posted
CStroman: incorrect, several of these amendments made privately given partner benefits illegal. There are many companies that have been offering partner benefits in perfect legality.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No you didn't. Unless you followed it up outside our discussion, you dismissed it on scant inspection, on specious grounds for what I strongly suspect are ideological rather than principled reasons.
As I've said before Dag, I don't just say crap. When I presented that argument, it was because it's built on what I think are firm grounds. If you think that the dismissal that you gave in that thread was on firm grounds, you and I have very different opinions as to what constitue such.
He said he felt people were speaking out against judicial activism that forced something agains the will of the people. That would indeed be a reason for the amendments to be necessary - to prevent that same thing from happening in those states.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: CStroman: incorrect, several of these amendments made privately given partner benefits illegal. There are many companies that have been offering partner benefits in perfect legality.
No, it didn't give the government the right to force those benefits to be offered by everyone.
As a private employer I can offer benefits to same sex couples. The ammendment won't change that or make it illegal.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:No you didn't. Unless you followed it up outside our discussion, you dismissed it on scant inspection, on specious grounds for what I strongly suspect are ideological rather than principled reasons.
As I've said before Dag, I don't just say crap. When I presented that argument, it was because it's built on what I think are firm grounds. If you think that the dismissal that you gave in that thread was on firm grounds, you and I have very different opinions as to what constitue such.
Squick, I read the whole freakin' book you reccomended, months and months ago. Seriously, stop trying to tell me what I do and don't believe, or do and don't do.
Believe it or not, I don't bounce all my conclusions off you, nor feel the need to explicate all my reasons for coming to a contrary opinion.
quote:And I'm not sure, which views have I assigned to you that you don't share?
The only thing that I've tried to do is describe your behavior, which I'm pretty sure fits my description. Have I missed the thread where you said "not all these people are bigots" and then gone on to talk about how these bigots are a serious problem for your cuase. Or any point where you've given serious acknowledgement and consideration to the problem posed by these bigots? If so, my view of you is defnitely inaccuate.
You have consistently said I argue with you because I think your "anti religious." I don't.
In this thread you've accused me of advocating the position "some of the people aren't bigots so we don't need to consider the many that are." I haven't.
Finally, you seem to think that these bigots are a serious problem for my cause. I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean for preventing gay marriage, which happens to coincide with theirs, then you're wrong about it being my cause. If you mean for ensuring equal civil marriage rights for homosexual couples, then that is my cause. But I have yet to see someone say, "Oh my God! You're right, I am a bigot!" and change their mind because people start calling them names.
I have seen (and participated in helping) people change their mind after listening to their views on the subject and responding respectfully and rationally to those views.
posted
That's a big "if" because so far no one has legally challenged benefits given to "significant others" of same sex relationships.
Because it "could" happen, without any substantiating evidence or precedence that it's happening in any government, is a very weak argument as well IMHO.
posted
Chad, isn't that similar to the fears people have that often lead them to support anti-same sex marriage amendments? That the government might persecute Christianity, when there is nothing to support that assertion on any objective basis?
Anyway, quiet you, it makes lashing you on the back much more difficult!
posted
Dag, I'd be very interested in discussing the problems that you has the the The Nature of Prejudice.
By your cause, I'd say that in specific regards to this issue, it would be the idea that homsexuality is wrong and in the more general thing of supporting Christianity/Catholicism. And yes, I did mistate your stance before and I appologize for that.
As I've said many times, I think that the world would be a much better place if people who claimed to christians acted much more in line with Christ's message. I think that this would most likely involve a redefinition of christianity by the people who acutally hold it in a mature way to emphasize the more difficult parts of Christ's message. Bigotry is directly against Christ's teachings, but it makes up one of the major forces of pretty much all American "Christian" social/political movements. This isn't just bad for the country, it's bad for the community of Christians and for the bigots themselves.
Maybe I've been too free in assigning motives to you. I'll definitely try to keep an eye on cases where I might be doing that in the future.
But again, everytime I've seen the idea that many anti-homosexual people are bigots come up where you were involved, you immediately went to "not all people who believe homosexuality is a sin are bigots", even in contexts where no one suggested that that this was true. As far as I have seen, it's a standard tactic from deflecting attention away from an aspect of the campaigns against homosexuality that I think is very important.
