posted
I fully endorse politicians basing their judgements on their religious views. They just don't get to make any laws based solely on their religious views; they have to back it up. See the aforecited quotation from the Constitution.
edit to clarify: by making laws based on religious views, I mean making laws that model a specific practice based on a particular interpretation of a religious belief.
I'm okay with general moral sentiments carrying through.
Which is one reason I'm somewhat okay with (though I'd much rather it not be so) politicians not wanting homosexual people to marry as a violation of the morality of marriage. I just expect them to keep that prejudice out of the decision of whether or not to give homosexual partners a legal status similar to marriage, but not marriage.
posted
I just edited to fix some poor wording. I meant that if you were offended that I was laughing at what you said, I'd change it.
quote:Oh, and since when did God start marriage?
Right about the time He created mankind.
quote:Family life instituted by God?
Ditto.
quote:WRT endorsing any form of homosexual marriage being an endorsement of sin, the law endorses divorce, yet I don't hear you protesting that (Jesus was pretty clear on that being a great evil, even as he barely mentioned homosexuality).
Isn't this a straw man argument? Or maybe something else. I sometimes having problems keeping logical fallacies straight. This isn't a discussion about divorce.
Posts: 586 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
With the subject at hand, fugu, I agree that the current law that says a state does not have to honor a gay marriage will be found unconstitutional. They know this, that is why there is a push to make it an admendment. But untill the Supreme Court has a suit hit them they cannot deem it constitutional. With the current rate, advocates have about six years to get the admendment passed. I don't think it will. But our history is wrought with laws based on beliefs. Some see it as logic, now, but at that time it was very controversial with beliefs both ways.
Posts: 1244 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't America as clear on separation of church and state as we are in Canada?
Given that the only arguments against homosexual marriage are based on religion, doesn't that imply that they aren't valid when discussing the constitutionality of homosexual marriage?
Edit: the whole reason for church and state, at least here, is so that people who don't agree on the laws that God laid down can at least agree on the laws that the government lays down. The latter are easier to agree on because you can vote on them
posted
I'm attacking his logical consistency. If he says his argument is good when applied to one thing, but not when applied to another, then clearly he does not believe his own argument. This is a method of persuasion more than counterargument.
Perhaps God did create mankind. However, a good number of Christians (possibly even the majority) endorse the view that the creation account depicted in Genesis is allegorical, and thus arguing that all marriage descended from that isn't necessarily applicable even among Christians. Particular Catholics.
And if the argument is instead that since God created everything, he clearly created marriage even as it arose in non-Christian cultures, then clearly God created rape as well. Yet I do not see you supporting that. This is an argument of a similar type to that above (and does not apply if your argument was of the first type I discussed).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not only that, but when every bit of scientific evidence on the subject ever uncovered fails to support Genesis, and the vast majority supports a very different account, I find arguments that we base our laws off of it akin to suggesting we make it illegal to argue with the Bible.
quote:Isn't America as clear on separation of church and state as we are in Canada?
Apparently not. Some people believe it only means that there cannot be an official state religion, while others believe it to mean that religion must stay out government.
quote:And if the argument is instead that since God created everything, he clearly created marriage even as it arose in non-Christian cultures, then clearly God created rape as well. Yet I do not see you supporting that. This is an argument of a similar type to that above (and does not apply if your argument was of the first type I discussed).
I never even said that God created everything; you're putting words in my mouth.
posted
>> Apparently not. Some people believe it only means that there cannot be an official state religion, while others believe it to mean that religion must stay out government. << (Jon Boy)
Ah. Up north here there simply is no mention of religion in political circles. Those with religious beliefs (i.e., most people) still make political and legal arguments, not religious ones.
Even those damn Albertans.
Edit:
>> Actually, I don't know of anyone who thinks Genesis 1&2 are allegorical. Metaphorical, yes, allegorical, no. << (dkw)
I know someone, but he isn't religious.
>> I never even said that God created everything; you're putting words in my mouth. << (Jon Boy)
posted
Nonono, I was anticipating two possible arguments you might make for your "when God created it" statement.
One was that the account in Genesis (well, at least one of them) is literally true, and therefore all marriage and family life is descended from that state. I found this one most likely.
The other was that you were going to argue that God created everything, so clearly he created marriage.
I did not mean you believed one or the other, I meant if you believed one or the other I had a counterargument.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
DKW: I meant allegory in the more general sense, which is nearly synonymous with metaphor. Metaphor is likely a better word for it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't America as clear on separation of church and state as we are in Canada?
Well, I don't really know how you Trudeau-loving, Godless Canadians think, but (just kidding).....
Down here, we don't always agree on the meaning, and the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in our constitution.
Our constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
In my mind, that says government has to leave religions alone. Period.
Also in my mind, it says that people can bring their religious or any other belief in to any discussion they want to, political or otherwise.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pardon me. This took a while. If you've made simlar points you probably made them better than I.
1. Marriage was instituted by God. Governments may regulate it, but God started it.
If you believe in God then you believe everything was instituted by God. If you don't believe in God then nothing was instituted by God. Marriage is no different than a celery stick in this matter, or Race. The argument that man can not intervene in what God has ordained helped keep women in the kitchen, men in slavery, and genetically enhanced food off of the shelves.
2. Family life was also instituted by God.
See above.
3. His preference would be the following: Mom and Dad, happily married bring children into the world, tenderly nurture them, and teach them about Him. Together, this family arranges and designs its life in a way that draws them closer to God and to eachother.
How do you know what his preference is? LDS early founders, and old testament accounts show more of many Mom's and Dad, where the Mom's pull resources to raise and nurture the kids. Other people, from Wiccan's to Native Cultures have different, more community based families. Up until fifty years ago a wide arrangements of uncles, aunts, grand parents and others made up the family unit. In Indian culture they believe presently what you are stating, but that it is also their belief that the parents have a responsibility of arranging the marriage of thier children, and then can stay with the oldest until they die.
Your view of what God percieves as a perfect family is based more on your culture and your experience than on any divine revelation.
4. Sometimes through death, or divorce, or any number of tragedies, sometimes #3 just isn't going to happen. In that case, we do our best to make sure that people are properly nurtured and cared for and again drawn closer to God.
If the main reason to outlaw gay marriages is because they will not lead to bringing a person closer to God, should we also outlaw Athiest marriages? Communist Marriages? What of marriages that are sanctioned by a different, hence false, view of God?
More specifically, if Tom and June are raising little Billy and Jane to be aethiests, do we have the right to remove them from that house and put them in a good religious home?
5. Other forms of "union" or "marriage" (especially the homosexual variety) will cheapen the overall attitude of society toward the divinely-ordained structure of marriage and family life. It won't necessarily affect any given marriage or family. But, an overall cavelier attitude of society toward the divinely instituted family structure will make this appropriate structure much more difficult to obtain or maintain.
Divorce cheapens the idea of marriage much more thoroughly than homosexual unions. Should we move it illegalize them? No. They serve a need to remove bad unions.
Basically, your religion is defining (without strong biblical support) what is and isn't "appropriate structure".
If we are allowed to fear anarchy enough to stop Homosexual unions because they are not "appropriate structure" what happens when someone else brings up other laws which may lead to "innappropriate structures" as in inter-racial marriage, divorce, single motherhood or police involvement in Domestic Disputes?
6. After all is said and done, homosexual ACTS are a sin. People can feel free to engage in sin as they see fit. But I am a member of this society, and I don't want my society to outright condone the acts of people who are living in sin and who boldly flaut the laws of God.
Other sins that the government condones, depending on your religion: Eating Pork (Pork Subsidies), Eating Beef (Beef Subsidies), Birth Control (FDA regulation of Birth Control medicines), Breaking the Sabbath (Many government agencies work 24/7 including on Sundays), The Drinking of Alcohol (FDA), etc. etc.
Besides, many biblical scholars argue that Homosexuality is not a sin. Instead the sin is either sleeping around wantonly, selling your body for sex, or older men training young boys into sex (as the Greeks did during biblical times). Homosexual marriages stop those sins.
