posted
Hey. Sweet William. Which religion do you give your faith to?
You use "divine revelation" as an excuse assuming your "divine revelation" was spread out amongst all people, not just your own specific, individual person and religion.
[ July 31, 2003, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: The Silverblue Sun ]
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: 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.
Sweet William. IMHO, is that in my holy opinion or humble?
Although I am not enough of a scholar to defend it, seperation of church and state does go beyond keeping government out of churches, it also keeps religion out of government. It goes both ways.
[edit:I do agree that those with religious viewpoints can attempt to express them via laws. But if it's strictly religious it should be struck down as unconstitional.]
posted
Storm, you are correct. I don't understand why Bush is asking for a "law." Clearly, such a law on a federal level (IMHO) is unconstitutional. If he were truly serious about the thing, he would call for a constitutional ammendment.
Also, Sweet William, while you did a good job making fun of Dan's #7 point
Sorry, that was sort of mean, but some of the points were just a tad over the top. Let's just please get over the drama and quit trying to overstate the case here.
all of those things and more can be major problems for homosexual couples denied a legal civil union.
Yes, but my point was that they were handleable legally.
The scenario stated that the ill partner was taken care of at home for a year.
My bad. I mis-read. I thought he had said that the partner had taken care of the home for a year, as in a stay-at-home spouse. Sorry for my mistake.
I doubt if half of the employers in America offer it.
Like I said, I am in favor of it. Morally, I think it is good. Also, it will help the company to increase employee loyalty, and reduce absenteeism, so it is a wise fiscal move as well.
The legal preventives you mentioned are true, but most people, straight or gay, don't think of them until it's too late.
That is unfortunate. However, it is not necessarily good for our society to authorize same-sex marriages just because a certain group of people may not properly plan for their future.
I mean, they've been together for 20 years. Did they expect that the "evil father" (another dramatic device, IMHO) would suddenly change and allow them in the hospital room? Did they think that they would never get sick and go to the hospital?
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMHO, is that in my holy opinion or humble?
I am the last person on earth that anyone should refer to as "holy." Hillarious opinion maybe?
...seperation of church and state does go beyond keeping government out of churches, it also keeps religion out of government. It goes both ways.
Sorry, but you're just wrong. If I am a member of this society, and I have a religious viewpoint, I am perfectly justified in seeking to have my viewpoint reflected in the laws of my society.
How can you stop that? I mean really, how?
Just saw your edit
Could you please give an example (besides same-sex marriage) of something that would be purely religious and therefore unconstitutional?
If an idea is good for society, even if the underpinnings of that idea are purely religious, is that idea not still good for society?
[ July 31, 2003, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Sweet William ]
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, the scenario was worst case and somewhat over the top.
HDD, there are some discrepencies. And atheists (I am not an atheist) have been trying to change what you mentioned for generations.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly, The athiest have been trying to force their opinions and views on religion on everyone else.
"Seperation of church and state," is realitively new. It is simply an opinion of how the constitution reads. It is not Constitutional and the definition can change with a change of justices, who are the ones who judge the constitutionality of anything.
Edit to clarify, that the current rulings would indicate that the courts are inclined to define this as complete seperation and that is constitutional until another suit is brought before the courts and the definition is changed or upheld.
posted
HDD: strange, and here I thought all the Supreme Court justices were Christian. And now I learn that the majority are atheist. What a sad fool I was.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Oh, I can see my problem, The first part was meant tongue in cheek. I will fix it, sorry. I was saying that the current definition is complete seperation. That can change.
Posts: 1244 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is my opinion that Church and State need to be seperate. I agree with no one impossing their religous beliefs on my children in a public school setting.
I just do not think that it is possible for anyone to dislocate themselves from their religous beliefs as a base for judgement.
Posts: 1244 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The athiest have been trying to force their opinions and views on religion on everyone else. "seperation of church and state," is realitively new.
HDD, I should've said atheists and believers, including Christians, have been trying to change what you mentioned. And don't many Christians want to force their beliefs on US society? Jefferson coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in 1802.
quote: Religious Right activists have tried for decades to make light of Jefferson's "wall of separation" response to the Danbury Baptists, attempting to dismiss it as a hastily written note designed to win the favor of a political constituency. But a glance at the history surrounding the letter shows they are simply wrong.
As church-state scholar Pfeffer points out, Jefferson clearly saw the letter as an opportunity to make a major pronouncement on church and state. Before sending the missive, Jefferson had it reviewed by Levi Lincoln, his attorney general. Jefferson told Lincoln he viewed the response as a way of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."
At the time he wrote the letter, Jefferson was under fire from conservative religious elements who hated his strong stand for full religious liberty. Jefferson saw his response to the Danbury Baptists as an opportunity to clear up his views on church and state. Far from being a mere courtesy, the letter represented a summary of Jefferson's thinking on the purpose and effect of the First Amendment's religion clauses.
Jefferson's Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision the high court said Jefferson's observations "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In the court's 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church and state.
posted
I just do not think that it is possible for anyone to dislocate themselves from their religous beliefs as a base for judgement.--HDD I agree. Objectivity is often sought after but rarely found.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If he were truly serious about the thing, he would call for a constitutional ammendment.
Yeah, and that's what most social conservatives that I've heard discuss the matter are shooting for. I'm sure Bush will clarify himself real soon.
/flameon
*pounds head on desk*
So, this would make the second time that social conservatives have screwed with the constitution to make it fit their agenda. Super.
Social conservatives on this board, do you really for true think that this issue calls for a constitutional amendment? Is this going to be like just before prohibition where something like 80% of the country was already dry, but that wasn't enough, you had to make sure everyone was in lock step with your desires?