One of the big things I despise about contemporary politics is how people have taken to wrapping good sounding labels around things that have nothing to do with what these labels, and are often pretty odious. We had a thread a little while back where we talked about how "traditional values" and "family values" and other labels have become the front for things that many people who are actually concerned about these things would not agree with. The movements that I'd like to see are the decent people who believe in these things working to reclaim them and deny their misuse. I think that this same problem faces American Christianity.
When I've brought up my concerns about this, you've pretty consistently told me that I don't understand why people do these things. I'm leveling the same criticism at you. Some people do them for the resaon you claim, but many others do them for much lower reasons. Acknowledging this is a very impotant step in working against it.
So, I'll ask again, do you really think that less than 10% of the vote on the gay union ban came from people who were for the ban for primarily bigoted reasons?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: That the government might persecute Christianity, when there is nothing to support that assertion on any objective basis?
Actually, yes there is. The fact that the courts in some states "legalized" it proves exactly that.
There's the precedent staring us right in the face.
Also the "anti-religious" movement in this country is HUGE when it comes to government.
You currently have a "10 commandments" issue before the supreme court as we speak (being argued in a room with a mural of Moses and the 10 commandments facing the judges themselves no less).
You have a state flag in California missing a historical mark because it's "Chrisitian".
The litigation against religion isn't an "if" it's what is actually happening RIGHT NOW.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The litigation against religion isn't an 'if' it's what is actually happening RIGHT NOW."
Yeah, right. They're litigating against religion. I keep forgetting how the religious in this country are such an oppressed minority, unable to get any of their chosen officials into office or pass any of their favorite bills.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right..it's not like a person could get elected President or anything, based on the evangelical largely vote...
Christianity doesn't = religion to everyone...there are plenty of other religions, and they have a vested intrest is maintaining the separation between government and religion.
There is a difference between persecuting a religion and refusing to allow one religion to promote itself at the others expense.
quote:Actually, yes there is. The fact that the courts in some states "legalized" it proves exactly that.
There's the precedent staring us right in the face
So...anyone, anywhere...even in a state you don't live in....who disagrees with your religious views and doesn't agree to live within their rules is attacking your religion?
quote:You currently have a "10 commandments" issue before the supreme court as we speak (being argued in a room with a mural of Moses and the 10 commandments facing the judges themselves no less).
I'm staying out of the election discussions today but this keeps getting dragged out as a definitive argument and it bugs me. Pay attention, class.
The various figures depicted in the Supreme Court represent the history of law-giving. The doors to the building have representations of the Shield of Achilles, a Roman praetor, the law teacher Julian, Emperor Justinian, the Magna Carta, the Statute of Westminster, Lord Chief Justice Coke, and Chief Justices Marshall and Story.
The friezes you mentioned depict the following:
Menes (c. 3200 B.C.) First King of the first dynasty of ancient Egypt. He unified Upper and Lower Egypt under his rule and is one of the earliest recorded lawgivers. Menes is shown in the frieze holding the ankh, an Egyptian symbol for life.
Hammurabi (c. 1700s B.C.) King of Babylon credited with founding the Babylonian Empire. He is known for the Code of Hammurabi, one of the earliest known legal codes. The first stone of the Code depicts him receiving the law from the Babylonian Sun God.
Moses (c. 1300s B.C.) Prophet, lawgiver and judge of the Israelites. Mosaic Law is based on the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. Moses is depicted in the frieze holding two overlapping tablets, written in Hebrew. Commandments six through ten are partially visible.
Solomon (c. 900s B.C.) King of Israel and renowned judge. His name, meaning “figure of the wise man,” has become synonymous with “judicial wisdom.”
Lycurgus (c. 800 B.C.) Legislator of Sparta. Lycurgus is credited with being one of the reformers of Sparta’s constitution. He left Sparta after convincing the Spartan leadership not to change his laws until he returned, but he never did.
Solon (c. 638–558 B.C.) Athenian lawgiver. He was appointed archon, an officer of state, and was charged with remodeling the Athenian constitution in 594 B.C. He was instrumental in codifying and reforming Athenian law, often revising the laws of Draco. His name has come to mean “a wise and skillful lawgiver.”
Draco (c. 600s B.C.) One of Solon’s legal predecessors in Athens. Around 620 B.C., he committed an Athenian code of laws to paper for the first time. His code included many strict penalties and death sentences, often for what seemed to be minor offenses. Thus, the word “draconian,” meaning harsh or cruel, is derived from his name.
Confucius (551–478 B.C.) Chinese philosopher whose teachings stressed harmony, learning and virtue. Within 300 years of his death, the Chinese State adopted his teachings as the basis for government. Although officially abandoned by the Chinese government in 1912, Confucianism continues to have an influence throughout the world.
Octavian (63 B.C.–14 A.D.) or Augustus. First Emperor of the Roman Empire. He brought widespread reforms to many facets of Roman life. He supported the concept of using previous opinions of leading jurists to aid in determining new disputes.
Justinian (c. 483–565) Byzantine Emperor from 527 until his death. He ordered the codification of Roman law and published Corpus Juris Civilis. This work was instrumental in preserving Roman law and encompassed what has become known as the Justinian Code.
Muhammad (c. 570–632) The Prophet of Islam. He is depicted holding the Qur’an. The Qur’an provides the primary source of Islamic Law. Prophet Muhammad’s teachings explain and implement Qur’anic principles. The figure above is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor, Adolph Weinman, to honor Muhammad and it bears no resemblance to Muhammad. Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet.
Charlemagne (c. 742–814) or Charles I (the Great). King of the Franks and Roman Emperor. Charlemagne was reportedly an avid student who became an eloquent speaker of several languages and supported learning and literature throughout his realm. Under his leadership, most of Western Europe was united by 804 becoming the foundation for the Holy Roman Empire. He was also a reformer of legal, judicial and military systems.
King John (1166–1216) born John Lackland. King of England from 1199 until his death. His policies and taxation caused his barons to force him to sign the Magna Carta. This document, depicted in the frieze as a scrolled document in his hand, is regarded as the foundation of constitutional liberty in England.
Louis IX (c. 1214–1270) King of France who was canonized as St. Louis in 1297. He led the 7th and 8th Crusades and created the first court of appeals known as the “Curia Regis” or “King’s Court.”
Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) or Huig de Groot. Dutch scholar, lawyer and statesman. He is depicted holding De jure belli ac pacis (Concerning the Law of War and Peace), one of the first books on international law, which he wrote in 1625.
Sir William Blackstone (1723–1780) English law professor and jurist. He wrote Commentaries on the Law of England (1765–1769), which has had a major influence on English and American law.
John Marshall (1755–1835) Fourth Chief Justice of the United States, from 1801 to 1835. His 1803 opinion in Marbury v. Madison stated that the Supreme Court of the United States had the authority to determine the constitutionality of a law, establishing the power of judicial review for the Court.
Napoleon (1769–1821) Emperor of France from 1804 to 1815. He ordered and directed the recodification of French law into what became known as the Code Napoleon or Civil Code. Published in 1804, this code formed the basis for modern civil law. Napoleon, at St. Helena, is reported to have said, “My glory is not to have won forty battles; for Waterloo’s defeat will destroy the memory of as many victories. But what nothing will destroy, what will live eternally, is my Civil Code.”
The East wall frieze is located directly above the Bench and focuses on two male figures that represent the Majesty of Law and the Power of Government. According to a letter from Weinman to Gilbert, the tablet between them symbolizes the first ten amendments to the Constitution, also known as the Bill of Rights. The allegorical figures standing on either side of the central figures symbolize Wisdom, on the left, and Justice, on the right. Weinman described the figures grouped to the right side as the Safeguard of the Liberties and Rights of the People in their pursuit of Happiness and those on the left side as The Defense of Human Rights and Protection of Innocence.
Moses is indeed represented on the wall of the Supreme Court. He is depicted as one of many. If every court builidng in the land wanted to depict the Ten Commandments as one of many sources of present-day law, there would be no problem. I don't see how a boulder-sized version of Moses' tablets can be anything but a pretty decisive indication of preference.
[ November 03, 2004, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, that has been brought up more than once here, which is why I ignored it.
Once someone has "made up their mind" the actual facts only get in the way.
Great post though, much better than the last one I saw.