7. I most certainly do not approve of anyone who would physically, emotionally, verbally, or otherwise attack a homosexual person. I would try to protect them to the best of my ability, if I were to be aware of such behavior.
That's just what President Bush was saying. "The act is wrong but the people are good."
But how about these real scenarios: The person you are in love with and have been sharing your home with for twenty years goes into the hospital emergency room. Since you are not "officially" family, you are not allowed to go in there and be with him, or to find out his status. Instead the doctors call the next of kin, his father who disowned him and hasn't spoken to him since the truth came out about his orientation.
He has been taking care of the home for a year. Your income has supported you both easily, but you are unable to include him in your healthcare because you are not married. The bills from this hospital stay drive you to bankruptcy.
Your love dies. The home the two of you have purchased after twenty years of saving and working must be sold. He left it to you in his will, but since you are not married there is a tremendous inheritance tax on it.
There are ways that people get hurt, sinners as you see them, that have nothing to do with sticks and stones. This overtight definition of marriage will hurt people, homosexual people, more cruelly than any verbal attack any fool could throw at them. You said you would do what you could to stop someone from being attacked. Will you honor that promise by standing up and trying to stop this ban on homosexual marriages?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can it not be said of homosexuals that they "believe" in homosexual marriage, and that their belief system constitutes a "religion"? Would their actions toward marriage therefore be protected under the "or prohibit the free excercise thereof" clause?
See, it's fine and dandy to believe whatever you want to believe about them. But to force your morality on them is not only "unamerican", it's immoral.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe that all of Genesis is literally true, though I do believe that God created Adam and Even, married them, and commanded them to have a family.
quote:Even those damn Albertans.
So what's with the hostility towards Albertans? I don't know a whole lot about Canadian politics, but I've seen this sentiment pop up a few times. I'm quite curious because most of the Canadians I know are Albertan.
quote:If you believe in God then you believe everything was instituted by God.
Not true. Many things have been instituted by people.
Caleb: Don't we basically force our morality on everyone? You can't just say, "I have different beliefs, so I can do whatever I want." Society creates limits of acceptable behavior, and everyone has to follow those.
[ July 31, 2003, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
I think some people disagree over this word. Digging out the OED: to have regard or relationship to, or connection with, something. That seems a decent enough working definition, though I'd be open to alternate proposals.
an establishment
An even more controversial word. Historically (that is, around the time of the Consitution's writing) it could mean either an entire organization or a rule of an organization
of religion
Pretty straightforward.
The question becomes, which of the two meanings of establishment were meant? (also: does it matter what was meant, or merely what could be meant, but that's a much bigger issue, and I think most people arguing that it only means upholding a particular religion would agree that the relevant issue is what was meant).
Since they didn't say, yet both usages were fairly common at the time, my personal opinion is that they meant both.
However, even the other definition can be used to support a view that gay marriage should not be legally opposed purely on religious grounds. If there is a religion which advocates gay marriage, then clearly writing a law which opposes gay marriage based purely on the lawmakers' religious beliefs is putting their religion before the other. (Note the based purely on religious beliefs; I am not arguing that any law which contradicts any religion is unconstitutional).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Dan brings up a good point wrt the old testament: if the bible is to be believed, clearly there are cases (or have been cases) when having a mistress is okay, at the very least.
Yet now that is a sin.
So perhaps there are cases when engaging in homosexual conduct isn't a sin.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even those damn Albertans. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what's with the hostility towards Albertans?
Alberta was settled the way Idaho and Southern Utah was - by settlers under direction of Brigham Young. Alberta more closely resembles Southern Idaho in demographics and politics than Ontario.
I think twinky was tweeking you.
Maybe not a good idea.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not true. Many things have been instituted by people.
If you believe in God, the creater of the universe, then you believe that God created the people who instituted the things--hence they were only working the will of God.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Caleb: Don't we basically force our morality on everyone? You can't just say, "I have different beliefs, so I can do whatever I want." Society creates limits of acceptable behavior, and everyone has to follow those.
Yes, well, society does have certain rights and obligations. Powers, one might say.
