Texas decide to take a few steps back into 18th century

[Aepervius]

http://us.cnn.com/2017/05/07/us/texas-religious-freedom-adoption/index.html

Basically if the reading of the bill is correct, a catholic child care provider can refuse adoption to an atheist, gay, or LGBT parent on religious ground. The tidbit about refusing teen abortion on religious ground is as disgusting.

This is why I think the US approach is utterly flawed. It does not allow for a proper separation of church and state, and the states far too often sneak in religion in the backdoor.

I prefer other country approach on secularism : if you are employed by the state, you cannot base any decision on religion. Point. Not "if" or "but".

 

[thaiboxerken]

That is the Republican party for you. They are always trying to give power to the church over the people.

 

[Darat]

That is the Republican party for you. They are always trying to give power to the church over the people.

Government small enough to sneak into your bedroom.

 

[abaddon]

Government small enough to sneak into your bedroom.

Heavens, no. Those people want to sneak into everyone's underpants with a camera.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

American Taliban, enforcing its rule.

 

[smartcooky]

This is the fundamental flaw of a system which allows individual states the right to make Laws that pertain to the people. I find it preposterous that in a country which calls itself civilized, that some States have the death penalty and some don't; some allow abortions and some don't, that the same crimes in different States carry different punishments, and that even legal procedures are different from State to State. Its the sort of haphazard tribal system I would expect to find in a third world country such as Bangladesh or Ethiopia or Rwanda.

IMO, such Laws should be Federal and be applied equally throughout the whole of the 50 states. The only Laws that individual states ought to be allowed to make are By-Laws, or Laws pertaining to some uniqueness of that state, for example, building codes might be different from state to state because of weather or other environmental conditions, or traffic Laws might be different because of some special road conditions. States ought not to be allowed to make Laws that directly contravene Federal Law.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I live in a redneck county in NoCal where people automatically reject anything that comes from politicians. Just yesterday, I saw a pickup truck spouting black smoke from the exhaust (which is done on purpose) because "Washington" has restrictions on emissions.

Just look at the backlash Michelle Obama got for her cause for better food standards for children. Such a benign thing to be upset about, but people got pissed because she had the temerity to think that health standards for children should be higher. How dare she!

 

[ahhell]

This is the fundamental flaw of a system which allows individual states the right to make Laws that pertain to the people. I find it preposterous that in a country which calls itself civilized, that some States have the death penalty and some don't; some allow abortions and some don't, that the same crimes in different States carry different punishments, and that even legal procedures are different from State to State. Its the sort of haphazard tribal system I would expect to find in a third world country such as Bangladesh or Ethiopia or Rwanda.

IMO, such Laws should be Federal and be applied equally throughout the whole of the 50 states. The only Laws that individual states ought to be allowed to make are By-Laws, or Laws pertaining to some uniqueness of that state, for example, building codes might be different from state to state because of weather or other environmental conditions, or traffic Laws might be different because of some special road conditions. States ought not to be allowed to make Laws that directly contravene Federal Law.

This makes wonder how german federalism or canadian federalism works. I expect there are numerous state laws that you would find objectionable their as well. Also, you think its barbaric that a nation has states with different laws regarding the death penalty, I assume that means a nation that uniformly allows the death penalty would be civilized?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

This makes wonder how german federalism or canadian federalism works. I expect there are numerous state laws that you would find objectionable their as well. Also, you think its barbaric that a nation has states with different laws regarding the death penalty, I assume that means a nation that uniformly allows the death penalty would be civilized?

Smartcocky lives in New Zealand, a country which is objectively more civilized than the US.

The Death Penalty is barbaric - which is why America is one of the few developed nations that still has it. Even Russia has stopped. Russia! Smartcocky would be perfectly justified in finding the US system objectionable.

 

[Segnosaur]

This is why I think the US approach is utterly flawed. It does not allow for a proper separation of church and state...

If the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state they would have added it to the constitution.

Instead, they created a bill of rights that starts with the 2nd amendment.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is the fundamental flaw of a system which allows individual states the right to make Laws that pertain to the people. I find it preposterous that in a country which calls itself civilized, that some States have the death penalty and some don't; some allow abortions and some don't, that the same crimes in different States carry different punishments, and that even legal procedures are different from State to State. Its the sort of haphazard tribal system I would expect to find in a third world country such as Bangladesh or Ethiopia or Rwanda.

Is it also preposterous that members of the EU have different laws?

IMO, such Laws should be Federal and be applied equally throughout the whole of the 50 states. The only Laws that individual states ought to be allowed to make are By-Laws, or Laws pertaining to some uniqueness of that state, for example, building codes might be different from state to state because of weather or other environmental conditions, or traffic Laws might be different because of some special road conditions. States ought not to be allowed to make Laws that directly contravene Federal Law.

Just for a bit of balance... The ability of states to make laws within their boundaries is also why we have gay marriage, euthanasia, and legalized weed.

 

[logger]

I live in a redneck county in NoCal where people automatically reject anything that comes from politicians. Just yesterday, I saw a pickup truck spouting black smoke from the exhaust (which is done on purpose) because "Washington" has restrictions on emissions.

Just look at the backlash Michelle Obama got for her cause for better food standards for children. Such a benign thing to be upset about, but people got pissed because she had the temerity to think that health standards for children should be higher. How dare she!

