![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The rest of it is well-trod ground, but some if it is worth answering.
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:19:31 -0700, "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. Heh. If the intent were clear, there wouldn't be differences of opinion on how to interpret it. By and large, I've seen the Supreme Court treat the Establishment Clause with great care. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" *used* to mean, to so many people, that Congress was not permitted to set up a Church of the United States. So many people today forget that the clause ends in "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Supreme Court decision upholding the notion that large traditional folkways such as marriage as defined by most people throughout history trump Article IV is one such careful consideration. States may solmenize gay marriage, or not, and may recognize it, or not, but You forgot to put "proof" in quotes. Probably because I think that we are worse off today the way things are concerning easy divorce as implemented than was true 40 years ago. but they are people who probably will never understand what it takes to allow a marriage to work. Wait until you do understand, then marry. If necessary, court for a year or more. (No, I'm *not* a fan of Dr. Laura, but what she says makes sense in this one narrow instance.) 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. Statistically speaking, no, it does not. You've responded to one. Please. Please indeed. Before you proceed any further along the strawman, best you check my taglines in posts from this week. 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? NO! And, you'll forgive me for shouting, but I actually think this is important enough that I want to get everyone's attention: WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND WANT TO SEPARATE HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS FROM HIS POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS?!?!?!?!? Good grief. Religious belief is fundamentally human! Separating religious motivation from its expression in politics is the surest way to get yourself manipulated out of a voice in the process! Regardless, it certainly offends me that he would sign such a bill. Then you may be offended. And lest you be offended any more, I guess I'll have to go back to plonking your email. Wouldn't want to offend you, after all. Rob |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
news ![]() [...] Are you really separating your religious beliefs from your political motivations? NO! Then how can you claim that your sole objection to those bills is that they are changes? Then you may be offended. And lest you be offended any more, I guess I'll have to go back to plonking your email. Wouldn't want to offend you, after all. Ahh, yes...when all else fails, stop listening. That will keep your belief system perfectly intact. Good for you. Pete |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Robert Perkins" wrote in message news ![]() that I want to get everyone's attention: WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND WANT TO SEPARATE HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS FROM HIS POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS?!?!?!?!? Good grief. Religious belief is fundamentally human! Separating religious motivation from its expression in politics is the surest way to get yourself manipulated out of a voice in the process! Because they realize that in order to preserve the freedom of belief for everyone, it is wrong to enact laws that force people who do not share some particular set of beliefs to act as if they do. Back when meatless Fridays were the norm in the Catholic faith, for predominantly Catholic Boston to pass a law prohibiting the sale of hamburgers on Friday would be an example of such a thing. Laws mandating businesses closing on the Sabbath would be another. The only way for the State to be fair to all religions and to protect the individual's freedom to choose their own faith is to function as if religion had never been invented. Any laws that are motivated by a particular religious conviction are, by definition, an attempt to mandate that all people, believers in the dominant faith or not, behave as if they shared that conviction. If by chance the religious view and the secular justification on an issue parallel each other well and good, but where the justification for a law is based solely on religious arguments it must be opposed. Legislators simply MUST leave their religious faith in the cloakroom with their hats and coats less they oppress all other faiths except their own. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Steve House" wrote in message ... "Robert Perkins" wrote in message news ![]() that I want to get everyone's attention: WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND WANT TO SEPARATE HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS FROM HIS POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS?!?!?!?!? Good grief. Religious belief is fundamentally human! Separating religious motivation from its expression in politics is the surest way to get yourself manipulated out of a voice in the process! Because they realize that in order to preserve the freedom of belief for everyone, it is wrong to enact laws that force people who do not share some particular set of beliefs to act as if they do. Back when meatless Fridays were the norm in the Catholic faith, for predominantly Catholic Boston to pass a law prohibiting the sale of hamburgers on Friday would be an example of such a thing. Laws mandating businesses closing on the Sabbath would be another. The only way for the State to be fair to all religions and to protect the individual's freedom to choose their own faith is to function as if religion had never been invented. Any laws that are motivated by a particular religious conviction are, by definition, an attempt to mandate that all people, believers in the dominant faith or not, behave as if they shared that conviction. If by chance the religious view and the secular justification on an issue parallel each other well and good, but where the justification for a law is based solely on religious arguments it must be opposed. Legislators simply MUST leave their religious faith in the cloakroom with their hats and coats less they oppress all other faiths except their own. You have way more faith in our legislators than I do. Special interest is the name of the game be it religion or any other group with big $$$$. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On the contrary, I have very little faith in politicians indeed. One reason
is that so many of them cannot divorce their religious beliefs from their governmental responsibilities to safeguard the freedom of all citizens regardless of their religious beliefs or non-belief. "Dave Stadt" wrote in message y.com... "Steve House" wrote in message ... "Robert Perkins" wrote in message news ![]() that I want to get everyone's attention: WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND WANT TO SEPARATE HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS FROM HIS POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS?!?!?!?!? Good grief. Religious belief is fundamentally human! Separating religious motivation from its expression in politics is the surest way to get yourself manipulated out of a voice in the process! Because they realize that in order to preserve the freedom of belief for everyone, it is wrong to enact laws that force people who do not share some particular set of beliefs to act as if they do. Back when meatless Fridays were the norm in the Catholic faith, for predominantly Catholic Boston to pass a law prohibiting the sale of hamburgers on Friday would be an example of such a thing. Laws mandating businesses closing on the Sabbath would be another. The only way for the State to be fair to all religions and to protect the individual's freedom to choose their own faith is to function as if religion had never been invented. Any laws that are motivated by a particular religious conviction are, by definition, an attempt to mandate that all people, believers in the dominant faith or not, behave as if they shared that conviction. If by chance the religious view and the secular justification on an issue parallel each other well and good, but where the justification for a law is based solely on religious arguments it must be opposed. Legislators simply MUST leave their religious faith in the cloakroom with their hats and coats less they oppress all other faiths except their own. You have way more faith in our legislators than I do. Special interest is the name of the game be it religion or any other group with big $$$$. |
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 |