We should simply put issues like abortion or homosexuality or evolution to a vote and let the people decide. There's no need to distinguish this group or that group. Just let it be an up-or-down majority vote. Let all people voice their opinions on the issues and trust the most persuasive, reasonable arguments will be adopted by the majority, simple as that.

Should we vote if the sky is really blue, or if the Dallas Cowboys are really evil? Sorry but that is not how things work, we don’t live by a mob ruled popular vote.

We shouldn't be upholding organizations through government at all. But we are of necessity going to have to adopt the VIEWS of organizations. Either Pro-Life or Pro-Choice will be the law, e.g. Or at least somewhere on the scale which will probably be supported by one side and not the other. In other words, we can have the issues of Evolution or Abortion or Marriage voted on by the people without instituting a specific organization in law, because organizations have nothing to do with this, but rather the will of the people themselves.

Why even bring up Abortion? The supreme court made its decision on that almost 40 years ago, that is a done deal and has been for a while.
Evolution is supported by strong evidence, you cannot vote that away.
Marriage is up to the states.

I dunno man maybe I missed your point somewhere in there.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 189 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-29-2012 1:30 AM		Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

NoNukes

Inactive Member

NoNukes Posts Only

(1)

Message 197 of 206 (664156)
05-29-2012 2:15 PM

Reply to: Message 190 by Jzyehoshua
05-29-2012 1:35 AM

Re: Yes, Virginia, There Is A Statute For Religious Freedom

Concerning taxes on business, I'd like to see tax rebates for companies that hire more U.S. workers in relation to company earnings so companies are incentivized to hire U.S. workers maximally rather than replacing them with overseas workers, illegal immigrants, or automation.

The reason that our tax code is so complicated is because Congress's powers are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. Accordingly, Congress uses its power to tax (and to avoid taxing) in order to set policy on things that are not within its power to legislate directly.

In short, if you are in favor of using tax policy to encourage people/corporations/states to do things, you should not be surprised that tax law is complicated.

other example would be the homosexual hate crimes laws that are allowing pastors to be sued for not performing gay weddings, photographers for not photographing gay weddings, and doctors for not performing in vitro fertilization on lesbian couples.

Picture yourself in a boat on a river; with tangerine trees and marmalade skies.

As if that stuff happens. You cannot even sue a pastor for refusing to perform an interracial marriage. Pastors here in North Carolina spew hate regarding homosexuals from the pulpit on a regular basis.

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

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
	Message 190 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-29-2012 1:35 AM		Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

jar

Member

Posts: 31075

From: Texas!!

Joined: 04-20-2004

Member Rating: 3.5

jar Posts Only

(5)

Message 198 of 206 (664157)
05-29-2012 2:25 PM

Reply to: Message 190 by Jzyehoshua
05-29-2012 1:35 AM

Evidence please.

Another example would be the homosexual hate crimes laws that are allowing pastors to be sued for not performing gay weddings, photographers for not photographing gay weddings, and doctors for not performing in vitro fertilization on lesbian couples. Those are all cases of infringing on the religious freedoms of others.

Can you present ANY evidence of any of those things happening?

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

This message is a reply to:
	Message 190 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-29-2012 1:35 AM		Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

Taq

Member

Posts: 7971

Joined: 03-06-2009

Member Rating: 4.5

Taq Posts Only

(7)

Message 199 of 206 (664187)
05-29-2012 6:12 PM

Reply to: Message 180 by Jzyehoshua
05-28-2012 10:49 PM

Re: and then there is Roger Williams ...

I agree about not institutionalizing Christianity. But I guess the question is, what's the difference between what you mentioned, and having taught as undeniable fact to impressionable young minds the theory of Evolution or the Big Bang, both of which are frankly opinions, and using tax dollars to do so?

Neither are opinions. They are well evidenced scientific theories that have proven to be invaluable in doing scientific research. Therefore, there is an undeniable secular use for teaching these two theories. The only people who don't want them taught are doing so because of their religious beliefs, not because of evidence. To not teach something purely because of religious beliefs, and without any secular reason whatsoever, is a clear violation of the Lemon Test (see post above).

What is the difference between teaching children about homosexual role models as the gay rights movement is having done in states across the U.S.?

Can you tell us why it is wrong to teach children not to discriminate against people for being different than they are? Or does your God based morality not have a place for kindness towards others? I would hazard a guess that the Good Samaritan parable was as controversial within the Jewish community as the gay rights issue you are trying to push. Perhaps you should think about that.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 180 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 10:49 PM		Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

jar

Member

Posts: 31075

From: Texas!!

Joined: 04-20-2004

Member Rating: 3.5

jar Posts Only

(2)

Message 200 of 206 (664191)
05-29-2012 6:52 PM

an aside yet still a lesson to learn from.

