InvisibleBlack
Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Belief in climate change was given the same legal status as a religion in the UK a few weeks ago; indeed many of the arguments for climate change and the agenda it seeks in response to the threats it perceives are denounced as being akin to a religion by those who disagree with or question the whole premise. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html So my question is, given that the US Constitution forbids the government from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, should it not therefore be impossible for the current administration to undertake through legislative means any action that would support the climate change agenda in the US, without breaching this important aspect of the Constitution? And if such legislative means are impossible due to the constitutional prohibition, then should laws founded on the beliefs of older religions, as they regard homosexual marriage, abortion and so on, not find themselves at least equally unconstitutional? I say “at least” because it appears that whilst climate change and its agenda may seem religious in nature to some they may also be possible within the religious prohibition to frame as valid secular legislation, whereas laws prohibiting homosexual marriage, abortion and so are far more clearly religiously inspired than they are socially useful regulation. E For "global warming" to be considered as a religion and fall under the purview of the "Establishment Clause" it would have to be accepted by the United States government as a religion. It is not. Whatever other nations define it as is irrelevant. Were it to be accepted as a religion in the United States, then Al Gore could apply for tax exemption and people could take the "cap and trade" legislation to the Supreme Court under Establishment grounds - but that won't be happening anytime soon. As far as I am aware, homosexual marriage is not banned by the Federal government nor is it addressed by them in any way. The push for a "Defense of Marriage" law on the Federal level is for a Marriage Amendment - and amending the constitution to define marriage would, by definition, be constitutional. Abortion is a touchy issue but I would have to say, by a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the United States government does not have the power to ban, support, approve of, or deny abortions and so, technically, the Roe v. Wade finding was incorrect and any Federal law involving abortion in any way is unconstitutional. Then again - the Supreme Court found Social Security unconstitutional when FDR proposed it and there are probably thousands of active and popular programs that are technically unconstitutional. I'm not sure that something being "unconstitutional" is quite the flashpoint it once was.
< Message edited by InvisibleBlack -- 11/27/2009 3:04:23 PM >
_____________________________
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.
|