against unconstitutional laws (protecting the people from themselves), the Presidential veto being the second, and the judicial system being the last. @George
Great point, RE: your last paragraph. It’s also worth noting that, while democratic in nature, our country operates as a republic. The legislature should be the first line of defense against unconstitutional laws (protecting the people from themselves), the Presidential veto being the second, and the judicial system being the last.

]]> By: George DW http://www.nathanrice.org/2008/12/religion-and-politics/#comment-2162 George DW Sat, 06 Dec 2008 03:09:14 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/?p=308#comment-2162 Good to see you back mate, and I like the new style of short posts. It is indeed impossible to fully divorce religion and politics, because not only is there no practical way to stop politicians- much less voters- from having their votes informed by their personal beliefs, but it would be fundamentally wrong to try. What we can do is attempt to change those beliefs by rational persuasion, but in the meantime both the electorate and the elected have the right to their beliefs and the right to vote based on them. This is where the courts come in. People are entitled to vote based on their beliefs, but that does not mean they are entitled to have laws passed that violate the constitution. If a law is passed that, say, abridges the constitutional rights of a minority, it does not matter by what margin the law was passed or how fervent its supporters. The courts must strike it down. That's not judicial activism. That's the judicial system's <b>job</b>. Good to see you back mate, and I like the new style of short posts.

It is indeed impossible to fully divorce religion and politics, because not only is there no practical way to stop politicians- much less voters- from having their votes informed by their personal beliefs, but it would be fundamentally wrong to try. What we can do is attempt to change those beliefs by rational persuasion, but in the meantime both the electorate and the elected have the right to their beliefs and the right to vote based on them.

This is where the courts come in. People are entitled to vote based on their beliefs, but that does not mean they are entitled to have laws passed that violate the constitution. If a law is passed that, say, abridges the constitutional rights of a minority, it does not matter by what margin the law was passed or how fervent its supporters. The courts must strike it down. That’s not judicial activism. That’s the judicial system’s job.

]]>