Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-20-2017 6:42 AM
327 online now:
PaulK, Pressie, Son Goku (3 members, 324 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Flyer75
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,888 Year: 25,494/21,208 Month: 1,121/2,338 Week: 242/450 Day: 7/55 Hour: 3/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
83848586
87
88Next
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1291 of 1309 (748669)
01-27-2015 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1290 by Dr Adequate
01-27-2015 12:42 PM


There are interesting things written about the First Amendment in the early years that argue that Christianity was protected by it above all others, because society needs it, and that it was very clear that beliefs that were dangerous to the state (papal Rome, of course, and today it would be particularly Islam if it weren't for PC that says otherwise) or to anybody were not meant to be protected by it. We now have revisionist reinterpretations that destroy its whole purpose of course, not only protecting Romanism and Islam, but even protecting evils such as pornography and abortion and sodomy.

ABE: This isn't from the early years, it was written by Justice Joseph Story in 1865. Certainly shows a completely different attitude than we find today: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/...ts/amendI_religions69.html

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1290 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-27-2015 12:42 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1292 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2015 12:55 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1293 by Theodoric, posted 01-28-2015 8:54 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1294 by jar, posted 01-28-2015 9:34 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1295 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-28-2015 11:20 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13228
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(6)
Message 1292 of 1309 (748673)
01-28-2015 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1291 by Faith
01-27-2015 11:37 PM


quote:

There are interesting things written about the First Amendment in the early years that argue that Christianity was protected by it above all others, because society needs it, and that it was very clear that beliefs that were dangerous to the state (papal Rome, of course, and today it would be particularly Islam if it weren't for PC that says otherwise) or to anybody were not meant to be protected by it. We now have revisionist reinterpretations that destroy its whole purpose of course, not only protecting Romanism and Islam, but even protecting evils such as pornography and abortion and sodomy.

The "interesting things" ARE "evil revisionist reinterpretations that destroy it's whole purpose."

In reality Jefferson himself argued for protection of Islam, and the idea that Catholics were excluded is absurd.

The Bill of Rights was about guaranteeing freedom. The whole idea that it meant to permit a Protestant tyranny as you assert is a clear example of revisionism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1291 by Faith, posted 01-27-2015 11:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.3


Message 1293 of 1309 (748686)
01-28-2015 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1291 by Faith
01-27-2015 11:37 PM


Not a founding father is he.

Oh yeah another thing he could not have written these in 1865. He died in 1845. I will let you figure out what those numbers mean.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1291 by Faith, posted 01-27-2015 11:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29441
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(4)
Message 1294 of 1309 (748689)
01-28-2015 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1291 by Faith
01-27-2015 11:37 PM


read your sources Faith.
Faith writes:

There are interesting things written about the First Amendment in the early years that argue that Christianity was protected by it above all others, because society needs it, and that it was very clear that beliefs that were dangerous to the state (papal Rome, of course, and today it would be particularly Islam if it weren't for PC that says otherwise) or to anybody were not meant to be protected by it.

Let's look at what your very own sources say about that Faith.

quote:
ß 1873. It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.

No, Christianity was NOT protected above any other religion and the reason was to protect the Catholic from the Protestant and the Jew and the infidel as well.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1291 by Faith, posted 01-27-2015 11:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 1295 of 1309 (748697)
01-28-2015 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1291 by Faith
01-27-2015 11:37 PM


Well, interesting digression. But it doesn't really answer my point. What do we do if people want to do things, on religious grounds, contrary to the law? What if we have a bunch of Protestants saying "But God wants us to execute Quakers"? Well, that sucks for them. The First Amendment doesn't protect them. What if, to take a more realistic example, you have a guy like Warren Jeffs? The law says that his followers really can't marry that many underage girls. But their prophet says that they should. Hmm, what to do?

Now the First Amendment does render unconstitutional those laws that specifically target a religion --- say, a law preventing Catholics from holding Mass. But it doesn't affect laws intended to remedy a (real or perceived) social evil, such as, say racial discrimination, they don't violate the First Amendment on the grounds that some people who want to discriminate want to do so for religious reasons.

It does, I believe, do so when it comes to particular religious practices. A church which is opposed to interracial marriage can't be forced to conduct one. But that still leaves the State with a lot of latitude.

The thing to do, I suggest, is to try to be fair and reasonable when drafting laws. Just because something doesn't actually violate the First Amendment is not a reason why that thing should be legal; conversely, just because a law stopping people from doing that thing doesn't violate the First Amendment isn't a reason why that thing should be illegal. If the best justification someone can think of for doing something is that it's not actually unconstitutional, then it's probably not a good thing to do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1291 by Faith, posted 01-27-2015 11:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1296 by NoNukes, posted 01-28-2015 12:03 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9997
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1296 of 1309 (748701)
01-28-2015 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1295 by Dr Adequate
01-28-2015 11:20 AM


such as, say racial discrimination, they don't violate the First Amendment on the grounds that some people who want to discriminate want to do so for religious reasons.