BTW, every time this conversation has happened around me someone mentions that Moses isn't the only one included, and he is included in a non-religious manner....so it is hardly a little-known fact.
posted
I've probably been the one that mentioned it, but the repetition bugged me enough to dig in and find out exactly what's there instead of just saying there's a bunch of people there.
Be warned, I've copied this and will whip it out whenever this claim comes up again.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So religious iconography is allowed as long as it's not religious?
So saying "In God We Trust" or the Pledge of Allegiance "Under God" aren't religious (since no specific deity is defined as "God") and therefore are a non issue.
Glad we cleared that up.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I have no problem with religious references in secular law as long as they're not exclusive. Our legal system is not based solely on the Christian bible, something the representations in the Supreme Court take great pains to point out.
The motto and the Pledge are different arguments, which I'd be happy to take up again in a separate thread.
My point here was not to discuss the relevance or desirability of religion in government, but to take a single inaccurate but madly persistent claim and disprove it.
[ November 03, 2004, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: So I have no problem with religious references in secular law as long as they're not exclusive.
And the pledge, motto, etc. are not thus no problem.
"God" is an ambiguous term. It could be Allah, Jehovah, Yourself if you are Atheist, Krishna, whatever you consider to be the "supreme being" of your life, that's "God".
And all you proved was that Religious Iconography in the context of "Historical Representation" is acceptable.
So are you fighting to have the small "Cross" put back on the California State Flag?
Somehow I doubt it.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And all you proved was that Religious Iconography in the context of "Historical Representation" is acceptable.
I might say it's visa versa... but whatever. You could say to someone that has a feeling of awe at looking at the Galaxy or at the Rocky Mountains for the first time as a religious experiance... or feeling the holy ghost. I just call it recognizing beauty and feeling awe. Iconography is iconography first and not stricly religious.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree telp. It's all subjective. Something might be offensive to me, but not others. Or vice versa.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: So are you fighting to have the small "Cross" put back on the California State Flag?
??? I think the cross may be on the flag of one of the cities in the state of CA but a cross has NEVER been, to my knowledge on the State flag of California. The state flag of CA has a bear and a red star, first done by the Bear Flag Republic http://www.50states.com/flag/caflag.htm
The state's history however is intimately connected with the Missions in CA. Many public school children in CA have to build models of a mission as part of their state history projects in fourth grade. The oppression and near slavery of the Indians is discussed as well as the Spanish conquistadores. It's history, not just "religion" and as a result I believe the cross should stay (I believe it was in L.A. County that the city or county had a cross on their flag) But for the entire state there has never been a cross on any state flag in CA.
posted
AJ, that is exactly the point. The lawsuit that had the "cross" removed targetted the "cross" only. Not the Godess, not the Bull (if your a Mithraist it's sacred) nothing else was.
The cross was the target and it has been officially removed.
That is a blatant attack on Christianity itself.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah but you had your *facts* wrong, Chad. You said the cross *had* been removed when in fact it hadn't. You obfuscated the issue rather than clarifying it and I had to go and dig out the flags because the misinformation you were spewing was so effing bad.
To your credit I realize you've been trying, and you've vastly improved. I even find myself agreeing with you on occasion but it's crap like this that you pull that really gets on my nerves.
I mean I *agree* with you in this case, that the cross should stay on, but you were shooting your own argument in the foot. I don't want you helping me make the case I support if you screw it up so badly, cause it reflects badly on the position I hold.
posted
By the way, Chad, you may want to note that, while the new seal will not include the cross, it will also not include the goddess. At least, this is what I heard on the news this morning. I didn't hear whether or not the bull would be included.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think they're going to have to scrap the whole seal. You have a FISH (oh nos! Christians have those on their CARS!) and the COW is a Sacred Hindu animal...so how about just a blank white flag.....what? Oh that's right...it would be racist because it's white....ok...let's make it white and black....What? Ok that disenfranchises Hispanics, Native Americans and the Blue Guys from the Las Vegas show (who I think are from California).
I mean...when does it end?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do they have prototype designs out yet saxon? I tried googling and couldn't find anything. Though maybe I wasn't googling the right key words.
I don't know for sure. They just mentioned that the new seal would have--if I remember right--an American Indian woman instead of the goddess. I think I might remember them implying that the new seal had already been designed, but I don't know for sure, and I wouldn't know where to go looking for it.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Iconography is iconography first and not stricly religious.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
