|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1698 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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: Amendment I (Religion): Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1865--73 Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17916 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
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: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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 individual’s 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 998 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Or one of each?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 238 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
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: And you didn't take the swing off of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1698 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1698 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024