But the first ammendment of the Constitution bars the government (the organization which represents society) from making laws respecting religion. That's why the US can't tell you that you can only eat fish on Friday. Or that you have to give up your electricity. Or that you have to be in church on Sunday.
UNLESS there was a compelling non-religious reason for restricting Friday meals to fish. Same with all the others.
Thus, Congress can tell you that you HAVE to pay your taxes no matter what you believe. It cannot tell you, however, that you HAVE to follow the Judeo-Christian method of family/marriage.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> So what's with the hostility towards Albertans? I don't know a whole lot about Canadian politics, but I've seen this sentiment pop up a few times. I'm quite curious because most of the Canadians I know are Albertan. << (Jon Boy)
>> I think twinky was tweeking you. <<
kat is wise.
There certainly is quite a bit of anti-Albertan sentiment in various parts of Canada. As a born and bred Nova Scotian, it's more or less my obligation to be anti-Alberta simply because Albertans are anti-Atlantic Canada.
Now, as to the reasons:
Alberta is one of Canada's richest provinces. They're so rich that they don't even have a provincial sales tax (unlike every single other province in Canada). The East Coast provinces are universally poor and thus get much more money, relatively speaking, from the Federal Government (Equalization Payments, they're called). Albertans resent having their money pay for propping up the poorer provinces.
This is largely because Alberta is overwhelmingly conservative (Another black mark against them ).
Alberta's Premier, Ralph Klein (who has been Premier for as long as anyone can remember ) is a notourious drunkard (though now he's sworn off and is cleaning up his act a bit). One wonders why they keep electing him, especially when he's being chauffeured around in his government car and gets out, drunk off his ass, to shout "get a job" at homeless people on the streets of Calgary.
Yes, he has done this.
Alberta has violated Canada's constitution by trying to allow private hosptitals to open. They were smacked down pretty hard by the Federal Government, and rightly so. Private hospitals aren't allowed in this country, Premier Klein must have suddenly forgotten that or something.
Basically, Alberta as a whole is much more like an American state than any of the other provinces, and has a tendency to forget that this isn't America.
Edit: BTW, I also have Albertan friends. Most of them share my (dim) view of Alberta. But the Alberta-East Coast trash talk is (mostly) just that, at least in my circle of friends.
posted
And here's something else that really gets my goat.
For all you folks who think it's perfectly acceptable for Congress to make laws discriminating against non-majority beliefs, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU WANT CONGRESS MAKING LAWS FROM A RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW?
You agree with it THIS TIME. Allowing the government to force-place this morality is alright because it falls neatly in line with your belief system. But if you allow it, you establish a dangerous precedent. What if the NEXT religiously inspired Congressional action is perfectly fine with Methodists, but abbherent to Latter Day Saints? People don't agree on religion, that's why we don't call the Bible the Supreme Law of the Land.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you believe in God then you believe everything was instituted by God.
Really? I don't believe that "because God created everything, He created marriage."
I just believe that, among His many acts, He gave us the institution of marriage. He has defined how He wants marriage and family to be "in a perfect world."
Nice straw-man attempt, though.
Your view of what God percieves as a perfect family is based more on your culture and your experience than on any divine revelation.
Perhaps. But it is nevertheless based upon divine revelation.
If the main reason to outlaw gay marriages is because they will not lead to bringing a person closer to God
The main reason for not allowing gay marriages is because God has defined what marriage is, and it is not between two men or two women.
Divorce cheapens the idea of marriage much more thoroughly than homosexual unions.
I disagree. As bad as divorce is, allowing homosexual marriage would be worse. Divorce is an established fact, but gay marriages are not, and can still be prevented.
If we are allowed to fear anarchy enough to stop Homosexual unions because they are not "appropriate structure"
Perhaps instead of saying "inappropriate structure" we should say "structure not in accordance with divine will."
Besides, many biblical scholars argue that Homosexuality is not a sin.
Yes. But those scholars would be wrong, no matter how many degrees they have.
Homosexuality itself is not a sin, but homosexual ACTS are.
Homosexual marriages stop those sins.
No they don't; any more than heterosexual marriages prevent adultery.
