About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:34:24 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

Last I checked, separation of church and state was still the theoretical
policy in the US.

Separation of Church and State is not constitutional language. It's
popular theoretical policy today, but it has also become shorthand for
promoting the effective primacy of State over Church, which no
constructionist favors.

That's the thing many of these people fear, that the growing influence
of secular humanism in the U.S. will obviate their points of view. And
that's not a form of "homophobia" nearly as much as it is a form of
anti-federalism.

I don't find religious conviction to be a valid
motivation for lawmaking

Placing you in one minority group, albiet a particularly well-placed
one, these days. Honest religious conviction informs even your
opinions, Peter; even if you just don't *call* it religious
conviction, the worship of human reason is still based on a couple of
unprovables. Piety doesn't have to be directed at judaeo-christian
deity to be piety.

and in any case, the religiously convicted fall
smack in the "homophobe" camp.

And that's the demagoguery. Do the Scientologists or the Unitarians
fall into this "homophobe" camp? In any case, I and many like me were
pleased to permit behavior and keep company with people of all stripes
and preferences wherever they intersected with ours. But agitating for
political change so quickly is not a good idea. You gloss that with
your next paragraph:

Ahh...the old "change is bad" philosophy.

No, it's not "the old 'change is bad' philosophy", which is another
bit of demagoguery anyway, a reiteration of the "what are you afraid
of?" challenge, reducing it to being equivalent to "homophobe".
"Change is bad" is not a philosophy.

It's markedly more accruate to say that the *position* (not the
philosophy), is more like "rapid agitative change is disruptive to an
ordered society," which is true.

Easy divorce was one such change in the institution of marriage that
many people now feel was a bad move, citing single moms, deadbeat
dads, latchkey kids, double households, and other such evidence as
proof of the mistake. Now, people are calling for yet another change
in the institution with similar preparation and reasoning.

If we're gonna make such a change, we must, in my opinion, think
through all the ramifications of it, and carefully implement it in
stages, checking our work all the way. We haven't done that, in my
opinion. All we've done so far in the last 30 years is toss epithets
calling each other sub-human.

I've yet to hear of anyone
supporting these "no gay marriage" bills for whom that's their reason.
Please, show me someone whose reasoning is based on that.

You've responded to one.

More
interestingly, show me a single person involved in pushing for these bills
(i.e. not just someone saying "yeah, it's a good idea...I'd vote for it")
whose reasoning is based on that.

Members of my extended family, in connection with California Prop 22,
canvassed their own neighborhoods with flyers. I wrote to state
representatives and state senators expressing this line of reasoning.
Is Bill Clinton a "homophobe"? He signed the "Defense of Marriage Act"
into law.

Rob

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
...
Separation of Church and State is not constitutional language.

Of course it is. The exact words "separation of church and state" don't
appear, of course. But the intent is clear.

No, it's not "the old 'change is bad' philosophy", which is another
bit of demagoguery anyway, a reiteration of the "what are you afraid
of?" challenge, reducing it to being equivalent to "homophobe".

If a person's objection is only to the change itself, and not to some
specific drawback to the change, it is just applicable as "homophobe" and
just as silly an argument.

"Change is bad" is not a philosophy.

Of course it is.

It's markedly more accruate to say that the *position* (not the
philosophy), is more like "rapid agitative change is disruptive to an
ordered society," which is true.

Trust me. Nothing about granted gays marriage rights is going to be rapid.
There's no need to pass laws to specifically disallow it. But even if rapid
change were bad, why pass laws specifically against gay marriage? No...a
person who is genuinely against rapid change generally would argue not in
favor of laws specifically directed against a minority, but rather in favor
of laws that limit the progress of new laws generally.

Easy divorce was one such change in the institution of marriage that
many people now feel was a bad move, citing single moms, deadbeat
dads, latchkey kids, double households, and other such evidence as
proof of the mistake.

You forgot to put "proof" in quotes. There were single moms, deadbeat dads,
etc. long before divorce was more socially acceptable. I do think that too
many people are willing to choose divorce as a solution to their problems,
but they are people who probably will never understand what it takes to
allow a marriage to work.

Those kinds of people weren't in working marriages even when divorce wasn't
acceptable.

Now, people are calling for yet another change
in the institution with similar preparation and reasoning.

I don't see how expanding marriage to include gay couples is anywhere near
as radical a change as allowing divorce to be easier. If anything, it
allows a larger portion of society to return to our basic ideals.