Well, we on the right don't need to be led around by the nanny state.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Well, we on the right don't need to be led around by the nanny state.

The red states seem to love Federal money, though.

 

[xjx388]

This is the fundamental flaw of a system which allows individual states the right to make Laws that pertain to the people. I find it preposterous that in a country which calls itself civilized, that some States have the death penalty and some don't; some allow abortions and some don't, that the same crimes in different States carry different punishments, and that even legal procedures are different from State to State. Its the sort of haphazard tribal system I would expect to find in a third world country such as Bangladesh or Ethiopia or Rwanda.

What if those laws were something that a sizable minority didn't support? For example, what if federal law called for a ban on the death penalty and a ban on elective abortion after the 12th week, like most of our friends in Europe have? If we moved to a national set of laws that States couldn't override, I don't see any guarantee that the resultant code would be agreeable to everyone across the country. Having a federal system allows the Fed to set the broad strokes and States to fill in the details as their population sees fit. 'One law to rule them all,' doesn't seem like a very sane way of doing it.

IMO, such Laws should be Federal and be applied equally throughout the whole of the 50 states. The only Laws that individual states ought to be allowed to make are By-Laws, or Laws pertaining to some uniqueness of that state, for example, building codes might be different from state to state because of weather or other environmental conditions, or traffic Laws might be different because of some special road conditions. States ought not to be allowed to make Laws that directly contravene Federal Law.

This just doesn't seem workable or even enforceable across the country. What do we even need States for then? Those "unique laws" you talk about could just be handled by the Feds through regional offices. I don't think you will find most Americans agreeable to this sort of system.

And saying that we are somehow "uncivilized" or "third-world" isn't likely to win you many converts.

 

[marplots]

This is the fundamental flaw of a system which allows individual states the right to make Laws that pertain to the people. I find it preposterous that in a country which calls itself civilized, that some States have the death penalty and some don't; some allow abortions and some don't, that the same crimes in different States carry different punishments, and that even legal procedures are different from State to State. Its the sort of haphazard tribal system I would expect to find in a third world country such as Bangladesh or Ethiopia or Rwanda.

IMO, such Laws should be Federal and be applied equally throughout the whole of the 50 states. The only Laws that individual states ought to be allowed to make are By-Laws, or Laws pertaining to some uniqueness of that state, for example, building codes might be different from state to state because of weather or other environmental conditions, or traffic Laws might be different because of some special road conditions. States ought not to be allowed to make Laws that directly contravene Federal Law.

There's an ironic note here. Texas just enacted a state law meant to tighten up what their member cities are allowed to do. They want laws and enforcement to be equalized across the state - one of this "sanctuary city" nonsense and no "lowering enforcement priority" for minor drug offenses.

 

[fuelair]

http://us.cnn.com/2017/05/07/us/texas-religious-freedom-adoption/index.html

Basically if the reading of the bill is correct, a catholic child care provider can refuse adoption to an atheist, gay, or LGBT parent on religious ground. The tidbit about refusing teen abortion on religious ground is as disgusting.

This is why I think the US approach is utterly flawed. It does not allow for a proper separation of church and state, and the states far too often sneak in religion in the backdoor.

I prefer other country approach on secularism : if you are employed by the state, you cannot base any decision on religion. Point. Not "if" or "but".

I am quite certain most Texans prefer the backdoor for most of their politicians, republickers and religious. Clearly a trip up the old chute is the path to god for them!!!!!

 

[Minoosh]

The Death Penalty is barbaric - which is why America is one of the few developed nations that still has it. Even Russia has stopped. Russia!

There was a de facto end to the death penalty in the U.S. until Gary Gilmore demanded to be executed. A lot of things have regressed since the '70s.

I'm not sure I understand this Texas law. Does it apply to adoption organizations that accept no public funding? Refusing to place kids with gay couples IMO should not be a deal-breaker because you would eliminate some wonderful parents. But should, say, "Catholic Adoption Services" be allowed to preferentially place kids with Catholic families, if no public money is involved? If I had my way I would not let a little baby go to parents who are extreme religious fundamentalists. That's discrimination, but are private adoption agencies not allowed to discriminate?

Maybe I'm naive - maybe public money is always involved. I'm pretty sure it wasn't when my mother adopted 2 of my brothers in the 1950s.

 

[Ziggurat]

The Death Penalty is barbaric - which is why America is one of the few developed nations that still has it. Even Russia has stopped. Russia!

Russia hasn't stopped. They just do it off the books now, and for journalists and opposition figures.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is the fundamental flaw of a system which allows individual states the right to make Laws that pertain to the people. I find it preposterous that in a country which calls itself civilized, that some States have the death penalty and some don't; some allow abortions and some don't

All states allow abortion. That's been the case ever since Roe v. Wade.

 

[Ziggurat]

Just look at the backlash Michelle Obama got for her cause for better food standards for children. Such a benign thing to be upset about, but people got pissed because she had the temerity to think that health standards for children should be higher. How dare she!

You seem to have confused intentions with results. Her intentions may have been to improve the health of children, but that doesn't mean that's what happened. Take for example the sodium restrictions that Michelle pushed for. That's to make kids healthier, right? Except it now turns out that sodium doesn't have the negative health consequences the government kept claiming. Michelle was making food taste like crap for no actual benefit.

Government efforts to control American diets have been on the whole a disaster.