The second colony to pass laws requiring religious tolerance was Maryland, formed initially as refuge for persecuted Roman Catholics under the Church of England, it passed a Religious Tolerance Act in 1649.

The act was repealed by Governor Claiborne, and appointee of the Puritan Oliver Cromwell but reinstated when the Calvert family regained control of the colony.

But in 1689 though there was a Puritan led Protestant Revolution in Maryland that overthrew the government and set up a Theocracy. One of their first acts was to outlaw Roman Catholicism.

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

NoNukes

Inactive Member

NoNukes Posts Only

(4)

Message 201 of 206 (664302)
05-30-2012 9:51 PM

Reply to: Message 189 by Jzyehoshua
05-29-2012 1:30 AM

Re: No need to distinguish organizations

We should simply put issues like abortion or homosexuality or evolution to a vote and let the people decide.

Right on Dude.

I've always thought that 2*pi + e ought to equal exactly nine instead of being only approximately so. Let's vote on that too. What the heck, let's just let pi = 3.

While an organization can usurp government as a dictatorship, because it involves power in the hands of a few, it is far more difficult to do so with a direct democracy where organizations are not given this power but all may vote on an issue.

Seriously, one of the reasons we have a constitution, a bill of rights, and a fourteenth amendment is so that a bunch of people don't get together and decide to tyrannize whatever unpopular group they want to. I don't trust YOU enough to be in favor of an unlimited direct democracy.

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

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
	Message 189 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-29-2012 1:30 AM		Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

Evangelical Humanists

Junior Member (Idle past 2450 days)

Posts: 14

Joined: 05-27-2012

Evangelical Humanists Posts Only

(2)

Message 202 of 206 (664410)
05-31-2012 5:32 PM

Total and absolute democracy would be anarchy.....

http://www.creationfairytaleforums.com/creation

AdminPD

Inactive Administrator

AdminPD Posts Only

Message 203 of 206 (664458)
06-01-2012 7:07 AM

Topic Please!!!!!

Please read Message 1 as a refresher on the topic of this thread.

Please refrain from short comments that do not move the discussion forward. This is not the Coffee House or Chat.

As usual, do not respond to this message.

Thanks
AdminPD

Sigmund

Junior Member (Idle past 2362 days)

Posts: 4

From: Baltimore, MD

Joined: 05-23-2012

Sigmund Posts Only

(2)

Message 204 of 206 (664497)
06-01-2012 12:38 PM

Reply to: Message 141 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 4:30 AM

Re: William Penn

Much of America's government was based on Penn's, which originated concepts like a 2-house elected assembly, a bill of rights with freedom of religion/speech/property, term limits, women's rights, and fair trial by jury.

I read through both the profile of William Penn and the Province of Pennsylvania pages on CreationWiki. Nowhere in either document do I see anything advocating freedom of speech. He may have advocated for it, but it certainly didn't make it into his Frame of Government.

Also, the only item on the Province of Pennsylvania page that mentions women at all specificaaly DENIES them a right.

Regarding property rights: "XVI. That seven years quiet possession shall give an unquestionable right, except in cases of infants, lunatics, married women, or persons beyond the seas."

The only mention of women's rights on the William Penn page is:

"Well ahead of his time, William Penn not only interacted peacefully with Native American tribes, but insisted on equal rights for women."

However, this claim is unsourced, and, after reading through several of the citations given, I can find no reference to the idea of women's rights.

I did enventually find a reference to Penn's book "Just Measures" which does in some ways advocate for women's rights but only in relation to participation in chuch life. I can't find any reference where he held such beliefs for women's rights in secular society. And, as I stated above, he specifically EXCLUDES women from property rights in the Province of Pennsylvania Frame of Government.

Seeing as how women's rights and freedom of speech are enshrined in Constitution (now at least), Penn's Frame of Government was CLEARLY not the only thing this country was based upon.

And to truly swing this back on topic, perhaps someone would give an example of one of the founding principles of the US that is EXCLUSIVE to the Judeo/Christian faith? As opposed to something more universal in nature?

Edited by Sigmund, : making sure I am on-topic.

Edited by Sigmund, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 141 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 4:30 AM		Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
	Message 205 by AdminPD, posted 06-01-2012 1:08 PM		Sigmund has not yet responded

AdminPD

Inactive Administrator

AdminPD Posts Only

Message 205 of 206 (664501)
06-01-2012 1:08 PM

Reply to: Message 204 by Sigmund
06-01-2012 12:38 PM

Re: William Penn

Please read Message 1 to understand the topic and maybe add something to your post that explains how your post supports that America is or isn't a Christian Nation or just what it has to do with the topic.

Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') thread.

Thank you
AdminPD