But how about these real scenarios: The person you are in love with and have been sharing your home with for twenty years goes into the hospital emergency room. Since you are not "officially" family, you are not allowed to go in there and be with him, or to find out his status.
If they have been together for 20 years, why don't they have a legal document drawn up giving their partner such authority? It is easily done.
Nice false melodramatic attempt, though. Such things rarely happen today. I have visited many people in hospitals, and no one ever challenges my presence.
He has been taking care of the home for a year. Your income has supported you both easily, but you are unable to include him in your healthcare because you are not married. The bills from this hospital stay drive you to bankruptcy.
Please. Most companies allow same-sex partners to be on the insurance policy. I am not at all opposed to that, BTW.
And how can his bills drive you to bankruptcy? If his parents signed him in, and you aren't allowed to be around, how can you possibly be on the hook at all?
Again, nice Donahue attempt.
Your love dies. The home the two of you have purchased after twenty years of saving and working must be sold. He left it to you in his will, but since you are not married there is a tremendous inheritance tax on it.
Again, why aren't you doing appropriate estate planning? He can deed a portion of it over to you tax-free every year.
If both of your names are on the deed, it doesn't even need to be probated in some states.
There are ways that people get hurt, sinners as you see them, that have nothing to do with sticks and stones.
And there are ways to avoid those hurts, if the two are truly dedicated to eachother for 20 years as you say.
This overtight definition of marriage will hurt people, homosexual people, more cruelly than any verbal attack any fool could throw at them.
For this hurt, I am sorry. I don't make the rules; God does. He has said that homosexual acts are sins and that marriage is instituted between men and women.
You said you would do what you could to stop someone from being attacked. Will you honor that promise by standing up and trying to stop this ban on homosexual marriages?
No. But I probably won't say much about it publicly. Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically, Alberta as a whole is much more like an American state than any of the other provinces, and has a tendency to forget that this isn't America.
Have they ever thought about seceeding?
We need a couple extra conservative senators.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just didn't know enough about Albert to fully get the joke.
Well, Albert was a German prince who married his cousin, Queen Victoria. It looks like a love match - at least on her part. He just sort hung on the fringes of politics, though, because of his German background. All of the other reindeer wouldn't let him join in their governmental games.
posted
There are a lot of "I beleives" in your statement. There were a lot of "I believes" in mine. We beleive differently.
There are people who believe that a marriage not performed by a Priest in a Catholic Church are not real marriages. There are people who believe that marriages not perfomed by a Rabbi in true the Hebrew, are not real marriages. There are people who believe that marriages made without parental permision, no matter what age of the bride and groom, are not real marriages. There are a few people in Beverley Hills that say that marriages in which you don't spend at least $100,000 are not real marriages.
My marriage met none of those criteria, so to them I am living in as much sin as two men or two women who live together.
Where do we draw the line?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is no one denouncing this hypothetical law that the president is pushing for as an usurpation of state's rights? As HDD already mentioned, there's already a law on the books which says it is a state right. If the situation was reversed and there was a liberal president proposing legislation that would force all states to recognize homosexual marriage, you can be DAMN sure that state's rights would be brought up. Why not now?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you Storm. The only right that the feds can impose is the definition of the constitution that states that all states must reconize the rights and licences given to individuals in other states. This is what Ultra-conservatives want to change. They want the state to have the right to disregard the license of gay marriage given to a couple from another state. The Federal government cannot enact a law that forces a state to give a license for gay marriage. They can only, through a admendment, give the right to states to NOT honor the license of gay marriage of other states.
quote:Down here, we don't always agree on the meaning, and the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in our constitution. Our constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; In my mind, that says government has to leave religions alone. Period.
Sweet William.