The situation is pretty much the same here. Marriage between gay people isn't going to be widely accepted any time soon. Currently, there are only, what, two states in the union that allow anything like *civil unions* between gay people. Does this situation really call for a constitutional amendment? Why even talk about state's rights when you ignore them at your convenience and muscle through legislation to make everyone else jump to your tune?
Orson talks about 'letting the people decide'. Let the states try out ideas in the national laboratory and then if the idea has merit, it will take root. You liberals with your pocket judges! Don't force your will down our throat because that's unconstitutional!
You know what, it's pretty clear to me that some social conservatives really don't give a rat's ass about the constitution accept as a tool for them to make sure that nothing ever changes. Yeah, it might be 'constitutional' to push an amendment through, but so are state's rights. So is individual freedom and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
What is the constitution for? Is it to express the will of the people such that the ideals of the constitution are expressed in the best way possible, or is it to just express the will of the people no matter what?
Pushing an amendment like this one through will just underline to the rest of us the fact that state's rights are a joke to you except when it's convenient, because when it looks like the states might actually, Bob forbid, do something you disagree with, you'll just swoop in and make them dance to your tune anyway.
I know I am not writing this post in as diplomatic a way as it could be written, and I'm sorry for that, but these thoughts have been kind of festering inside me for a long time.
/flameoff
ps
SweetWilliam, I know you didn't say one way or another how you felt about a constitutional amendment. I just used your post as a springboard to vent. Thanks.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo it still is realitivly ne compared to the age of the earth.
I never was good at history. Does not change that the supreme court can re-define the 1st admendment.
Posts: 1244 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
The above post was addressed to those social conservatives who support a constitutional amendment on this issue. I recognize that not all social conservatives do.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol You're a good egg, HDD. Reading all those crazy Jack Chick comics gives me the impression most christians are like that. Not true, certainly not at HR.
posted
The funny thing is that I was talking with Pat this morning and I was telling him how I never post on a political thread. I geuss I blew that.
Posts: 1244 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So is individual freedom and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Actually, the last three are in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. That is unfortunate, but very important to remember.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just used your post as a springboard to vent. Thanks. --Storm
Ditto. I am a natural critic. Maybe I should start a few threads instead of combing through peoples' posts looking for something to slam, like I did with HDD and S. William. No offense, guys. {edit:SW, my mind is blank on this:Could you please give an example (besides same-sex marriage) of something that would be purely religious and therefore unconstitutional? It seems easy but I'm stumped.]
quote: Actually, the last three are in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. That is unfortunate, but very important to remember.
That's true, and I appreciate you pointing out the distinction. That said, I believe that the Declaration reveals a lot about the thoughts of the founders and what they wanted the constitution to embody. I think you can use the thoughts expressed in the Declaration to illuminate the constitution and help derive understanding of it. Certainly, it seems a lot of people believe that the Declaration has something to say to and about America because I hear the opening sentences read every Fourth of July.
quote: WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
I am becoming too cynical. As I read them I noticed that it is a justifaction for rebellion, yet Washington, D.C was designed so a civilian population in revolt could not barricade major streets (inter alia Paris in the French Revolution, only in the recent past when D.C was designed) to impede Gov't troop movements. And that one of the paramters of the US Interstate Highway System was that all bridges take the weight of tanks on flatbed semis, to insure rapid internal troop movements. Oh, well. Any government that hadn't planned about possible rebellion probably wouldn't have lasted 200+ years.
posted
Is the proposed amendment going to outright ban gay marriages nationwide, or is it going to grant states whose citizens have voted to disallow gay marriages the constitutional right to not recognize gay marriages performed in states whose citizens have chosen to allow them? It is just as wrong for one or two states to force gay marriages upon the other 48 or 49 (essentially allowing a single state to create a "federal" law supporting gay marriages) as it is to create a nationwide ban on gay marriages--moreso, actually, as the latter situation would involve the input of more states than the first situation would. I would like to see the second option as a constitutional amendment, and then leave the question of whether or not to legalize gay marriages up to each state.
Posts: 77 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
EM, that is the whole point that Storm and I have been saying. Though I believe that they are trying to take power away from the States. So hopefully they go for the second or none at all. Either is better then removal of state rights.
Posts: 1244 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about powers not expressly reserved for the Fed or the States be granted to the PEOPLE, like the Constitution says? Let them choose, individually, who they may or may not marry.
posted
Don't respond to that question from Thor. His favorite debate tactic is to respond to a point scored against him by attacking your religion/beliefs/mother.
posted
*grin* This isn't an argument. I just thoroughly shocked my spoiled Mormon girl sensibilities with my first response to Frisco, so I thought I'd go to the other extreme.
Is this from what I wrote? That's okay. Thor's countered one too many revealing questions with a slam on my religion. He's not doing it anymore.
posted
I think what we all need is a little 5:00 Friday action. Give it ten more minutes and all will be well. (Unless, of course, you're an oversensitive Mormon located in Mormonia--Utah--in which case you pour souls still have another hour to go.)
So what about the oversensitive non-Mormons living outside of Utah? Or the oversensitive non-Mormons living in Utah? Or oversensitive Mormons living outside of Utah? You're neglecting a lot of people, Caleb.
Posts: 276 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How about powers not expressly reserved for the Fed or the States be granted to the PEOPLE, like the Constitution says? Let them choose, individually, who they may or may not marry.
I agree, but I think that's a different point and the argument most of the thread has revolved around, ie whether the law should or should not be passed.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |