<p>They did--for 400 years. The Bible was always the #1 justification for slavery and black oppression.</p>
<p>actually...it really depends on the President...Clinton used the veto power like crazy, Bush hasn't used it once....but nontheless...presidents have substantial influence in lawmaking....the President's party firmly supports his policy goals MOST of the time...not all, as we saw most blatantly with Clinton...and..a majority of bills originate in some executive agency that is responsive to the president's policy goals.</p>
<p>Well...that was the "primitive stage" of U.S. politics...we no longer go by biblical representation, rather, popular representation!...i'll agree, Congress was less bitter in the past, but it was inherently bias towards the WASP principle, and I'm sure a majority (if not all the posters in this thread) can agree. Now, the U.S. is more secular, and diversity/tolerance has increased tenfold. I can honestly say, we're living up to our "Constitutional ideals" now more than ever!</p>
<p>"They did--for 400 years. The Bible was always the #1 justification for slavery and black oppression."</p>
<p>yes but I meant I could use that now....its not like i all of a sudden forgot our nations past lol.</p>
<p>"the President makes much of the law that's enacted on a yearly basis"
one post later.... "well ofcourse he can't make law himself..."</p>
<p>enough said. i feel sorry for your ignorance.</p>
<p>well sorry, we go by the Constitution...not the Bible....the Bible is for Church and has no place in the capitol or the whitehouse</p>
<p>and i meant the President formulates many of the bills throughout the year you idiot...i'm pretty sure i made that clear in my following posts...my "ignorance..." HAH....i am by no means ignorant...unlike several posters, like yourself, I've actually studied U.S. government very indepth...and actually...he does formulate much of the law enacted on a yearly basis...but he doesn't ENACT it singlehandedly....</p>
<p>well what we are trying to say is that it obviously should</p>
<p>it obviosly shouldn't....not everyone is Christian, and anyone that thinks we should use the Bible as a political doctrine is oblivious to the structure of U.S. politics.</p>
<p>"No one has given a rational argument against gay marriage--because there is none."</p>
<p>lol....okay. what's the rational argument against giving 14 year olds a drivers license? there is none. its only somoneones OPINION. So basically you are trying to prove yourself right by sayinging someting totally irrevelant..</p>
<p>thats not true.....christianity should not necessarily be a doctrine but it should be used for such things that are also morally wrong such as abortion.</p>
<p>"i am by no means ignorant...unlike several posters"</p>
<p>ALL HAIL nahrafsfa!! He is so much better than us! Thanks for being so arrogant and downplaying peoples opinions. I merely shined light on your follies. BTW I recieved a 5 on US Gov last year, so if according to the CollegeBaord I am extremely well qualified for that subject. Sit on that</p>
<p>i agree, that abortion is morally wrong in SOME cases....in the cases of rape, life of mother, and incest it is justified. otherwise, I don't support it....I think, if someone has sex, they should live with the consequences.</p>
<p>i said several posters like yourself :)...AP gov't gives you the basics, but it can't go in depth since you're "teaching by the test."</p>
<p>nahrafsfa...thanks again for proving me right. you contradicted yourself just up there in that post about the bible.</p>
<p>" think, if someone has sex, they should live with the consequences" however you stated just before that "in the cases of.. incest it is justified. otherwise, i dont support it (the bible)."</p>
<p>hey, isnt incest sex? oh i thought you said that if people have sex they should live with the consequences. wow</p>
<p>there are infact several intellegent posters...sempitern, GDWildner, jaug1, ucbenz, Alexandre just to name a few....</p>
<p>omg....that wasn't Biblical....anyone knows that incestual pregnancy yields harsh mental and physical defects in the child. and i was talking about not supporting abortion, not the bible....read things carefully sometimes...it could help you out in the long run</p>
<p>for the record...I'm not Christian...</p>
<p>however you still contradicted yourself, because incest is in fact sex...so i am right. its not my fault un-intelligent posters like yourself arent elaborate. </p>
<p>GAME OVER.</p>
<p>nor am i.......</p>
<p>how did i contradict myself?...if they have sex they should face the consequences yes, but babies born from incestual relations yield horrible birth defects and genetic mutations....i'd also like to add to my list where abortion is justified....whenever the child has a SERIOUS physical/mental defect where death after birth or a miscarriage along the line is very very very very likely....</p>
<p>and usually, incest is performed through rape by the father or brother...not willingly...AND incest is ILLEGAL according to U.S. law.</p>
<p>"christianity should not necessarily be a doctrine but it should be used for such things that are also morally wrong such as abortion."</p>
<p>Why? Christianity is one religion with one set of beliefs. Why should everyone have to obey to Christian morality in tenets of law?</p>
<p>exactly!...thank you knightmare!</p>