![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Question About Newsgroups | RST Engineering | General Aviation | 1 | January 17th 05 05:59 PM |
Re; What do you think? | Kelsibutt | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 29th 03 06:55 AM |
Newsgroups and Email | Jim Weir | Home Built | 8 | July 8th 03 11:30 PM |
Newsgroups and Email | Jim Weir | Owning | 8 | July 8th 03 11:30 PM |