About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

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

"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

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
news ....snip...
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.

"Steve House" wrote in message
...

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
news ...snip...
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 $$$$.

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 ...snip...
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 $$$$.