If we're gonna make such a change, we must, in my opinion, think
through all the ramifications of it, and carefully implement it in
stages, checking our work all the way. We haven't done that, in my
opinion. All we've done so far in the last 30 years is toss epithets
calling each other sub-human.

The gays certainly didn't start that. They are just trying to gain equality
in our society. As for thinking through all the ramifications, perhaps YOU
haven't been thinking about it for 30 years, but I assure you that lots of
people have.

I've yet to hear of anyone
supporting these "no gay marriage" bills for whom that's their reason.
Please, show me someone whose reasoning is based on that.

You've responded to one.

Please. See above...as I said, if you were truly against the rapid change
in general, you would be arguing in favor of different, more general laws,
rather than one that singles out a minority group. At least, if you were
exercising basic common sense.

By your reasoning, you would have been in favor of bills that prohibited
freedom for slaves, voting rights for women and blacks, and desegregation as
well. All of those things were, at the time, considered radical changes.

Members of my extended family, in connection with California Prop 22,
canvassed their own neighborhoods with flyers. I wrote to state
representatives and state senators expressing this line of reasoning.

But were you really doing so honestly? I suppose in the end, only you can
answer for yourself, but it sure seems to me that you're using a large
helping of rationalization here. Are you really separating your religious
beliefs from your political motivations?

Is Bill Clinton a "homophobe"? He signed the "Defense of Marriage Act"
into law.

I don't know if he is or is not. Politicians are a funny breed, since they
often act counter to their own moral compass (such as it is), if they think
doing so will help them or their political party. Regardless, it certainly
offends me that he would sign such a bill.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
...

Separation of Church and State is not constitutional language.


Of course it is. The exact words "separation of church and state" don't
appear, of course. But the intent is clear.

And just out of curiosity how do you feel about the second ammendment?

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:44:26 GMT, Newps wrote:



Peter Duniho wrote:
"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
...

Separation of Church and State is not constitutional language.


Of course it is. The exact words "separation of church and state" don't
appear, of course. But the intent is clear.

And just out of curiosity how do you feel about the second ammendment?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Seems clear enough to me.

Rob, in favor of firearm licenses, prohibition to felons, taxes and
fees on firearms, and education requirements

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Of course it is. The exact words "separation of church and state" don't
appear, of course. But the intent is clear.


The exact words are, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". The intent is
clearly to prevent the US Congress from making a law establishing a national
religion or any law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...
The exact words are, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". The intent is
clearly to prevent the US Congress from making a law establishing a
national
religion or any law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.

Seems to me "respecting an establishment of religion" refers to laws based
on religion, not the establishment of a national religion. If they wanted
to limit it to prohibiting only the establishment of a national religion,
they would have written "THE establishment of A NATIONAL religion", not "an
establishment of religion".

Don't worry though...I know that you'll disagree 'til you're blue in the
face. So feel free to disagree once again. Don't bother me none. There is
ample interpretive precedent that disagrees with you, and I have no need to
engage in a futile effort to change your mind.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:


Seems to me "respecting an establishment of religion" refers to laws based
on religion, not the establishment of a national religion. If they wanted
to limit it to prohibiting only the establishment of a national religion,
they would have written "THE establishment of A NATIONAL religion", not "an
establishment of religion".

You'd think that. England had/has a national religion. We wanted to
avoid that. It could have been written a whole lot clearer, just like
the second ammendment could have been written clearer, even though the
intent is obvious. I suspect they thought it was plenty clear at the
time they wrote and approved it.

"Newps" wrote in message news:SVs0b.202258$uu5.36211@sccrnsc04...

You'd think that. England had/has a national religion.

and not just England. Every major European power at the time had an
established religion.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
If they wanted
to limit it to prohibiting only the establishment of a national religion,
they would have written "THE establishment of A NATIONAL religion", not "an
establishment of religion".

National would be redundant. Establishment doesn't mean "creation" in this
context, it means giving official recognition by the government. Since the constitution
lays out the powers and limitations of the NATIONAL government, that's pretty much
what they mean.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..
National would be redundant. Establishment doesn't mean "creation" in
this
context, it means giving official recognition by the government.

And would not a law passed based solely on religious beliefs be "official
recognition"?

I agree that establishment doesn't mean creation in this context. That was
my point.

Pete