Separationist scholar Leo Pfeffer:
quote:"No magic attaches to a particular verbalization of an underlying concept. The concept at issue here is more accurately expressed in Madison's phrase 'separation between Religion and Government,' or in the popular maxim that 'religion is a private matter.'" (Church, State, and Freedom, pp. 118-119). (T)he phrase "Bill of Rights" has become a convenient term to designate the freedoms guaranteed in the first ten amendments; yet it would be the height of captiousness to argue that the phrase does not appear in the Constitution. Similarly, the right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term "fair trial" is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer to home, who would deny that "religious liberty" is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including "separation of church and state," have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles. "
Separation of church and state as a constitiutional principle has been affirmed by the Supreme Court for over two hundred years.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Don't start, twinky, because Jacare will jump in here and dump his "no society makes laws without a basis in religion" argument on the thread, and it'll be all over from there.
You're confusing my position. The argument is that no society makes laws without a basis in morals, and morals are simply a code of allowable behavior agreed upon by the majority of the people in a community.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also in my mind, it says that people can bring their religious or any other belief in to any discussion they want to, political or otherwise
Sweet William. True. But if they want to pass a law that will pass constitutional muster, they better have better legal arguments than "God says so." Not meant to simplify your position, Sweet William. But a lot of people on your side of the argument think that ends the matter.
posted
Also, Sweet William, while you did a good job making fun of Dan's #7 point, all of those things and more can be major problems for homosexual couples denied a legal civil union.
And how can his bills drive you to bankruptcy? If his parents signed him in, and you aren't allowed to be around, how can you possibly be on the hook at all?--SW The scenario stated that the ill partner was taken care of at home for a year. A father that has disowned his son because he's gay would be unlikely to send money to his partner to help in his care. Without insurance coverage that would drive most people broke. I am glad to hear you don't oppose partners getting health care, but I doubt if half of the employers in America offer it. The legal preventives you mentioned are true, but most people, straight or gay, don't think of them until it's too late. I am straight but I believe a civil union law would be just.
I think the big problem in America is that many people believe they have moral authority to speak for God and to speak above all others, but in truth, ain't nobody in this country has any moral authority about much of any thing.
Let's take the issue of the "sacredness of marriage", um, ah, what the hell does this mean? I realize what it's supposed to mean in fantasy terms, or in an ideal universe, but I don't know how it applies to real life.
I understand that people believe that marriage is an act between a man and a woman, but then along those lines, with the "sacredness" of marriage, shouldn't you only be allowed to marry once?
This would give the puritanical brigade a lot more weight of word if they put thier money where their mouth is, it might even bring back a bit of the "sacredness". Personally, I do not believe that a group of people who have made a mockery on marriage should be allowed to give big old speeches on the morals of America and what is so "sacred" about marriage.
It's always funny to me to hear people spout off about how GOD is and should affect all of the laws, well, then OK, fine, let's do that shall we? Let us go by the book, and we'll let God run our country, ooopps, no can do, because that means we'd have to go by all of the ways of God, and we'd pretty much have to scrap out capitalist system 100%.
...but then this issue isn't about how God feels about all things, this issue isn't even about marriage, this issue is about homosexual marriage.
Sure. It's based in Love, but it's between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, so it should be against the law, because that's what the constitution says, right?
quote:You're confusing my position. The argument is that no society makes laws without a basis in morals, and morals are simply a code of allowable behavior agreed upon by the majority of the people in a community.
No confusion at all, Jacare. I was just simplifying your argument a little. What YOU seem to be confused about, however, is that sometimes there are issues that arise involving multiple and conflicting morals. Equal protection and rights of the minority are morals that the majority believes in, too. Which do you think ought to win out in a court of law? Or even in a house of legislature? Obviously it is not legal to ban Islamic marriages. But wouldn't that be a great way to hinder home-spun terrorism?
Even if such a ludicrous idea were in line with the moral majority, our society has other--higher--imperatives.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Separation of church and state as a constitiutional principle has been affirmed by the Supreme Court for over two hundred years.
Okay, the actual phrase doesn't appear.
Of course, that doesn't mean the concept isn't in there, and I wasn't saying that.
Some people think "separation of church and state" means that we cannot take religious values, attitudes, what-have-you, into consideration when making our laws.
Such is not the case. IMHO, the U.S. constitution prevents government from medling in churches' affairs. It does not prevent those with a religious viewpoint from attempting to have that viewpoint expressed somehow in the laws of their society.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