In fact, the first amendment does not render invalid generally applicable laws that don't target religion and affect adherents only incidentally. It does not prevent the federal government from firing a Seventh Day Adventist who refuses to work on Saturday if the job requires so doing.

What is less clear is the fate of any law passed by Congress to allow religious conscience discrimination directed at LGBTs.


Je Suis Charlie

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1295 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-28-2015 11:20 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 1297 of 1309 (781079)
03-31-2016 1:01 PM


Mississippi
Good news! The House of Representatives of the great state of Mississippi have passed the "PROTECTING FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FROM GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION ACT". It's about time too, the state of Mississippi has existed for 199 years, and in all that time its citizens haven't had freedom of conscience, hence the necessity for this bill.

At last, the sincerely-held religious beliefs of Mississippians will be protected! Or ... wait, will they? Nuh-uh. Not in general. According to the bill, exactly three sincerely-held religious beliefs will be protected from "government discrimination":

SECTION 2. The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:

(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individualís immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.

Anyone with other (or, God forbid, opposite) sincerely held religious beliefs can go screw themselves.


Replies to this message:
 Message 1298 by Diomedes, posted 03-31-2016 2:43 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Diomedes
Member
Posts: 663
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 1298 of 1309 (781084)
03-31-2016 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1297 by Dr Adequate
03-31-2016 1:01 PM


Re: Mississippi
Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individualís immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth

What happens if the person is a hermaphrodite? Does that mean they can or can't get married? Or even better, if one goes for intrinsic classification, I guess the person can marry themself, right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1297 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-31-2016 1:01 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1299 by jar, posted 03-31-2016 2:59 PM Diomedes has not yet responded
 Message 1300 by Modulous, posted 03-31-2016 9:19 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 29441
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1299 of 1309 (781086)
03-31-2016 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1298 by Diomedes
03-31-2016 2:43 PM


Re: Mississippi
Or one of each?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1298 by Diomedes, posted 03-31-2016 2:43 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7444
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(3)
Message 1300 of 1309 (781107)
03-31-2016 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1298 by Diomedes
03-31-2016 2:43 PM


Re: Mississippi
What happens if the person is a hermaphrodite?

Then we shalle entereth it into thine bestiary for tis a Fantastic beest indede!

If however, they are intersex, this really does pose a problem for these kinds of laws. Genetics can't rescue us from this, either.

Or even better, if one goes for intrinsic classification, I guess the person can marry themself, right?

I mean the joke is, meh. But really you lose comedy points because Dr A set you up with this,

quote:
Anyone with other (or, God forbid, opposite) sincerely held religious beliefs can go screw themselves.

And you didn't take the swing off of that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1298 by Diomedes, posted 03-31-2016 2:43 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(6)
Message 1301 of 1309 (781794)
04-07-2016 6:26 PM



Replies to this message:
 Message 1302 by Faith, posted 04-07-2016 7:49 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1302 of 1309 (781797)
04-07-2016 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1301 by Dr Adequate
04-07-2016 6:26 PM


That completely misses the point if it's in reference to the Pizza store that almost had to shut down for refusing to cater a GAY WEDDING. Nobody is refusing to serve gays pizza, that has never ever been a problem, the problem is being put in a position where you have to provide a service for a gay wedding which feels like giving approval to gay marriage, which Christians cannot do. There would be no problem catering pizza to a birthday party for gays or anything else besides a gay wedding.

I do wish you'd get honest about this.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1301 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-07-2016 6:26 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1303 by jar, posted 04-07-2016 7:55 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1305 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-07-2016 9:37 PM Faith has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29441
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1303 of 1309 (781798)
04-07-2016 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1302 by Faith
04-07-2016 7:49 PM


Faith writes:

Nobody is refusing to serve gays pizza, that has never ever been a problem, the problem is being put in a position where you have to provide a service for a gay wedding which feels like giving approval to gay marriage, which Christians cannot do.

How is it different and remember, only SOME Christians have an issue with Gay marriage.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1302 by Faith, posted 04-07-2016 7:49 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1304 by Faith, posted 04-07-2016 8:02 PM jar has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1304 of 1309 (781802)
04-07-2016 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1303 by jar
04-07-2016 7:55 PM


TRUE Christians who care about what God says in the Bible are the ones who have a problem with it. Not the fakes and hypocrites like you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1303 by jar, posted 04-07-2016 7:55 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 1305 of 1309 (781820)
04-07-2016 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1302 by Faith
04-07-2016 7:49 PM


That completely misses the point if it's in reference to the Pizza store that almost had to shut down for refusing to cater a GAY WEDDING.

They weren't asked to.

Nobody is refusing to serve gays pizza, that has never ever been a problem, the problem is being put in a position where you have to provide a service for a gay wedding ...

... at which point they have said that they would refuse to serve gays pizza, something that you just assured me that nobody does, never ever.

I do wish you'd get honest about this.

Ah, hypocrisy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1302 by Faith, posted 04-07-2016 7:49 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1306 by Faith, posted 04-07-2016 10:31 PM Dr Adequate has responded

RewPrev1
...
83848586
87
88Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017